Proceedings of GT2006

ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air
Proceedings
May 8-11, of GT2006
2006, Barcelona, Spain
ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea and Air
May 8-11, 2006, Barcelona, Spain

GT2006-90004
GT2006-90004

THE IMPACT OF SURFACE ROUGHNESS ON AXIAL COMPRESSOR PERFORMANCE DETERIORATION

Elisabet Syverud and Lars E. Bakken

NTNU, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,
Department of Energy and Process Engineering,
N-7491 Trondheim, Norway

ABSTRACT N Shaft speed, [rpm]

Axial compressor deterioration due to removable p Pressure, [kPa]
deposits is a major concern in the operation of gas turbines. r Blade radius, [m]
It is important to fully understand the flow mechanisms in R Gas constant, [J/kgK]
order to successfully monitor and clean the engine. Re Reynolds number
A test program on the GE J85-13 jet engine quantified T Temperature, [K]
the increased surface roughness and the distribution of salt U Blade velocity, [m/s]
deposits in an axial compressor. The test data showed good V Relative air velocity for the stator, [m/s]
agreement with published data for stage performance W Relative air velocity for the rotor, [m/s]
deterioration.
This paper compares the GE J85-13 test data on surface β Blade angle, [deg]
roughness to previously published work on surface ϕ Flow coefficient, Ca/Utip
roughness in compressors. The effect of surface roughness δ Displacement thickness, [m]
on the stage characteristics is modeled using theory for ε Defined in Eq. (10)
frictional losses, blockage and deviation. The results are γ Ratio of specific heats
compared to test data. η Isentropic efficiency
The most significant effect of increased roughness is λ Darcy friction factor
found to be the variation in the flow coefficient.
θ Momentum thickness, [m]
ρ Air density, [kg/m3]
Keywords: Axial compressor, roughness, stage
σ Solidity
characteristics, GE J85-13
ΨT Stage work coefficient
NOMENCLATURE c p ΔTt
ΨT =
A Flow area, [m2] 2
U tip
a Hydraulic friction loss factor
cp Specific heat at const. pressure, [J/kgK] ΨP Stage pressure coefficient
γ
C Absolute air velocity, [m/s] ⎡ ⎤
c p t ,1 ⎢
T ⎛ p ⎞ γ −1
⎥
Ψ = 2 ⎢⎜ ⎟ − 1⎥
P t ,2
c Chord length, [m]
U tip ⎜⎝ pt ,1 ⎟⎠
Deq Equivalent diffusion ratio ⎢⎣ ⎥⎦
F
GE
Head – flow exponent
General Electric
ω Total pressure loss coefficient
Ξ Mean value of H and θ along surface
H Form factor (δ/θ = 1.1 in this work)
i Incidence
Subscripts
j Boundary layer parameter for PS
a Axial
kCLA Average roughness, [μm]
eq Equivalent
ks Surface roughness, [μm] max Maximum surface velocity
K Defined in Eq. (7) PS Pressure side
m& Mass flow rate, [kg/s] R Rotor
M Mach number
1 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 rel Relative
s Static condition
S Stator
SS Suction side
t Total condition
1 Inlet
2 Discharge
INTRODUCTION
Recoverable gas turbine deterioration is the subject of
great interest, due to the adverse impact even small
amounts of fouling can have on gas turbine performance,
and the substantial number of commercial washing systems
available for performance recovery. Several papers have
been presented on the general causes and effects of gas
turbine fouling [1,2] and numerous theses have been
written on the subject (see refs. 3-5 for recent examples).
In addition, the current state-of-the-art compressor washing
systems are presented in two recent publications [6,7].
Fouling in the axial compressor comprises airborne
matters or aerosols which are deposited on the front
surfaces of the inlet shroud and the internal gas path of the
axial compressor, restricting the flow and causing
increased boundary layer thickness both at the blade
profiles and along the end-walls of the annulus and hub. It
has long been known that intake depression is a preferred
method for monitoring front stage fouling in axial
compressors[8,9]. However, this parameter is not
commonly available in real applications, and compressor
pressure ratio, compressor isentropic efficiency and power
reduction are commonly used substitutes for monitoring
compressor deterioration.
The fundamental effect of surface roughness on the
boundary layer development is given by [10]. However,
this work covers the inherent roughness in the machine due
to the manufacturing process, and not the additional
roughness due to fouling.
The ASME test code on compressors [11] does not
cover the effects of surface roughness in axial compressors.
The modeling of gas turbine fouling has been
approached by simulating the effect of a certain loss in
compressor performance, often quantified as a certain
percentage loss in flow rate and loss in compressor
pressure capability. Although such models are effective in
predicting the relative changes in overall gas turbine
performance degradation, the models cannot improve our
understanding of the local effects of fouling in axial
compressor stages, and therefore are not successful in
modeling partial performance recovery due to maintenance
activity like compressor washes.
The modeling of local effects of fouling is often
approached using two-dimensional stage stacking
techniques and relying on general stage maps [12] and/or
the correlations of test data from two-dimensional cascade
loss measurements [13]. The success of such models
depends on the following three factors: Firstly, reliable data
on the increased losses associated with surface roughness;
secondly, detailed knowledge of the axial compressor
geometry, including blade profile geometry; and thirdly,
2 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
reliable data on the surface roughness found in gas turbines
operating under realistic conditions.
In a recent test program on a GE J85-13 jet engine, all
three conditions are fulfilled. The jet engine was
deteriorated by ingesting salt water, and the effect of
fouling was measured both by test cell performance
measurements, and by analysis of the internal surface
deposits. Axial compressor geometry and individual stage
characteristics are available from open literature. This
provides a good basis for analyzing the effects of gas
turbine fouling. The test program and the results are
described in an earlier publication [9]. The test data
