Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byLeon Carpenter Modified about 1 year ago

1
A Study of the Applicability of CFD to Knife Seal Design in the Gas Turbine Industry A Presentation to the Faculty of Purdue School of E&T, IUPUI by Joshua M. Peters in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Master of Science April 27, 2006 Principal Advisors: Dr. Hasan Akay, IUPUI P. Chakka, PhD., Rolls-Royce T. Lambert, MS., Rolls-Royce

2
Note Numerical results, comparisons with test data, conclusions, and other information considered proprietary and/or sensitive have been removed from this presentation.

3
Outline Introduction Objective Numerical Method Computational Grids Description of Test Results and Validation Additional Studies Conclusions Acknowledgements References

4
Introduction Knife/labyrinth seals are non-contact air seals used between rotating and non-rotating components where (air) leakage mass flow must be controlled or minimized.

5
Introduction (cont.) Typical design practice: Semi-empirical codes; interpolate/extrapolate test data. Results are valid inasmuch as new design is similar to tests. Right: Knife seal geometry and parameters assumed in typical seal design codes. Below: (Non)dimensional parameter characterizing mass flow rate thru seal.

6
Introduction (cont.) Consequences of seal design error (grossly simplified): Underprediction lower thrust/efficiency Overpredictiondownstream overheating

7
Objective Develop CFD model of a typical (single) knife seal for which test data exists; compare results and attempt to infer applicability of CFD to knife seal design.

8
Expected Computational Challenges Flow accelerates nearly 2 orders of magnitude in one knife height putting considerable demands on the solver and on the grid, particularly in the region of the knife tip. Flow is highly compressible at the knife tip and essentially incompressible in the balance of the flow. Sharp corners on knife create singularities in flowfield

9
Numerical Method Governing Equations Compressible Flow Equations Reynolds-Averaged N-S Turbulence Model Discretization Boundary Conditions Solver Method

10
Governing Equations 1 Mass conservation: Momentum balance: …stress tensor: 0 0 00 0

11
Governing Equations Energy conservation: …where: …and sensible enthalpy for ideal gasses: 0 0 0

12
Governing Equations in Cylindrical Coordinates (2D) Mass conservation for compressible flow: Momentum balance, axial: …where: Momentum balance, radial: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

13
Compressible Flow Physics Mach number and speed of sound: Relationship between static and stagnation conditions: Ideal gas law as implemented in FLUENT:

14
Governing Equations Reworked: RANS Resulting Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations (interpreted, for compressible flows, as Favre-averaged): Variables decomposed into mean and fluctuating components:

15
Turbulence Model Spalart-Allmaras (1-Equation): Boussinesq hypothesis:

16
Discretization A conservation equation for an arbitrary CV: Discretized: Linearized: …where:

17
Segregated Solver Method (FLUENT) P*, rhou*, rhov* rho, u, v, P rhou*, rhov* …+ T*, v*, … P*, rhou*, rhov*

18
Boundary Conditions Operating Conditions: P op =14.698psia Inlet: Total pressure (gauge; varied to control pressure ratio), total temperature (533R), hydraulic diameter and turbulence intensity (solution-based iterations) Outlet: Static pressure (gauge; fixed at 0 for all models), recirculation total temperature (533R) and modified turbulent viscosity (solution-based iterations)

19
Boundary Conditions (cont.) Stator (top): No-slip Knife/Disk: No-slip Rotor: No-slip or inviscid (<1% ΔW) Near-wall velocity profile: standard wall functions

20
Boundary Conditions (cont.) Preliminary solutions were run with an estimated value; final solutions were obtained by iterating on density and velocity and updating turbulence intensity. Iterations were performed for modified turbulent viscosity at the outlet. Turbulence intensity at inlet estimated by:

21
Computational Grids

22
“Primary Grid” Characteristics: Quad, 26k cells, 40x50 at knife tip. Advantages: Reduced cell count, reduced aspect ratios near knife tip. Disadvantages: Slight increase in skewness near knife tip; non-stream-aligned faces. Below: Domain Left: Zoom on knife

23
“Primary Grid” (zoom) Above: Knife tip zoom. Maximum aspect ratio around 5.

24
“Secondary Grid” Below: Computational domain Left: Zoom on center region Characteristics: Quad BL, triangle 22k cells, 40x40 at knife tip Advantages: High resolution, locally-refined at knife tip, and extended outlet (hence smoothed outlet flow) improved convergence. Disadvantages: High aspect ratio and high skew in cells near knife tip. High resolution downstream of knife caused trouble for coupled solvers.

25
“Secondary Grid” (zoom) Above: Zoom on knife tip. 25% cell count reduction relative to “Primary Grid.” Mach number gradient based grid adaption applied, degrading already-poor convergence characteristics. Adaption not used in results presented.

