Transcript Masters_Project_Update.pptx

Masters Project Update
Jonathan Jause
10/10/2015
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Milestones/Deadlines
Deliverable
Project Proposal
Due Date
9/12/2014
9/12/2014
Baseline Analysis for Correlation
Layout basic nozzle configuration
1D solution for CD nozzle
Model, mesh, set up bc's and run analysis
Post-process
Correlate to 1D ideal solutions
Passive Ejector Nozzle Analysis
Develop 1D solution for passive ejector nozzle
Develop model
Refine meshing
Set up boundary conditions
Run analysis
Iterate for different locations of ejector
Post-process
Final Draft
Preliminary Final Report
Final Report
10/3/2014
9/15/2014
9/17/2014
9/18/2014
9/24/2014
10/3/2014
10/31/2014
10/6/2014
10/6/2014
10/8/2014
10/10/2014
10/15/2014
10/16/2014
10/20/2014
10/24/2014
10/31/2014
11/7/2014
11/28/2014
12/12/2014
2
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Simple Fluent Analysis
Goal: Follow demonstration and produce similar results
Learn how to set up compressible flow problems in Fluent
A = 0.1 + x²
-0.5 < x < 0.5
Problem statement: Air flowing through a convergent-divergent nozzle
have a circular cross-sectional area, A, that varies with axial distance from
the throat. Given: Pt at inlet is 101,325 Pa, Tt at inlet is 300K. Pe is 3,738.9
Pa
Assume inviscid flow.
3
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Simple Fluent Analysis
Mesh Statistics
# of nodes: 7718
# of elements: 3841
Min size: 0.0001m
Max size: 0.01m
4
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Simple Fluent Analysis
Boundary Conditions
NPR = 27.1
Wall
Axis
5
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Simple Fluent Analysis
Results
Contour of Static Pressure
Contour of Mach Number
6
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Convergent-Divergent Nozzle with Normal Shock
Goal: Demonstrate similar results to previous paper
Use this geometry nozzle for passive ejector nozzle
Dimensions in mm
7
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Convergent-Divergent Nozzle with Normal Shock
Mesh Statistics
# of nodes: 19611
# of elements: 19303
Min size: 0.0001
Max size: 0.015
8
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Convergent-Divergent Nozzle with Normal Shock
Boundary Conditions
NPR = 2
Wall
Axis
9
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
Convergent-Divergent Nozzle with Normal Shock
Results
NPR = 2.00
1D Prediction
CFD Solution
Me
.443
.463
Pe
50663
50280
Contour of Static Pressure
Contour of Mach Number
10
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
1D Nozzle Operating Envelope
2.2
6
16.3
11
12
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
CFD Comparison to Empirical Data
CFD results show good correlation to empirical data regression
provided by P&W for inviscid case, Average Error < 4%
13
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
CFD Comparison to Empirical Data
CFD results show good correlation to empirical data regression
provided by P&W for viscous case, Average Error < 4%
14
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/10
CFD Comparison to Empirical Data
CFD results show good correlation to empirical data regression
provided by P&W for viscous case, Average Error < 4%
15
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/16
Ejector Nozzle With Varying Pt, Stationary
Increasing ejector stagnation pressure improves thrust more
given a fixed ejector location.
CV vs NPR, Inviscid
1.0000
CV
0.8000
Ae/Aj = 2.56, CFA =
35.00, DHR = 18.70
CFD
0.6000
Ejector_Pt = 20265
Ejector_Pt = 29928
0.4000
Ejector_Pt = 44898
0.2000
0.0000
1.00
6.00
11.00
16.00
21.00
NPR
16
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/16
Ejector Nozzle With Varying Station, Constant 𝑚
Ejector locations closer to the throat of the nozzle will improve
thrust more. In addition, for constant mass flow, a higher ejector
stagnation pressure is required when located closer to the throat.
CV vs NPR, Inviscid
1.0000
CV
0.8000
Ae/Aj = 2.56, CFA = 35.00,
DHR = 18.70
CFD
0.6000
Ejector_Loc = 1.050 m
Ejector_Loc = 1.400 m
0.4000
0.2000
0.0000
1.00
6.00
11.00
NPR
16.00
21.00
17
NPR = 5, TURB VS INVISCID
18
TURBULENT, NPR = 5 VS NPR = 3
Dimensions in mm
19
NPR = 5, EJECTOR LOC = 1.050
20
NPR = 5, EJECTOR LOC = 1.400
21
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/31
Full Factorial DOE, 4 Factors, 2 Levels, Inviscid
A Full Factorial Design of Experiments
was conducted to explore the design
space for the ejector nozzle. 4 factors
with 2 levels of definition per the
adjacent table were analyzed for the
inviscid flow. 16 total cases were run at
an NPR = 5.
Factor
High
Low
49075
24538
Ejector Area
.150
.100
Ejector Loc
1.400
1.050
30°
0°
Ejector Pt
Ejector Angle
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
22
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/31
Full Factorial DOE, 4 Factors, 2 Levels, Inviscid
Combined models A-L
Pareto Chart of the Effects
shows the significant drivers for
thrust coefficient, Cv. As
expected the highest driver is
the ejector total pressure.
23
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/31
Full Factorial DOE, 4 Factors, 2 Levels, Inviscid
Pareto Chart of the Standardized Effects
(response is Actual Thrust, Alpha = 0.05)
2.306
F actor
A
B
C
D
A
D
AB
AC
N ame
E jector
E jector
E jector
E jector
Pt
A rea
Loc
A ngle
BC
ABD
Term
Combined models A-L
Pareto Chart of the Effects
shows the significant drivers for
thrust coefficient, Cv. As
expected the highest driver is
the ejector total pressure.
BCD
B
ABCD
ACD
ABC
CD
C
BD
AD
0
1
2
3
4
5
Standardized Effect
6
7
8
24
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/31
Full Factorial DOE, 4 Factors, 2 Levels, Inviscid
Assuming an ambient fed ejector, the Cv results for the various runs in the DOE are
represented below. A maximum value for Cv occurs for run GP4 which has the
following parameters:
Ejector Loc = 1.400m
Ejector Area = 0.150m
Ejector Angle = 0°
Ejector Pt = 49075Pa
25
26
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 11/3
Turbulent Modeling of Ejector
NPR = 5
27
Exit Plane
5
F5
r5
4
F4
r4
3
F3
r3
2
F2
r2
1
F1
0
r1
BACKUP
29
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/31
Full Factorial DOE, 4 Factors, 2 Levels, Inviscid
Pareto Chart of the Effects
shows the significant drivers for
thrust coefficient, Cv. As
expected the highest driver is
the ejector total pressure.
30
MASTERS PROJECT UPDATE, 10/31
Full Factorial DOE, 4 Factors, 2 Levels, Inviscid
Pareto Chart of the Effects
(response is Cv, Alpha = 0.05)
0.02096
F actor
A
B
C
D
A
D
B
AB
N ame
E jector
E jector
E jector
E jector
NPR
A rea
Loc
A ngle
Term
AC
ACD
CD
BD
ABD
AD
BC
BCD
C
ABCD
ABC
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
Effect
0.05
0.06
0.07
Lenth's PSE = 0.00815199
Main Effects Plot for Cv
Data Means
Ejector Angle
0.94
Ejector Loc
0.92
0.90
0.88
Mean
A similar DOE was run isolating
the location as a factor by using
NPR for the ejector. Pt was
calculated based on the static
pressure in the baseline CD
nozzle based on ejector
location.
0.86
0
30
1.05
Ejector Area
0.94
1.40
Ejector NPR
0.92
0.90
0.88
31
0.86
0.10
0.15
2
4