showed good agreement with published data.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the
effectiveness of two-dimensional models in the prediction
of performance degradation due to salt ingestion in the GE
J85-13. Analytical expressions for frictional losses found in
literature are applied to the known surface roughness of the
GE J85-13. The results are compared to measurements.
The discussion starts with a discussion on the surface
roughness of fouled axial compressors, because this subject
is not fully covered in the literature.
SURFACE ROUGHNESS IN FOULED AXIAL
COMPRESSORS
There are only a few references describing surface
roughness associated with axial compressor fouling in real
applications. The deposits will vary with the operation and
the airborne fouling at the site.
Blade surface roughness measured in a helicopter
engine after 1500 hours of flight is reported [14]. The
relative roughness levels were in the range of 10.9E-3 in
the first stage to 0.7E-3 in the last stage.
Roughness measurements on a Rolls-Royce turbofan
engine after a “long period of airline operation” is reported
[15]: Along the centerline, the average roughness (kCLA)
was 1.5-2 μm, which corresponds to an equivalent sand
roughness of 160μm.
In the current work, Struer’s replicas were used to
remove the deposits along the centerline of the stator vanes
in the first three stages of the GE J85-13 engine after the
engine was degraded with salt mist. The method is very
simple, and can be applied to other gas turbines as well, but
requires disassembly of the gas turbine casing. The
deposits (salt crystals in this case) were analyzed in an
electron microscope to find representative pictures of grain
size and distribution. Comparing the results to the work by
Schlichting [16] gave the equivalent sand roughness and
relative roughness for the first three stages. The results are
given in Table 1. Further description is given in [9]. One of
the striking results is the difference between the pressure
and the suction sides. As shown in Table 1, the greatest
roughness was found on the pressure side of the vanes.
However, the surface roughness is not uniform along the
vanes. Only the surface roughness at the centerline was
analyzed in the microscope.
 Stator Equivalent sand Relative
vane roughness, ks roughness,
[μm] ks/c
1 PS 25 11E-4
1 SS 10 4E-4
2 PS 20 11E-4
2 SS 15 8E-4
3 PS 15 10E-4
3 SS 2 0.6 E-4
Table 1 Salt crystal grain size and distribution at mean
line [9]
The losses associated with surface roughness have been
measured in three different test programs:
i) Milsch [17] tested the effect of roughness on the two-
dimensional cascade losses and applied emery paper of
grade 220, 80, 40 and 24, uniformly and completely on the
cascade profiles, giving a relative roughness of 0.56E-3 to
5.56E-3 for the cascade tests. The test results make an
excellent database for the effect of roughness on the
suction and pressure side boundary layers of NACA
profiles.
ii) Bammert and Woelk [18] tested the effect of
roughness on a three stage axial compressor with trailing
edge modified NACA 65-Series as the basic blade profile.
The roughness was applied uniformly and completely on
the blades using emery paper of grade 320, 220 and 120.
This gave a relative roughness of 1.5E-3 to 4.5E-3 in the
tests. The tests give the effect of surface roughness on the
overall performance of a compressor and show the
narrowing in the range of the constant speed lines and a
strong influence on the flow coefficient with increasing
roughness. However, the data are not very practical for
fouled compressors because these rarely will see uniform
distribution of the surface roughness on all stages.
iii) Elrod, King and Poniatowski [19] tested the effect
of surface roughness and incidence angle on the two-
dimensional cascade with NACA 65-Series profiles and at
critical Reynolds number (4.5E5). Three different relative
roughness levels of 2.1E-3 to 9.4E-3 were recessed into the
surface on the first 25% chord on the suction side of the
profile. Increased roughness was found to remove the
leading edge separation bubble, thicken blade boundary
layers, increase wake thickness and overall total pressure
losses. However, freestream turbulence was found to have
a proportionally greater effect on the cascade performance
than increased surface roughness.
LOSS MECHANISMS DUE TO GAS PATH
FOULING
Fouling in the gas path will potentially increase the skin
friction, decrease the deviation angle and affect blockage.
Fouling also causes concern about reductions in the overall
stability. These fundamental loss mechanisms are reviewed
using literature studies and experimental data from a GE
J85-13.
The correction method applies only to the internal
hydraulic losses. The leakage and mechanical losses have
3 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
therefore to be accounted for separately. These losses are
assumed to be unchanged in fouled compressors.
Friction
Two approaches are taken for the estimation of
frictional losses: i) the relatively new approaches on
Reynolds number dependence verified for centrifugal
compressors and ii) the classical approach of blade profile
losses in axial compressors. The fundamental mechanisms
of internal hydraulic losses are founded in the Moody chart
for pipe friction and should be equivalent regardless of
compressor type. In the following sections, both
approaches are developed.
Equivalent Reynolds correction model
It is generally recognized that a variation in Reynolds
number influences the turbomachinery performance. For
turbocompressors most of the correction formulas
proposed in the past are generally considered to be
inadequate. Some correction procedures were too
complicated to use, while others did not reflect the
variation in the Reynolds dependent losses and led to an
excessively high correction of the efficiency especially at
high Reynolds numbers. A detailed review of the Reynolds
dependent losses, both numerically and experimentally
[20,21] reveals the impact on efficiency, head and flow
coefficients. These centrifugal compressor correction
procedures are widely accepted and verified by numerous
factory performance tests [21]. Revised correction
procedures are included in the ASME test code [11];
