0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Impulse Turbine Injector Design Improvement Using Computational Fluid Dynamics

[+] Author and Article Information
D. Benzon, A. Židonis

Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group,
Engineering Department,
Engineering Building, Bailrigg,
Lancaster, Lancs LA1 4YR, UK

A. Panagiotopoulos

Lancaster University Renewable Energy Group,
Engineering Department,
Engineering Building, Bailrigg,
Lancaster, Lancs LA1 4YR, UK;
National Technical University of Athens,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
9 Heroon Polytechniou,
Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece

G. A. Aggidis, J. S. Anagnostopoulos

National Technical University of Athens,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
9 Heroon Polytechniou,
Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece

D. E. Papantonis

National Technical University of Athens,
School of Mechanical Engineering,
9 Heroon Polytechniou,
Zografou, Athens 15780, Greece

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 10, 2014; final manuscript received November 26, 2014; published online January 20, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Edward M. Bennett.

J. Fluids Eng 137(4), 041106 (Apr 01, 2015) (9 pages) Paper No: FE-14-1123; doi: 10.1115/1.4029310 History: Received March 10, 2014; Revised November 26, 2014; Online January 20, 2015

This study utilizes two modern computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software packages (ansys®cfx® and ansys®fluent®) to analyze the basic geometric factors affecting the efficiency of a typical impulse turbine injector. A design of experiments (DOEs) study is used to look at the impact of four primary nozzle and spear design parameters on the injector losses over a range of inlet pressures. Improved injector designs for both solvers are suggested based on the results and comparisons are made. The results for both CFD tools suggest that steeper injector nozzle and spear angles than current literature describes will reduce the losses by up to 0.6%.

Copyright © 2015 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Two-dimensional (2D) injector geometry showing fixed and variable operational and geometric parameters

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Turbulence model study carried out in ansys fluent®

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Fluent mesh independence study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

CFX mesh independence study

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

2D mesh of an injector containing approximately 120,000 elements

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Injector losses versus spear travel (expressed as flow rate). cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Injector losses versus pressure head. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Injector losses versus spear width. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Flow rate versus spear travel. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 10 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 20 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 30 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Injector loss contours for nozzle and spear angles at mass flow rate = 40 kg/s. cfx®—(a) and fluent®—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Comparison between the initial and improved injector geometries using CFD results at five different openings. cfx® at H = 250 m—(a) and fluent® at H = 150 m—(b).

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Comparison between the original 90 deg/50 deg and improved 110 deg/70 deg nozzles with the same maximum flow rate

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Jet velocity profile comparison for original 90 deg/50 deg nozzle and spear design and the improved 110 deg/70 deg design: (a) 90-50 openings 1–5 and (b) 110-70 openings 1–5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Arithmetic jet velocity variance comparison

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Velocity field comparison for (a) small (90/50) and (b) large nozzle and spear angles (110/70)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Velocity magnitude contours for spear curvatures (a)–(d): (a) negative curvature, (b) positive curvature, (c) large positive curvature, and (d) double curvature

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Injector losses for spear curvatures A–D

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Impact of scaling on injector losses

Tables

Errata

Discussions

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