0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Effects of Steam Ingestion on Under Fuselage Inlet Performance During a Catapult-Assisted Takeoff Process

[+] Author and Article Information
Yuehua Fan

National Laboratory for Computational
Fluid Dynamics,
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering,
Beihang University,
Beijing 100191, China
e-mail: yuehua_fan@126.com

Zhenxun Gao

National Laboratory for Computational
Fluid Dynamics,
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering,
Beihang University,
Beijing 100191, China,
e-mail: gaozhenxun@buaa.edu.cn

Chongwen Jiang

National Laboratory for Computational
Fluid Dynamics,
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering,
Beihang University,
Beijing 100191, China
e-mail: cwjiang@buaa.edu.cn

Chun-Hian Lee

Professor
National Laboratory for Computational
Fluid Dynamics,
School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering,
Beihang University,
Beijing 100191, China
e-mail: lichx@buaa.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 27, 2017; final manuscript received September 21, 2017; published online November 16, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Pierre E. Sullivan.

J. Fluids Eng 140(4), 041101 (Nov 16, 2017) (11 pages) Paper No: FE-17-1458; doi: 10.1115/1.4038092 History: Received July 27, 2017; Revised September 21, 2017

A naval aircraft has the potential to experience inlet performance decline when taking off from the carrier deck with the steam-driven catapult assistance. The steam ingested into inlet may cause time-dependent rise and spatial distortion of the total temperature on the inlet–exit, which would decrease the compressor stall margin and then lower the performance of the turbine engine. In this paper, these temporal and spatial temperature nonuniformities are numerically studied using the dual-time-step transient method with a real aircraft/inlet model taken into account. The flowfield characteristics of a designed baseline case are first analyzed, indicating that the engine’s suction effect and the wind velocity relative to the aircraft are two key factors affecting the steam ingestion. The former is dominant at the beginning of takeoff since the aircraft's velocity is low, while the latter is increasingly significant as the aircraft accelerates. Next, parametric studies show that the greater the wind speed is, the less significantly the flowfield of the inlet–exit would be influenced by the steam. The effects are also studied among various steam leakage profiles—two are constant in time histories of the steam leakage rate, whereas the other two are nonlinear with the maximum value at different instants. It is found that the temperature rise rate of the inlet–exit would increase apparently if the steam leakage rate reaches the maximum earlier.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Marks, B. , Melton , H., III ., and Lawrence, T. , 2001, “ Normalization of F/A-18E/F Flight Demonstrated Dynamic Minimum Control Airspeeds to Reference Conditions,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA-2001-0409. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2001-409
Klepper, J. , Hale, A. , Davis, M. , and Hurwitz, W. , 2004, “ A Numerical Investigation of the Effects of Steam Ingestion on Compression System Performance,” ASME Paper No. GT2004-54190.
Klepper, J. , Hale, A. , and Hurwitz, W. , 2005, “ A Numerical Capability to Analyze the Effects of Water Ingestion on Compression System Performance and Operability,” ASME Paper No. GT2005-68480.
Gannon, A. J. , Hobson, G. V. , Payne, T. A. , and Zarro, S. E. , 2007, “ The Effect of Steam Ingestion on Transonic Rotor Stall Margin,” ASME Paper No. GT2007-28068.
Gannon, A. J. , Hobson, G. V. , Hedges, C. R. , and Descovich, G. L. , 2014, “ Investigation and Prediction of Steam-Induced Stall-Margin Reduction in Two Transonic Rotor Fans,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 136(11), p. 111101. [CrossRef]
Society of Automotive Engineers, 1991, “ A Current Assessment of the Inlet/Engine Temperature Distortion Problem,” SAE International, Troy, MI, Standard No. AIR5867. http://standards.sae.org/wip/air5867/
Wallner, L. E. , Useller, J. W. , and Saari, M. J. , 1957, “ A Study of Temperature Transients at the Inlet of a Turbojet Engine,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Lewis Flight Propulsion Lab, Cleveland, OH, Technical Report No. NACA-RM-E57C22 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930089686.
Das, D. K. , Trippi, A. , and Peacock, R. E. , 1985, “ Unsteady Response of an Axial Flow Compressor to Planar Temperature Transients,” AIAA J. Aircraft, 22(1), pp. 11–18. [CrossRef]
Willis, M. B. , Edwin, J. G. , and Charles, M. M. , 1973, “ The Effects of Inlet Temperature and Pressure Distortion on Turbojet Performance,” AIAA Paper No. 73-1316 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19740028561.
Hu, J. , 2015, Aviation Compressor Aerodynamic Stability Analysis Methods, National Defense Industry Press, Beijing, China, Chap.10.
Bird, R. B. , Stewart, W. E. , and Lightfoot, E. N. , 2002, Transport Phenomena, Wiley, New York, p. 258.
Wilke, C. R. , 1950, “ A Viscosity Equation for Gas Mixtures,” J. Chem. Phys., 18(4), pp. 517–519. [CrossRef]
Menter, F. R. , 1994, “ Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605. [CrossRef]
Gao, Z. X. , and Lee, C. H. , 2010, “ A Flamelet Model for Turbulent Diffusion Combustion in Supersonic Flow,” Sci. China Ser. E, 53(12), pp. 3379–3388. [CrossRef]
Gao, Z. X. , and Lee, C. H. , 2010, “ A Numerical Study of Turbulent Combustion Characteristics in a Combustion Chamber of a Scramjet Engine,” Sci. China Ser. E, 53(8), pp. 2111–2121. [CrossRef]
Rogers, R. C. , 1971, “ A Study of the Mixing of Hydrogen Injected Normal to a Supersonic Airstream,” Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Technical Report No. NASA TN D-6114. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710010720.pdf
Gao, Z. X. , Wang, J. Y. , Jiang, C. W. , and Lee, C. H. , 2014, “ Application and Theoretical Analysis of the Flamelet Model for Supersonic Turbulent Combustion Flows in the Scramjet Engine,” Combust. Theor. Model., 18(6), pp. 652–691. [CrossRef]
Roe, P. L. , 1981, “ Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors and Difference Schemes,” J. Comput. Phys., 43(2), pp. 357–372. [CrossRef]
Van Leer, B. , 1979, “ Towards the Ultimate Conservative Difference Scheme V: A Second Order Sequel to Godunov’s Method,” J. Comput. Phys., 32(1), pp. 101–136. [CrossRef]
Jameson, A. , 1991, “ Time Dependent Calculations Using Multigrid With Application to Unsteady Flows past Airfoils and Wings,” AIAA Paper No. 91–1596. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.1991-1596
Hayes, C. , 1983, “ Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Series of Single-Inlet Air-Breathing Missile Configurations,” NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Technical Report No. NASA-TM-84557. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19830010395