however, the correction to flow coefficient is not included
in the latest revision of the standard.
In the fundamental approach, the ratio between the
internal hydraulic losses and the changes to the friction
factor is constant for a given compressor [21]. This
approach is taken in the following, where the change in
surface roughness is modeled equivalent to a change in the
Reynolds number for un-fouled surfaces, using an
equivalent Reynolds number in the equations for the
hydraulic losses. This approach also accounts for sub-
critical boundary layer flows and are therefore not
restricted to the completely rough flow regime where
Reynolds number changes can be neglected.
Because the Reynolds number is known, the associated
Darcy friction factor can be calculated using the Haaland
explicit equation [22]:
−2
⎧⎪ ⎡ 6.9 ⎛ k s / c ⎞1.11 ⎤ ⎫⎪
λ = ⎨−1.8log ⎢ +⎜ (1)
⎟ ⎥⎬
⎪⎩ ⎣⎢ Re ⎝ 3.7 ⎠ ⎦⎥ ⎭⎪
Equation (1) matches the Moody diagram within 2%.
Frictional loss model
The hydraulic losses due to friction are modeled as a
ratio between the hydraulic losses and the change in
friction factor using the following approach:
i) The Darcy friction factor for clean conditions, λclean,
is calculated from Eq. (1) at given Reynolds number and
 assuming for the clean surface a relative roughness of
5ks/c, 9 ks/c, and 3 ks/c for stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
ii) The Darcy friction factor for fouled conditions,
λfouled, is calculated from Eq. (1) at the same Reynolds
number as for clean conditions but at the roughness level
found in Table 1 for the suction surface.
iii) The equivalent Reynolds number is calculated from
Eq. (1) using a friction factor equivalent to the fouled
condition and a roughness equivalent to the clean surface.
iv) The critical friction factor for clean conditions,
λclean,critical is calculated from Eq. (1) at a Reynolds number
above critical condition and a roughness equivalent to the
clean surface.
v) Finally, the relative change in hydraulic losses is
calculated from Eq. (2) [21]:
λclean
(1 − a ) + a
1 − ηclean λclean,critical
= (2)
1 − η fouled λ fouled
(1 − a ) + a
λclean,critical
where a is the fraction of hydraulic internal losses to total
losses. This fraction is taken as 0.4 at the design point
according to Howell’s breakdown of losses in an axial
stage [23]. Fraction a is 0.7 for centrifugal compressors
[21].
Impact on head and flow at design point
At the design point, the impact of hydraulic losses on
the isentropic head and flow coefficients are found from
the following relationships which are validated from
empirical data on centrifugal compressors [21]. Although
the polytropic head and efficiency are used in the original
work, the isentropic head and efficiency are considered in
this paper. Applying the equations to a single stage, the end
results should not be affected. To gain confidence in the
data, the relations should be carefully reviewed with data
on axial compressors; however, with the lack of such data,
the equations for centrifugal compressors are applied here
without further adaptation.
Ψ clean
P
η The correlation of blade profile loss data was simplified
= 0.5 + 0.5 clean
Ψ fouled
P
η fouled
F thickness ratio and to a lesser extent the form factor of the
ϕclean ⎪⎧ Ψ clean
P
⎪⎫
=⎨ P ⎬
ϕ fouled ⎩⎪ Ψ fouled ⎭⎪
The head-flow exponent, F, in Eq. (4) is given as 0.5
for centrifugal compressors[21]. Our experience and
experimental data found in literature [18], show a much
stronger influence on the flow coefficient at fouled
conditions. These effects are further described in the
section on blockage loss mechanisms.
The relationships for head and flow given in Eq. (3-4)
are compared to the result of the blade profile loss model
given in the next section.
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Blade profile loss model
The blade profile losses of axial compressors are
frictional losses and the wake mixing losses caused by the
boundary layer flow across the blades and vanes. Because
the calculation of the turbulent viscous flow in the
boundary layers is very complex, the determination of
blade profile losses depends on empirical correlations
developed half a century ago for two-dimensional
incompressible flow in cascades. For new designs, these
methods have virtually been abandoned, overtaken by
computerized fluid dynamic tools[24]. However, the
empirical correlations are still recognized for fundamental
understanding and for preliminary design.
To obtain an estimate of the losses associated with the
fouling in the gas path of the GE J85-13, the old
correlations are revisited. A similar approach has been
found in literature but without validation to test data [25];
however, the current approach separates the frictional
losses associated with the suction and the pressure side of
the blades and vanes, and includes several sources for the
effect on increased roughness on the blade profile losses.
The GE J85-13 was designed with slender, transonic
blades for stage 1 and 2, and subsonic profiles for the
remaining stages, see Appendix A. In the current work, the
GE J85-13 compressor data are compared to data for the
NACA 65-Series.
Cascade loss correlations
In the early days, extensive cascade testing was carried
out to develop profile loss data of different profile families
at low Mach numbers. Because total pressure loss is
fundamental in determining compressor blade
performance, a non-dimensional total pressure loss factor is
used as the basic parameter. The loss is expressed by the
total pressure loss coefficient, ω [13,26,27]:
Δpt Δpt / pt ,1
ω= = −γ
(5)
pt ,1 − ps ,1 γ −1 γ −1
1 − (1 + 2
M rel ,1 )
2
(3)
by the observation that the empirical data on total pressure
loss associated with the boundary layer development on a
2D cascade is effectively correlated by the momentum-
(4) wake[26]:
−3
θ σ cos β1 2 ⎡ 2 ⎤⎡ θ σ H2 ⎤
ω = 2( ) ( ) ⎢ ⎥ ⎢1 − ( ) ⎥
(6)
c cos β 2 cos β 2 ⎣ 3 − 1/ H 2 ⎦ ⎣ c cos β 2 ⎦
Lieblein showed that it was possible to correlate the
data on total pressure loss on a suction surface diffusion
factor based on the velocity distribution for NACA 65-
Series cascades operating at their minimum loss incidence.
The method was further developed by establishing an
equivalent diffusion ratio which correlates the momentum
