0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gas Turbines: Structures and Dynamics

Modeling Oil Flows in Engine Sumps: Drop Dynamics and Wall Impact Simulation

[+] Author and Article Information
Vladimir D. Weinstock

 Northrop Grumman, One Space Park Drive, m/s 140/2134C Redondo Beach, CA 90278vladi.weinstock@ngc.com

Stephen D. Heister

School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,  Purdue University, 1282 Grissom Hall, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1282heister@ecn.purdue.edu

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 128(1), 163-172 (Dec 13, 2004) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1924432 History: Received September 03, 2003; Revised December 13, 2004

A computational preliminary design tool has been developed to help simulate drop-related processes that take place in an oil sump of a gas turbine engine accounting for drop motion, deformation, breakup, and drop∕wall interactions including wall film impact and potential splashing. Aerodynamic interactions with the gas phase are considered using an exact solution of the Navier–Stokes equations to approximate the annular gas flow. Detailed results for the baseline case that attempts to replicate the conditions found in a typical oil sump of a turbofan engine are presented. In addition, the results of more general parametric studies utilizing a simplified geometry that investigated the effects of changing various parameters are discussed.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Topics: Drops
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic of the oil sump

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Comparison of various drop deformation models

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Cartesian coordinate system and sample drop trajectory

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Parent drop impact geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Typical secondary droplet size distributions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Typical mass distribution following a single parent drop impact at a fixed axial distance

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Parent drop trajectories (baseline case)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Parent drop trajectory details (baseline case)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Parent drop deformation histories (baseline case)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Secondary droplet trajectories as a result of a 700μm parent drop impact (baseline case)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Mass distribution following a 700μm parent drop impact as a fraction of the parent drop mass

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Mass and momentum distributions following a 700μm parent drop impact. Mass and momentum values are shown as a fraction of the parent drop mass and momentum when it leaves the seal runner.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Extension of single drop impact results: mass distribution around the circumference of the sump at a fixed axial location as percentage of the total mass flow rate

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Effect of parent drop size on impact results (baseline case)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Results of the radius ratio parametric study: number of secondary droplets, momentum transfer efficiency, impact angle and the magnitude of impact velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Results of the shaft speed parametric study

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Results of the bearing chamber temperature and pressure parametric study

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Results of the sump wall film thickness parametric study

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In