0
Research Papers: Gas Turbines: Combustion, Fuels, and Emissions

Characterization of a Supersonic Turbine Downstream of a Rotating Detonation Combustor

[+] Author and Article Information
Z. Liu

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47906
e-mail: liu1752@purdue.edu

J. Braun

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47906
e-mail: jamesbraun91@gmail.com

G. Paniagua

School of Mechanical Engineering,
Purdue University,
West Lafayette, IN 47906
e-mail: gpaniagua@me.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Aircraft Engine Committee of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING FOR GAS TURBINES AND POWER. Manuscript received June 23, 2018; final manuscript received July 1, 2018; published online October 4, 2018. Editor: Jerzy T. Sawicki.

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 141(3), 031501 (Oct 04, 2018) (13 pages) Paper No: GTP-18-1324; doi: 10.1115/1.4040815 History: Received June 23, 2018; Revised July 01, 2018

Rotating detonation combustors (RDCs) offer theoretically a significant total pressure increase, which may result in enhanced cycle efficiency. The fluctuating exhaust of RDC, however, induces low supersonic flow and large flow angle fluctuations at several kHz, which affects the performance of the downstream turbine. In this paper, a numerical methodology is proposed to characterize a supersonic turbine exposed to fluctuations from RDC without any dilution. The inlet conditions of the turbine were extracted from a three-dimensional (3D) unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulation of a nozzle attached to a rotating detonation combustor, optimized for minimum flow fluctuations and a mass-flow averaged Mach number of 2 at the nozzle outlet. In a first step, a supersonic turbine able to handle steady Mach 2 inflow was designed based on a method of characteristics solver and total pressure loss was assessed. Afterward, unsteady simulations of eight stator passages exposed to periodic oblique shocks were performed. Total pressure loss was evaluated for several oblique shock frequencies and amplitudes. The unsteady stator outlet profile was extracted and used as inlet condition for the unsteady rotor simulations. Finally, a full stage unsteady simulation was performed to characterize the flow field across the entire turbine stage. Power extraction, airfoil base pressure, and total pressure losses were assessed, which enabled the estimation of the loss mechanisms in supersonic turbine exposed to large unsteady inlet conditions.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Fan, W. , Yan, C. , Huang, X. , Zhang, Q. , and Zheng, L. , 2003, “ Experimental Investigation on Two-Phase Pulse Detonation Engine,” Combust. Flame, 133(4), pp. 441–450. [CrossRef]
Ornano, F. , Braun, J. , Saracoglu, B. H. , and Paniagua, G. , 2017, “ Multi-Stage Nozzle-Shape Optimization for Pulsed Hydrogen-Air Detonation Combustor,” Adv. Mech. Eng., 9(2), pp. 1–9. [CrossRef]
Shao, Y. , Liu, M. , and Wang, J.-P. , 2010, “ Continuous Detonation Engine and Effects of Different Types of Nozzle on Its Propulsion Performance,” Chin. J. Aeronaut., 23(6), pp. 647–652. [CrossRef]
Davidenko, D. M. , Gokalp, I. , and Kudryavtsev, A. N. , 2008, “ Numerical Study of the Continuous Detonation Wave Rocket Engine,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2008-2680.
Roy, A. , Ferguson, D. H. , Sidwell, T. , O'Meara, B. , Strakey, P. , Bedick, C. , and Sisler, A. , 2017, “ Experimental Study of Rotating Detonation Combustor Performance Under Preheat and Back Pressure Operation,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2017-1065.
Le Naour, B. , Falempin, F. H. , and Coulon, K. , 2017, “ MBDA R&T Effort Regarding Continuous Detonation Wave Engine for Propulsion—Status in 2016,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2017-2325.
Eude, Y. , Davidenko, D. M. , Gokalp, I. , and Falempin, F. , 2011, “ Use of the Adaptive Mesh Refinement for 3D Simulations of a CDWRE (Continuous Detonation Wave Rocket Engine),” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2011-2236.
Schwer, D. , and Kailasanath, K. , 2011, “ Numerical Investigation of the Physics of Rotating-Detonation-Engines,” Proc. Combust. Inst., 33(2), pp. 2195–2202. [CrossRef]
Schwer, D. , and Kailasanath, K. , 2011, “ Numerical Study of the Effects of Engine Size on Rotating Detonation Engines,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2011-581.
Zhou, R. , and Wang, J.-P. , 2013, “ Numerical Investigation of Shock Wave Reflections Near the Head Ends of Rotating Detonation Engines,” Shock Waves, 23(5), pp. 461–472.
Frolov, S. , Dubrovskii, A. , and Ivanov, V. , 2013, “ Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of Operation Process in Rotating Detonation Engine,” Proc. Prog. Propul. Phys., 4, pp. 467–488.
Dubrovskii, A. , Ivanov, V. , and Frolov, S. , 2015, “ Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of the Operation Process in a Continuous Detonation Combustor With Separate Feeding of Hydrogen and Air,” Russ. J. Phys. Chem. B, 9(1), pp. 104–119. [CrossRef]