thickness data both at minimum loss as well as at greater
4 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 incidence angles for NACA 65(A10) and C4 profile data
(both of 10% thickness-to-chord ratio) for unstalled flow
regimes [26]. The equivalent diffusion ratio is readily
calculated from inlet and outlet conditions and avoids the
need for detailed surface velocity data which are required
with the diffusion factor. In addition, the equivalent
diffusion ratio is essentially independent of solidity, air
inlet angle and blade camber. The equivalent diffusion ratio
was adapted to a general expression valid in a rotating
frame of reference and implementing changes in axial
velocity [26]:
cos β 2 Wa ,1 ⎡ cos 2 β1 ⎤
Deq = ⎢1.12 + 0.0117(i ) + 0.61
1.43
K⎥
cos β 2 Wa ,2 ⎣ σ ⎦ (7)
r2 Wa ,2 U ⎛ r2 ⎞
K = tanβ1 − tanβ 2 − 1 ⎜1 − 22 ⎟
r1 Wa ,1 Wa ,1 ⎝ r1 ⎠
Equation (7) is valid for NACA 65-Series profiles. For
stator rows, the blade speed is zero, and W is replaced by
V. In this work, incidence is only accounted for in the rotor
rows.
Cascade data for momentum thickness can be
correlated on the equivalent diffusion factor [26]:
θ
= 0.004 ⎡⎣1 + 3.1( Deq − 1) 2 + 0.4( Deq − 1) 2 ⎤⎦
c series of cascade testing which was conducted to obtain
The above Eq.(6-8) are used to calculate the profile
losses for three first stages of the GE J85-13 in clean and
fouled conditions. For fouled conditions, the momentum
thickness is modified for roughness according to
expressions given in the following section.
Influence of roughness on momentum thickness
The influence of roughness on the momentum thickness
is studied using three different sources found in literature.
The above correlation for total pressure loss was based
on the assumption that the skin friction coefficient will be
small compared to the changes in the suction surface
diffusion term, and that the changes in the total wake
momentum thickness will result primarily from the
diffusion contribution of the suction surface boundary
layer. Accordingly, the momentum thickness correlation is
derived from the following equation [26]:
θ ε
= (9)
c ⎛ Vmax,SS ⎞
1 + Ξ ln ⎜ ⎟ 12E-4 [29]:
⎝ V2 ⎠
where the factor Ξ represents the mean value of the form
factor and the momentum thickness along the surface, and
ε represents a lump factor for skin friction and pressure
surface diffusion ratio, rewritten with the Darcy friction
factor:
⎛ Vmax, PS ⎞
ε= 1
8 ( λPS + λSS ) + jPS ln ⎜ ⎟ (10)
⎝ V2 ⎠
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
where jPS represents the form factor and the momentum
thickness along the pressure side.
It was expected that the total skin friction coefficient
would be lower than the conventional flat-plate value
based on inlet velocity Reynolds number, due to the
increase in negative velocity gradients with increased
diffusion. However, the limited experimental data on
NACA 65 and C4 profiles at different diffusion showed
good agreement with Eq. (9) with ε equal to 0.004 [26].
For the approximate case of zero diffusion along the
pressure side, this represents a friction factor, λ, of 0.016
and a roughness level of 4E-4 from the Moody chart. For
the first stage of the GE J85-13 compressor, this roughness
level corresponds to a surface roughness of 9μm which can
be manufactured relatively easily [10] and seems realistic
for the early cascades.
In this work, the change in momentum thickness due to
roughness is obtained from Eq. (9) and Eq. (10), assuming
negligible changes in the surface diffusion and the factor Ξ
:
θ fouled λ fouled
= (11)
θclean λclean
The Darcy friction factors used in Eq. (11) are derived
from from Eq. (1).
(8) A second source of information is found from a large
detailed information on the efficiency drop due to
roughness [17,28]. The tests were done on the NACA 65-
Series profiles, at 10% thickness to chord ratio and at
different design lift coefficients and solidities. The surface
roughness was applied using emery grains glued onto the
surface giving surface roughness levels up to 5.56E-3. All
tests were at low Mach numbers and at the minimum loss
incidence. The data includes momentum thickness
distribution along the blade chord for both the suction and
pressure sides of the blades.
The last source of information on the influence of
surface roughness is found in the work by Koch &
Smith[29]. This work is founded in the correlations of
Eq.(6-10), but provides corrections to the momentum
thickness and form factors for variations in Mach number,
streamtube convergence (axial-velocity-density-ratio),
Reynolds number, and surface roughness. The data are
validated only at minimum loss incidence. The surface
roughness correction to momentum thickness at a Reynolds
numbers of 1E6 is expressed as the polynomial equation
given in Eq. (12), valid up to a relative roughness of ks/c =
θfouled
2
⎡k ⎤ k
=91887 ⎢ s ⎥ + 945.87 s + 0.8908 (12)
θclean ⎣c⎦ c
Figure 1 compares the data on momentum thickness
change due to roughness in the above discussed literature.
The figure shows that the measured increase in momentum
thickness on the pressure side follows the data of the Darcy
friction factor for rough pipe flow, while the suction side
data follows the Koch & Smith relations for the low
camber airfoil. The steep change in momentum thickness at
5 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 the suction side of the airfoil of highest camber is not
predicted by any of the methods.
Koch&Smith [29]
NACA 65-(6)10 SS [17]
NACA 65-(6)10 PS [17]
NACA 65-(12)10 SS [17]
NACA 65-(12)10 PS [17]
Darcy friction factor [22]
6 momentum thickness.
Relative change in momentum thickness .
i) The surface roughness for the fouled condition is
given in Table 1. For the clean condition, a
relative roughness of 5ks/c, 9 ks/c, and 3 ks/c is
assumed for stages 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
ii) The change in momentum thickness due to
surface roughness is calculated from Eq.(12) for
the suction side and from Eq.(11) for the pressure
side. The results for the suction and pressure side
are added to obtain the overall change in
iii) The total pressure loss coefficient is calculated for
clean and fouled conditions from Eq. (6).
iv) The total pressure loss is calculated for clean and

