Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Multi-objective Numerical Investigation of a Generic Airblast Injector Design

[+] Author and Article Information
Adam L. Comer

Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Air Force Institute of Technology,
Wright Patterson AFB, OH 45433
e-mail: adam.comer.1@us.af.mil

Timoleon Kipouros

Department of Engineering,
Engineering Design Centre,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
e-mail: tk291@eng.cam.ac.uk

R. Stewart Cant

CFD Laboratory,
Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
e-mail: stewart.cant@eng.cam.ac.uk

Contributed by the Combustion and Fuels Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received August 29, 2015; final manuscript received January 28, 2016; published online March 22, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Joseph Zelina. This work is in part a work of the U.S. Government. ASME disclaims all interest in the U.S. Government's contributions.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(9), 091501 (Mar 22, 2016) (11 pages) Paper No: GTP-15-1431; doi: 10.1115/1.4032737 History: Received August 29, 2015; Revised January 28, 2016

In combustor design for aero-engines, engineers face multiple opposing objectives with strict constraints. The trend toward lean direct injection (LDI) combustors suggests a growing emphasis on injector design to balance these objectives. Decades of empirical and analytical work have produced low-order methods, including semi-empirical and semi-analytical correlations and models of combustors and their components, but detailed modeling of injector and combustor behavior requires computational fluid dynamics (CFD). In this study, an application of low-order methods and published guidelines yielded generic injector and combustor geometries, as well as CFD boundary conditions of parameterized injector designs. Moreover, semi-empirical correlations combined with a numerical spray combustion solver provided injector design evaluations in terms of pattern factor, thermoacoustic performance, and certain emissions. Automation and parallel coordinate visualization enabled exploration of the dual-swirler airblast injector design space, which is often neglected in published combustor design studies.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Sector of final generic combustor geometry (isometric view with flow from left to right) (b) Labeled cross section of generic dual-swirler airblast injector (not to scale with combustor) adapted from Fig. 6.18 in Ref. [4]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Flow chart showing automated evaluation procedure for the DoE. Gray diamonds represent processes in which constraints are checked.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Surface and contour plots of maximum injector diameter constraint. In the plane of the contour plot, the S2 axis is oriented up and to the left, and the S1 axis is oriented up and to the right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Surface and contour plots of the minimum outer swirler height constraint. In the plane of the contour plot, the S2 axis is oriented up and to the left and the S1 axis is oriented up and to the right.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Demonstration of parallel coordinates plot construction for a single, hypothetical point in the dual-swirler dataset (in four steps from top to bottom)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

ParallAX visualization of all feasible converged DoE cases with UHC removed

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

ParallAX visualizations of the feasible converged DoE cases in the lowest quarter of each objective function value: (a) CO, (b) NOx, (c) pattern factor, and (d) maximum standard deviation of pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

(a) ParallAX visualization of the Pareto front from all feasible converged DoE cases (b) ParallAX visualization of the Pareto front points with objective function values that are in the bottom 80% for every objective function. (Note: maximum CO and NOx values are 47.6 and 0.692 g/kg of fuel, respectively, for these plots, but all other maximum and minimum values are the same as the other ParallAX plots.)




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