TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gas Turbines: Cycle Innovations

A Fully Integrated Approach to Component Zooming Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
Vassilios Pachidis1

Department of Power, Propulsion and Aerospace Engineering, Gas Turbine Engineering Group, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UKv.pachidis@cranfield.ac.uk

Pericles Pilidis

Department of Power, Propulsion and Aerospace Engineering, Gas Turbine Engineering Group, Cranfield University, Cranfield, Bedfordshire MK43 0AL, UKp.pilidis@cranfield.ac.uk

Fabien Talhouarn

 Ecole Polytechnique de l’Universiti d’Orlians, 8 rue Lionard de Vinci, 45072 Orlians Cedex 2, Francetalhouarnf@yahoo.com

Anestis Kalfas

Turbomachinery Laboratory, ETH Zurich, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Sonneggstrasse 3, 8092 Zurich, Switzerlandkalfasa@asme.org

Ioannis Templalexis

 Hellenic Air Force Academy, Section of Thermodynamics, Power and Propulsion, Dekeleia Air Base, Greecetemplalexis@hafa.gr


Corresponding author.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 128(3), 579-584 (Mar 01, 2004) (6 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2135815 History: Received October 01, 2003; Revised March 01, 2004

Background . This study focuses on a simulation strategy that will allow the performance characteristics of an isolated gas turbine engine component, resolved from a detailed, high-fidelity analysis, to be transferred to an engine system analysis carried out at a lower level of resolution. This work will enable component-level, complex physical processes to be captured and analyzed in the context of the whole engine performance, at an affordable computing resource and time. Approach . The technique described in this paper utilizes an object-oriented, zero-dimensional (0D) gas turbine modeling and performance simulation system and a high-fidelity, three-dimensional (3D) computational fluid dynamics (CFD) component model. The work investigates relative changes in the simulated engine performance after coupling the 3D CFD component to the 0D engine analysis system. For the purposes of this preliminary investigation, the high-fidelity component communicates with the lower fidelity cycle via an iterative, semi-manual process for the determination of the correct operating point. This technique has the potential to become fully automated, can be applied to all engine components, and does not involve the generation of a component characteristic map. Results . This paper demonstrates the potentials of the “fully integrated” approach to component zooming by using a 3D CFD intake model of a high bypass ratio turbofan as a case study. The CFD model is based on the geometry of the intake of the CFM56-5B2 engine. The high-fidelity model can fully define the characteristic of the intake at several operating condition and is subsequently used in the 0D cycle analysis to provide a more accurate, physics-based estimate of intake performance (i.e., pressure recovery) and hence, engine performance, replacing the default, empirical values. A detailed comparison between the baseline engine performance (empirical pressure recovery) and the engine performance obtained after using the coupled, high-fidelity component is presented in this paper. The analysis carried out by this study demonstrates relative changes in the simulated engine performance larger than 1%. Conclusions . This investigation proves the value of the simulation strategy followed in this paper and completely justifies (i) the extra computational effort required for a more automatic link between the high-fidelity component and the 0D cycle, and (ii) the extra time and effort that is usually required to create and run a 3D CFD engine component, especially in those cases where more accurate, high-fidelity engine performance simulation is required.

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



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Fully integrated zooming strategy

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Convergence history using a small flow domain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Convergence history using a big flow domain

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Convergence history using a big flow domain and intake outlet static pressure correction

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Altitude versus gross thrust

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Altitude versus momentum drag

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Altitude versus net thrust

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Altitude versus SFC



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