5 fouled condition from Eq. (5)

v) The stage efficiency is calculated from the
following equation:
−γ
4 ⎡ γ − 1 2 γ −1 ⎤
1 − η profile = (ωR ) ⎢1 − (1 + M R ,1 ) ⎥
⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦ (13)
−γ
3 ⎡ γ − 1 2 γ −1 ⎤
+ (ωS ) ⎢1 − (1 + M S ,1 ) ⎥
⎣⎢ 2 ⎦⎥
2

Fraction of hydraulic losses to total losses

1 Eq.(13) is an expression for stage losses considering
only the blade profile losses. Applying this equation to an
axial compressor will determine the theoretical blade
profile losses in a stage. This is compared to the
0 compressor total stage losses [30] to obtain a split between
0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 the hydraulic losses and the total losses at the design point:
Relative roughness, ks/c
1 − η profile
Figure 1 Momentum thickness change due to = χ1 (14)
roughness at the trailing edge 1 − ηtotal
The overall momentum thickness of the blade should be
the sum of the momentum thickness for the suction side Table 2 shows the results of Eq.(14) for the GE J85-13
and the pressure side. As can be seen in Figure 1, the in clean conditions and at 98% speed.
pressure side will have a significant influence on the
change in overall momentum thickness. Applying the ϕ 1 − η fouled 1 − ηtotal χ1
relationship given in Eq.(12) will only adjust for changes Stage
Eq. (13) [30] Eq.(14)
in the suction side roughness level, and will therefore be
1 0.545 0.042 0.110 0.38
inadequate in the overall estimation of blade profile loss.
2 0.542 0.041 0.108 0.39
In this work, the overall change in momentum thickness
is modeled using Eq. (12) for the suction side roughness 3 0.543 0.046 0.118 0.39
and Eq. (11), for the pressure side. The overall momentum Table 2 Ratio of hydraulic loss to total loss for GE
thickness is the sum of the calculated momentum thickness J85-13 at 98% speed setting
for both surfaces.
The results in Table 2 compares to the 70% ratio found
Frictional loss model
for the centrifugal compressors (factor a in Eq. (2)) which
The change in blade profile losses due to increase in again shows that other loss factors, like tip leakage, shock
friction is calculated based on the data on surface losses, and annulus losses are more significant in axial
roughness found in Table 1. For the rotor blades, the compressors than centrifugal compressors. Compared to
surface roughness was not measured. From observations, Howell’s breakdown of losses [23], the ratio of 38% seems
the roughness of the rotor blade deposits are defined as reasonable at the design point. The data in Table 2 serves
50% of the roughness found on the stator vanes. The as an example of axial compressors. However, only
frictional loss model calculates the blade profile loss for manufacturers with a large data base of axial compressor
both rotor and stator and by taking the roughness of the data can verify the results.
suction surface and pressure surface into consideration:
6 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Impact on head and flow at design point
The stage pressure coefficient, Ψp, can be expressed in
terms of the total pressure loss coefficient to obtain an
expression of the influence of the blade surface losses on
Ψp. From Eq. (5) and the definition of Ψp the following
expression is derived for stage pressure ratio for the fouled
case:
γ -2
pt , S ,2, fouled ⎡ P 2
U tip ⎤ γ −1
= ⎢ Ψ clean + 1⎥
pt , R ,1 ⎣⎢ c p Tt , R ,1 ⎥⎦
⎡ γ −1 2
− (ωR , fouled − ωR ,clean ) ⎢1 − (1 + M R ,1 ) ⎥
⎢⎣ 2 ⎥⎦
−γ
⎡ γ − 1 2 γ −1 ⎤
− (ωS , fouled − ωS ,clean ) ⎢1 − (1 + M S ,1 ) ⎥
⎣⎢ 2 ⎦⎥
The stage total pressure coefficient for fouled
conditions at the design point is given by the following
expression:
⎡ ⎤
⎢⎛ pt , S ,3, fouled
c p Tt , R ,1
Ψ Pfouled = 2 ⎢⎜⎜ p
U tip
⎢⎣⎝ t , R ,1
The method does not include any correction to the flow
coefficient. In addition, the method assumes critical
Reynolds conditions, and cannot compensate for Reynolds
numbers in the sub-critical range.
Deviation
The flow turning evolves from the pressure distribution
around the profile. Increased surface roughness will affect
the pressure distribution and the deviation angle (being the
deviation from the blade trailing edge angle to the outlet
flow angle from the blade row).
Two data sources are found on the effect of surface
roughness on deviation: i) Milsch measured the change in
flow turning angle measured at different surface roughness
levels, profile thickness distributions, and solidities at a
Reynolds number of 4.3E5. The roughness elements were
applied uniformly and completely on the cascade profiles
[17]. ii) Mal’tsev and Shakhov measured the difference in
flow lag angle at different roughness levels, incidence
angles and solidities at Reynolds number of 2.4E5. The
roughness elements were applied at the back of the blade
profile [14]. The data are compared in Figure 2 for
solidities of 1.33 and 1.21, respectively. The difference
between the datasets can be explained by the location of
surface roughness in the measurements.
The Milsch data, measured for NACA 65-(12) 10 blade
profiles, represents the best data set for the GE J85-13 at
full load and is used for modeling the effect of surface
roughness on deviation. This is contrary to previously
published work [9], where the deviation was assumed
insignificant based on the data from Malt’sev and Shakhov
[14].
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Milsch [17] NACA 65-(12)10
Mal'tsev and Shakhov [14]
0
-1
.
Change in deviation, deg
-3
⎤ (15) −γ
γ −1
-4
-5
-6
γ
-7
⎞ γ −1 0.000 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
− 1⎥⎥
⎟⎟ (16)
Relative roughness, ks/c
⎠ ⎥⎦
Figure 2 Change in deviation due to roughness
Blockage
Surface deposits will cause internal blockage of the
throat areas due to the increased profile thickness,
increased 3D separations in the end-wall regions, and
increased wake thickness. The increased thickness of the
wake is accounted for by the blade profile losses.
The increased profile thickness due to deposits will
cause a decrease of the throat area in the gas path. The
measurements of the GE J85-13 showed a maximum salt
crystal size of 160μm along the profile mean line of the
second stage. Although scarcely distributed, this salt crystal
increases the local profile thickness by 13%.
Increased roughness is known to cause significant 3D
separation at the design point of a single stage compressor
with inlet guide vanes and controlled diffusion airfoils