Cocks, P. A. , Holley, A. T. , and Rankin, B. A. , 2016, “ High Fidelity Simulations of a Non-Premixed Rotating Detonation Engine,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2016-0125.
Fievisohn, R. T. , and Yu, K. H. , 2016, “ Steady-State Analysis of Rotating Detonation Engine Flowfields With the Method of Characteristics,” J. Propul. Power, 33(1), pp. 89–99. [CrossRef]
Sousa, J. , Braun, J. , and Paniagua, G. , 2017, “ Development of a Fast Evaluation Tool for Rotating Detonation Combustors,” Appl. Math. Modell., 52, pp. 42–52. [CrossRef]
Braun, J. , Saracoglu, B. H. , and Paniagua, G. , 2016, “ Unsteady Performance of Rotating Detonation Engines With Different Exhaust Nozzles,” J. Propul. Power, 33(1), pp. 121–130. [CrossRef]
Braun, J. , Saavedra, J. , and Paniagua, G. , 2017, “ Evaluation of the Unsteadiness Across Nozzles Downstream of Rotating Detonation Combustors,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2017-1063.
Liu, Z. , Braun, J. , and Paniagua, G. , 2017, “ Performance of Axial Turbines Exposed to Large Fluctuations,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2017-4817.
Fernelius, M. H. , and Gorrell, S. E. , 2017, “ Predicting Efficiency of a Turbine Driven by Pulsing Flow,” ASME Paper No. GT2017-63490.
Paniagua, G. , Lorio, M. C. , Vinha, N. , and Sousa, J. , 2014, “ Design and Analysis of Pioneering High Supersonic Axial Turbines,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 89, pp. 65–77. [CrossRef]
Sousa, J. , and Paniagua, G. , 2015, “ Entropy Minimization Design Approach of Supersonic Internal Passages,” Entropy, 17(12), pp. 5593–5610. [CrossRef]
Kantrowitz, A. , and Donaldson, C. , 1945, “ Preliminary Investigation of Supersonic Diffusers,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Langley Field, VA, Report No. NACA-WR-L-713. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930093667
Sousa, J. , Paniagua, G. , and Saavedra, J. , 2017, “ Aerodynamic Response of Internal Passages to Pulsating Inlet Supersonic Conditions,” Comput. Fluids, 149, pp. 31–40. [CrossRef]
Sousa, J. , Paniagua, G. , and Morata, E. C. , 2017, “ Thermodynamic Analysis of a Gas Turbine Engine With a Rotating Detonation Combustor,” Appl. Energy, 195, pp. 247–256. [CrossRef]
Chakravarthy, S. , Peroomian, O. , Goldberg, U. , and Palaniswamy, S. , 1998, “ The CFD++ Computational Fluid Dynamic Software Suite,” AIAA Paper No. 985564.
Schulein, E. , Krogmann, P. , and Stanewsky, E. , 1996, “ Documentation of Two-Dimensional Impinging Shock/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction Flow,” Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology, Gottingen, Germany, Report No. DLR-IB 223-96 A 49.
Schulein, E. , 2004, “ Optical Skin Friction Measurements in Short-Duration Facilities (Invited),” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2004-2115.
Celik, I. B. , Ghia, U. , and Roache, P. J. , 2008, “ Procedure for Estimation and Reporting of Uncertainty Due to Discretization in CFD Applications,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 130(7), p. 078001. [CrossRef]
Clark, J. P. , and Grover, E. A. , 2007, “ Assessing Convergence in Predictions of Periodic-Unsteady Flowfields,” ASME J. Turbomach., 29(4), pp. 740–749. [CrossRef]
Klir, G. J. , and Yuan, B. , 1995, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic: Theory and Applications, Pretice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Delery, J. , and Dussauge, J.-P. , 2009, “ Some Physical Aspects of Shock Wave/Boundary Layer Interactions,” Shock Waves, 19(6), pp. 453–468. [CrossRef]
Sousa, J. , Paniagua, G. , and Collado-Morata, E. , 2017, “ Analysis of the Aerodynamic Losses in a Supersonic Turbine,” ASME Paper No. POWER-ICOPE2017-3624.
Moeckel, W. , 1949, “ Approximate Method for Predicting Form and Location of Detached Shock Waves Ahead of Plane or Axially Symmetric Bodies,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Cleveland, OH, Report No. NACA-TN-1921. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930082597
Stewart, W. , 1955, “ Analysis of Two-Dimensional Compressible-Flow Loss Characteristics Downstream of Turbomachine Blade Rows in Terms of Boundary Layer Characteristics,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Cleveland, OH, Report No. NACA-TN-3515. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930084222
Startford, B. S. , and Beavers, G. S. , 1955, “ The Calculation of the Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layer in an Arbitrary Pressure Gradient—A Correlation of Certain Previous Methods,” Aeronautical Research Council Reports and Memoranda, London, No. 3207. http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/3207.pdf
Kacker, S. C. , and Okapuu, U. , 1982, “ A Mean Line Prediction Method for Axial Flow Turbine Efficiency,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 104(1), pp. 111–119. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