26
Description of Test

27
2D Seal Rig (performed c.1970) Left: Labyrinth Seal Test Rig Below: Representative Single Knife Test (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

28
Rig Instrumentation Below: Labyrinth Seal Test Rig Instrumentation (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

29
Results and Validation 2D Planar Models vs. 2D Planar Test Data Axisymmetric Models vs. Semi-Empirical Codes Representative Residuals, Vectors, and Contour Plots

30
FLENT Model vs. Test – 2D Planar Seven FLUENT models (planar) run at increasing pressure ratios: mass flow rate (W) in terms of the flow parameter Φ plotted versus pressure ratio. Grid independence check @PR=2.0 using ‘Grid 3.’ (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

31
Model vs. Semi-Empirical Codes – Axisymmetric Nine FLUENT models (axisymmetric) run at increasing pressure ratios: mass flow rate (W) in terms of the flow parameter Φ plotted versus pressure ratio. Turbulence models compared at PR=3.0 (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

32
Model vs. Semi-Empirical Codes – Axisymmetric Data from FLUENT (leading to plots). Iterative solution procedure: Density, velocity, and modified turbulent viscosity were obtained in solutions; turbulence intensity and modified turbulent viscosity were input as boundary conditions leading to new solutions and updated boundary conditions... (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

33
Typical Residuals and W Convergence at PR=2.00 Right: Scaled residuals thru 9000 iterations Below: Mass flow rate convergence (@ inlet) thru 9000 iterations Discussion: Sources of convergence trouble and probable fixes.

34
Velocity Vectors

35
Velocity Vectors (zoom)

36
Mach Number Left: Mach # Contours (nearly converged) Below: Mach # plot, inlet (black), outlet (red)

37
Total Temperature

38
Static Temperature

39
Entropy

40
Enthalpy

41
Internal Energy

42
Total Energy

43
Total Pressure Above: Ptmin at knife tip: 11.14psia Right: Regions of “Pt creation” >.004psi

44
Static Pressure

45
Modified Turbulent Viscosity Left: mtv contours Below mtv at inlet and outlet

46
Wall y+ Right: Wall y+ values along knife (black) and stator (red)

47
Additional Studies Viscous heating impact on W Turbulence model impact on W Discretization order impact on W No-slip rotor impact on W Grid impact on W Solver Formulations Parallel speed-up

48
Selected Additional Studies Turbulence model impact on flow parameter (PR=3.0): Viscous heating impact on flow parameter (PR=2.5): No-slip rotor impact on flow parameter (PR=2.0): (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

49
Additional Studies Discretization order impact on flow parameter (PR=2.0): Solver formulations: (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

50
Additional Studies Grid impact on flow parameter (PR=3.0): Parallel Processing: Two processors: Three processors Three processors after load balancing (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

51
Conclusions

52
On applicability of CFD to knife seal design (KN=1): (Removed. See slide #2, “Notes.”)

53
Next Step 3D Knife Seal Model with Honeycomb Land and Rub-Groove

54
Knowledge/Skills/Tools Acquired CFD principles, methods, experience Grid theory, experience Compressible flow theory Labyrinth seal theory Parallel processing Experimental tools, methods UNIX, LINUX, GAMBIT, FLUENT

55
Acknowledgements IUPUI Dr. Hasan Akay Dr. Akin Ecer Dr. Erdol Yilmaz Dr. Nishant Nayan Hsiao Tung Rolls-Royce Pitchaiah Chakka Tony Lambert Eugene Clemens Ed Turner Ron Hall Steve Gegg Tiffany Brown and the Co-Op Department

56
References and Resources Papers Studied or Referenced * AVIDD-B and AVIDD-I are twin PentiumIV Linux clusters in Bloomington and Indianapolis for use by IU faculty and their sponsored staff and graduate students. Tutorials Performed or Referenced Flat Plate with Heat Transfer (Fluent, Inc.) Lid-Driven Cavity (Fluent, Inc.) 2D Airfoil (Fluent, Inc.) 3D Annulus (Fluent, Inc.) Axisymmetric Nozzle Flow (Cornell) 2D Airfoil (Cimbala, PSU) Axisymmetric Inlet Flow (Cimbala, PSU) [1] FLUENT Doc. & Theoretical Manuals Grid Generation: State of the Art (Nick Wyman) Introduction to Gambit (Fluent.com) Gambit Specifications (wwwsupercomputing.it) Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics (T.Xing, F.Stern, IIHR) Introduction to CFD for Compressible Flow at High Mach Numbers (H.Deconinck, Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics) Solver Methodology (Ballute, Australian National University) Flow Over an Obstruction (S.C.Rasipuram Shape Optimization of a Labyrinth Seal Applying the Simmulated Annealing Method (V.Schramm, J.Denecke, S.Kim, S.Wittig) Stanford CFD Class Lecture Notes (G.Iaccarino) AVIDD Cluster Primer (RATS, IU) Getting Started on AVIDD-I (RATS, IU) PBS Manual

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google