(CDA) [15]. For smooth surfaces, 3D separation occurs
only at lower flow coefficients.
Visual observation of the rotor deposits in the GE J85-
13, showed heavy deposits along the hub and annulus,
especially at the pressure side of the blade, with the
deposits covering up to 30% of the total surface area. The
deposits are interpreted as a visualization of 3D separations
in the gas path, although a direct comparison cannot be
made to the above referred work [15] where the roughness
was applied only to the profile suction side. The pressure
side deposits found in the GE J85-13 should be further
analyzed to fully understand the flow mechanisms and to
investigate its influence on overall compressor stability and
surge range.
The end-wall losses are often represented by a simple
blockage factor. A more sophisticated model [29] allows
for the estimation of end-wall losses based on a model
7 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 relating the displacement thickness and the tangential force
thickness. Both of these effects come as a result of the end-
wall boundary layer, and represent a measure of the mass
flow reduction as a result of its presence. However, this
loss model does not take into account changes due to
roughness.
Impact on head and flow at design point
The blockage is accounted for by reducing the suction
volume flow rate, which causes a horizontal shift in the
flow coefficient of the stage characteristics. Head is
assumed to be independent of blockage.
The model is based on data for suction volume flow
[18]:
ϕ fouled ⎡ ks ⎤
2
k degradation in the stage performance due to roughness is
= 10000 ⎢ ⎥ − 90 s + 1
ϕclean ⎣c⎦ c significant effect is the deterioration in flow coefficient
Blockage is calculated using the average relative
roughness found on the stator vanes (Table 1).
Leading edge separation
Heavy leading edge deposits were found at the leading
edges of the GE J85-13. Such deposits will cause the
suction surface flow to separate at lower incidences, and is
expected to reduce the pressure capacity of the compressor
and cause early rotating stall [18].
The effect of leading edge separation is not modeled in
the current work for two reasons: i) it was not possible to
obtain test data along a single speed line, and ii) only the
test data measured at 98-100% speed are used in the
verification. The salt deposits are located in the stagnation
point of the profile. Because the salt was injected at 98%
shaft speed, the incidence angle remains unchanged and
there will be no additional flow separation due to the
leading edge deposits for the data points used in this work.
No stall or other instability problems were encountered
during testing.
IMPACT ON COMPRESSOR STAGE
CHARACTERISTICS
The design point ratios ηclean/ηfouled, φclean/ φfouled, and
ΨPclean/ΨPfouled are assumed to be the same at all points on
the stage characteristics. This is in agreement with the
original work on centrifugal compressors [21].
The loss mechanisms are applied to the first three
stages of the GE J85-13, to simulate the effect of the
measured roughness due to salt deposits.
Test data from GE J85-13 are used to validate the
models. The data are recorded at full load and constant
exhaust gas temperature, with varying exhaust nozzle area.
This provides data at nearly constant shaft speed and at
various air flow rates. One representative dataset is
included for each of the clean and deteriorated condition.
The same dataset as previously published [9] is used in this
work.
All data are calculated at reduced condition where the
reference condition is full load performance (engine
military setting) in the GE J85-13 test data, and the design
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
point for the stage characteristics. The stage design point is
given by [31].
Only data for the three first stages are included in this
work because these stages have the heaviest deposits and
the largest contribution to overall compressor performance.
Stage pressure coefficient
Figure 3 shows predicted change in stage pressure
coefficient for stages 1, 2, and 3 due to increased
roughness as measured in the GE J85-13. Test data for the
GE J85-13 at full load is included for comparison.
None of the frictional loss models are effective in
predicting the large variation in measured total pressure
coefficient from clean to deteriorated condition. The
(17) underpredicted by both models. However, the most
which causes a large shift in the stage performance. The
shift in performance from clean to deteriorated condition
explains the importance of evaluating the individual stage
characteristics when calculating the overall effect of engine
deterioration. The stage characteristics of the GE J85-13
are very sensitive to changes in the flow coefficient, and
the compressor may operate at positive slopes of the
characteristics during normal operation. This causes
inherent stability problems in the compressor section,
which is expected to be unusual in modern axial
compressor design. However, without this knowledge of
the individual stage characteristics, it would be virtually
impossible to analyze the root cause of the engine
deterioration sensitivity.
In Figure 3, it should be noted that the stage 1
maximum pressure coefficient point is not validated[30];
hence no experimental data exists that verifies the
performance curve towards surge. The nominal operating
points are well situated at the negative slope of the stage
characteristics, and there are no data available in the
literature that validates the location of the maximum point
of this characteristic. Hence, the apparent overshoot of the
characteristic in the deteriorated condition merely indicates
that the maximum point of the characteristics is located at a
higher pressure coefficient than given in literature[30].
Stage efficiency
Figure 4 shows the predicted change in stage
efficiency for stages 1, 2 and 3 due to a roughness increase
as measured in the GE J85-13. Test data for the GE J85-13
at full load is included for comparison.
Again, the significant shift in stage performance is due
to a large shift in the flow coefficient, coupled with a large
inherent sensitivity in the stage design. Despite these facts,
which are specific to the GE J85-13 compressor design, the
models are underpredicting the changes in the stage
efficiency due to increased roughness.
8 Copyright © 2006 by ASME
 GE J85-13, clean GE J85-13, clean