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Compressor performance map [6]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

3D aircraft configuration and computational mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparisons of computed and measured lift coefficient (a) and pitching-moment coefficient (b) for M = 0.6

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of computed and measured inlet mass flow ratio for M = 2.95

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Steam mass flow rate per meter versus time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Boundary conditions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Mass-averaged total temperature of inlet–exit for different time-step sizes (a) and different iterations per time-step (b)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of total temperature on the inlet–exit calculated from different grids

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Streamlines from the steam slot (a) and flowfield of the inlet–exit (b) for t = 0.07

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Streamlines from the steam slot (a) and flowfield of the inlet–exit (b) for t = 0.22

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Streamlines from the steam slot (a) and flowfield of the inlet–exit (b) for t = 0.44

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Inlet mass flow ratio of water vapor to gas mixture versus the freestream to inlet–exit Mach number ratio

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Total temperature rise rate (a) and spatial distortion (b) of the inlet–exit versus time for baseline case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Total temperature rise (a) and rise rate (b) of inlet–exit for different wind speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Inlet capture streamtube to inlet–exit area ratio for different wind speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Spatial distortion of total temperature of inlet–exit for different wind speeds

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Four different steam leakage profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Total temperature rise (a) and rise rate (b) of inlet–exit for different steam leakage profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Capture steam-leakage-slot to inlet–exit area ratio (a) and steam leakage velocity to relative wind velocity ratio (b) for different steam leakage profiles

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Spatial distortion of total temperature of inlet–exit for different steam leakage profiles

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