(a) Geometry of the RDC and nozzle and (b) 3D optimized nozzle geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

(a) Instantaneous static temperature contour of the 2D RDC. Nozzle outlet profile: (b) static pressure, (c) static temperature, (d) Mach number, and (e) flow angle.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Blade to blade view of the (a) supersonic stator and (b) supersonic rotor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

(a) Mach contour of the Mach 5 validation case, (b) comparison of skin friction, and (c) wall static pressure

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Sod shock tube problem: (a) density field after the release of the diaphragm [23] and (b) density variation along the axial position [23]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

(a) Meridional view of the stage channel, (b) numerical grid with a close up of the stator trailing edge

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

(a) Rotor relative total pressure versus grid size. (b) Torque in function of the convergence. Contour of relative total pressure at rotor outlet for the (c) medium mesh and (d) fine mesh. (e) Local discretization error of the medium mesh.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Steady flow field of the supersonic turbine at midspan for an inlet Mach number of 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes stator simulation at midspan exposed to oblique shocks for three consecutive phases (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1): (a) Mach contour and (b) total pressure contour. (c) Close up of the instantaneous shock patterns in (a) during phase 3.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Instantaneous contour at stator outlet: (a) Mach number, (b) total pressure, and (c) total temperature (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Instantaneous stator fluctuation as a function of the azimuthal angle: (a) flow angle, (b) static pressure, (c) Mach number, and (d) static temperature (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) Instantaneous flow field of the stator base region (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1) and (b) stator outlet and base static pressure as a function of time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Instantaneous Mach contour and instantaneous Mach number fluctuations at stator outlet as a function of the azimuthal angle at: (a) f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 0.5, (b) f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1, and (c) f¯= 0.23, A¯ = 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Stator total pressure loss as function of reduced frequency and nondimensional amplitude

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

(a) Flow field of a URANS rotor simulation at midspan for three phases (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1). (b) Close up of the instantaneous shock patterns at the close-up position in (a) during phase3.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Instantaneous contour of rotor outlet: (a) relative Mach number, (b) relative total pressure, and (c) relative total temperature (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Instantaneous rotor fluctuations as a function of the azimuthal angle: (a) relative flow angle, (b) static pressure, (c) relative Mach number, and (d) static temperature (f¯= 0.24, A¯ = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

(a) Flow field of a URANS stage simulation at midspan exposed to oblique shocks for three phases. (b) Close up on the instantaneous shock patterns at the location in (a) during phase 2. (c) 3D flow structures within the stage during phase 2. (d) Static temperature of stator and rotor blades for three phases (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Instantaneous stage fluctuations as a function of the azimuthal angle: (a) flow angle, (b) static pressure, (c) Mach number, and (d) static temperature (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

(a) Instantaneous flow field of the URANS stage simulation at midspan (f¯ = 0.24, A¯ = 1). (b) Frequency spectrum of static pressure at the stator inlet and rotor inlet.

Tables

Errata

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