GE J85-13, deteriorated GE J85-13, deteriorated

Design (clean engine) Design (clean engine)

Equivalent Re correction model Equivalent Re correction model

Blade profile loss model Blade profile loss model

Blade profile loss model with blockage Blade profile loss model with blockage

1.4
1.05
Stage 1 reduced total pressure coefficient

Stage 1 reduced isentropic efficiency

1.3

1.00
Ψ /( Ψ at design point)

η/(η at design point)

1.2

1.1
0.95
p

1.0
p

0.90
0.9

0.8
0.85
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Reduced flow coefficient 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Reduced flow coefficient
1.10
Stage 2 reduced total pressure coefficient

1.05 1.05

Stage 2 reduced isentropic efficiency

Ψ /( Ψ at design point)

1.00

0.95 1.00
η/(η at design point)
0.90
p

0.85 0.95
p

0.80

0.75 0.90

0.70
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
0.85
Reduced flow coefficient 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Reduced flow coefficient

1.10 1.05
Stage 3 reduced total pressure coefficient

Stage 3 reduced isentropic efficiency

1.05
Ψ /( Ψ at design point)

1.00 1.00
η/(η at design point)

0.95

0.90 0.95
p

0.85
p

0.80 0.90

0.75

0.70 0.85
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Reduced flow coefficient Reduced flow coefficient

Figure 3 Stage 1, 2, and 3 total pressure coefficient

Figure 4 Stage 1, 2, and 3 Isentropic efficiency

9 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 IMPACT ON OVERALL AXIAL COMPRESSOR
PERFORMANCE
Increased roughness is known to cause significant
changes in the overall performance of a three stage
compressor[18]. The compressor was designed with NACA
65-Series profiles and with free vortex distribution. Emery
grains of equal size were uniformly glued onto the entire
surface of the blades. Three complete cases were measured,
with equivalent surface roughness ks/c, of 1.5E-3, 2.5E-3,
and 4.5E-3. The results on total enthalpy rise are given in
Fig. 5.
Figure 5 compares the overall performance of the first
three stages of the GE J85-13 to the data for the three stage
compressor[18]. The GE J85-13 data are measured at 97-
98% speed. The test data shows no significant influence of
the total enthalpy rise, while the suction volume flow is
strongly affected. The salt crystal size found along the
mean line in the deteriorated GE J85-13 resembles the 320
emery paper.
Smooth
Emery grade 320
Emery grade 220
Emery grade 120
GE J85-13 Clean
GE J85-13 Deteriorated
1.1
1
.
deviation in axial compressors. Models found in literature
are validated based on measurements on a GE J85-13.
None of the loss models are effective in predicting the
large variation in measured total pressure coefficient from
clean to deteriorated condition.
The blockage model introduced in this work
underpredicts the blockage measured in the GE J85-13.
The most significant effect of salt deterioration is the
reduction in the flow coefficient. Some of this sensitivity
may be explained by the long, slender blade design of the
GE J85-13, which are inherently sensitive to 3-D
separations. However, variation in flow coefficient is the
dominant effect in the GE J85-13 tests, and should not be
ignored when modeling the effects of deterioration.
The pressure side deposits found in the GE J85-13
should be further analyzed to fully understand the flow
mechanisms and to investigate their influence on overall
compressor stability and surge range.
Further studies are required to verify the findings of
this paper. Although, the limited testing done on the GE
J85-13 indicates the main loss mechanisms due to surface
roughness, the geometry and stage characteristics of the
GE J85-13 may not be entirely representative for modern
engines. Further verification should be performed by
companies with first-hand knowledge of current aero-
design of axial compressors.
The authors will suggest a fundamental review of the
loss models and thereby a revision of the ASME and ISO
standard codes on axial compressor testing to account for
the effects of surface roughness and Reynolds number
variation in axial compressors. Such work must include the

effect on flow coefficient and should be extended to cover

Reduced total enthalpy rise

similar effects in the centrifugal compressors.

0.9
REFERENCES
[1] Kurz, R., and Brun, K., 2001, “Degradation in gas turbine
0.8 systems,” ASME J. of Engineering for Gas Turbines and
Power, 123, pp.70-77.
[2] Meher-Homji, C B, Chaker, M A, Motiwala, H M, 2001,
0.7 "Gas turbine performance deterioration," 30th
turbomachinery symposium, Texas A&M: 2001, pp. 139-176.
[3] Baker, J.D., 2002, “Analysis of the sensitivity of multi-stage
0.6 axial compressors to fouling at various stages,” Master’s
thesis, Naval postgraduate school, Monteray, CA, USA.
[4] Genrup, M., 2003, “Theory for turbomachinery degradation
0.5
and monitoring tools,” Thesis for Degree of Licentiate in
0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 1.1 Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Lund, Sweden.
[5] Brekke, O., 2004, “Gas turbine performance deterioration,”
Reduced suction volume flow
Master’s thesis, NTNU, Trondheim, Norway.
[6] Stalder, J.-P., 2001, "Gas turbine compressor washing state of
Figure 5 Measured total enthalpy rise the art: Field experiences," ASME Journal of Engineering for
With respect to stability issues, the narrowing of stage Gas Turbines and Power, Vol.123, April, pp.363-370.
[7] Mund, F., Pilidis, P., 2004, “A review of online washing
characteristics due to early stall, as observed in the
systems,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2004, June 14-
reference data [18] given in Fig. 5 is not experienced in the 18, Vienna, Austria, GT2004-53224.
GE J85-13 tests. Thus, the large shift in suction volume [8] Scott, J.N., 1979, “Axial compressor deterioration by
flow found in the GE J85-13 test data is realistic. measuring air intake depression,” National Research Council,
Third symposium on gas turbine operations and
CONCLUSIONS maintenance, Ch 13.
This paper describes the fundamental aspects of [9] Syverud, E., Brekke, O. and Bakken, L.E., 2005, “Axial
increased surface roughness on friction, blockage and compressor deterioration,” ASME Proceedings of GT2005,

10 Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 June 6-9, Reno-Tahoe, NV, ASME GT2005-68701. Accepted
for publication in the ASME Journal of Turbomachinery.
[10] Schäffler, A., 1980, “Experimental and analytical
investigation of the effects of Reynolds number and blade
surface roughness on multistage axial flow compressors,”
ASME J. of Engineering for Power, 102, pp. 5-13.
[11] ASME PTC10-1997, 1997, “ASME performance test code on
compressors and exhausters.”
[12] Kurzke, J, 1996, "How to get component maps for aircraft
gas turbine performance calculations," ASME International
Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress & Exhibition,
Birmingham, UK, June 10-13.
[13] Lieblein, S, 1959, “Loss and Stall analysis of compressor
cascades,” ASME Journal of Basic Engineering, September
1959, pp. 387-400.
[14] Mal’tsev, Yu.N., and Shakov, V.G., 1989, “Influence of
roughness of deposits in compressor cascade on flow lag
angle (English translation),” Izvestiya VUZ, Aviatsionnaya
Tekhnika, 32, pp.80-82.
[15] Gbadebo, S.A., Hynes, T.P., Cumpsty, N.A., 2004, “Influence
of surface roughness on three-dimensional separation in axial
compressors,” Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2004,
Vienna, Austria, GT2004-53619.
[16] Schlichting, H., 1979, Boundary-layer theory, McGraw-Hill
Inc., New York, NY, 7th edition.
[17] Milsch, R., 1971, “Systematische Untersuchung über den
Einfluss der Rauhigkeit von Verdichterschaufeln auf den
Gitterwirkungsgrad,” Doktor Ingenieur Dissertation,
Technischen Universität Hannover, Germany.
[18] Bammert, K. and Woelk, G.U., 1979, “The influence of the
blading surface roughness on the aerodynamic behavior and
characteristic of an axial compressor,” Proceedings of ASME
Gas Turbine Conference 1979, San Diego, Ca, 79-GT-102.
[19] Elrod, W.C., King, P.I., Poniatowski, E.M., 1990, “Effects of
surface roughness, freestream turbulence, and incidence
angle on the performance of a 2-D compressor cascade,”
ASME International gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress &
Exhibition, Brussels, Belgium, June 11-14, Paper number 90-
GT-208.
[20] Wiesner, F.J., 1978, “A new appraisal of Reynolds number
effects on centrifugal compressor performance,” ASME Gas
turbine conference, London, UK, April 9-13, 78-GT-149.
[21] ICAAMC group, 1987, “Influence of the Reynolds number
on the performance of centrifugal compressors,” ASME Gas
Turbine Conference and Exhibition, Anaheim, CA, USA,
May 31-June 4, 87-GT-10.
[22] White, F.M., 1991 Viscous fluid flows, McGraw-Hill, Inc.,
Second edition.
[23] Cumpsty, N, 1989, Compressor Aerodynamics, Longman
Scientific & Technical.
[24] Halstead, D.E.; Wisler, D.C., Okiishi, T.H.; Walker, G.J.;
Hodson, H.P., Shin, H.-W., 1997, “Boundary Layer
Development in Axial Compressors and Turbines: Part 1 –
Composite Picture,” Transaction of the ASME, Journal of
Turbomachinery, 119, January, pp. 114-127.
[25] Marson, E., 1992, “Effect of manufacturing deviations on
performance of axial flow compressor blading,” ASME Gas
Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition, June 1-4,
1992, Cologne, Germany; 92-GT-326.
[26] Lieblein, S., Rodebush, W.H., 1956, “Theoretical loss
relations for low-speed two-dimensional-cascade flow”,
NACA TN 3662.
[27] NASA SP-36, 1965 “Aerodynamic design of axial flow
compressors,” NASA Lewis Research Center, Cleveland,
OH, USA.
11
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 02/19/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
[28] Bammert, K. and Milsch, R., 1972, “Boundary layers on
rough compressor blades,” ASME Gas Turbine and Fluids
Engineering Conference & Product Show, March 26-30,
1972, San Francisco, CA, USA; 72-GT-48.
[29] Koch, C.C. and Smith, L.H., 1979, “Loss sources and
magnitudes in axial-flow compressors,” ASME J. of
Engineering for Power, pp. 411-424.
[30] Milner, E.J., and Wenzel, L.M., 1975, “Performance of a J85-
13 compressor with clean and distorted inlet flow,” NASA
TM X-3304.
[31] Willoh, R.G., and Seldner, K., 1969, “Multistage compressor
simulation applied to the prediction of axial flow
instabilities,” NASA TM X-1880.
[32] Smith, L.H., 2002, “Axial compressor aerodesign evolution
at General Electric,” ASME J. of Turbomachinery, 124, pp.
321-330.
[33] Hager, R.D., 1977, “Analysis of internal flow of J85-13
multistage compressor,” NASA TM X-3513.
[34] Tesch W.A., and Steenken, W.G., 1976, “Blade row dynamic
digital compressor program: Volume 1 J85 clean inlet flow
and parallel compressor models,” NASA CR-134978.
APPENDIX A: GE J85-13 AXIAL COMPRESSOR
DESIGN
The J85 evolved in the 1950s as the first real attempt by
General Electric to employ transonic compressor
technology. The J85 holds a free-vortex design with high
aspect ratio blades and transonic design conditions in the
front stages. GE almost always used a modified NACA
65-Series thickness distribution with a circular arc mean
line for the subsonic blades, and relied on NACA transonic
compressor double circular arc design for the transonic
blades. This is assumed for the J85-13 as well. It should be
noted that GE realized much later that the NACA 65 A10
airfoils were a poor design choice for the rotor hubs [32].
The desired cylindrical casing and the high stage
pressure ratios led to a large hub slope. The rising hub and
the transonic Mach numbers at the tip were not
satisfactorily handled at the time. The design leads to high
total pressures at the tip, a starving hub and unsatisfactory
stall line, and required substantial development trimming
and the addition of stages until two satisfactory models of
the J85 were achieved and produced [32]. The problems
existed in use as well, and lead to redesign of the bleed
valves in the 1970s after the twin engine F5 aircraft had
encountered severe stall problems in the leeward J85
engine. The problems encountered with the J85 led to
substantial information on stage performance being
released in unclassified documentation. The engine is
therefore extensively documented, more than what is
common. [30-31,33-34].
Copyright © 2006 by ASME