research on small turbojet engines at the royal military academy of ...

research on small turbojet engines at the royal military academy of ... research on small turbojet engines at the royal military academy of ...

turbinetechnologies.com
from turbinetechnologies.com More from this publisher
30.12.2014 Views

evaporated before entering the compressor and that only a small amount of nitrogen is injected, leaving the airspeed unaffected, the following equation may be used : m&.c pa .(T a - T 1' ) = fig. 7 fig. 8 coexistence. Consequently, we cannot define the present amount of gas or liquid, excluding any type of flow meter. 4.2 Temperature T t1 measurement The temperature T t1 was planned to be measured with a thermocouple type N. Unfortunately, the cooling of the air wasn't homogeneous. The nitrogen cooled just a small amount of air, which went as good as straight into the engine, without any vortical speed what was hoped for. Installation of an extra two thermocouples did not bring solace. It became evident that with this type of injector, no direct gauging of T t1 was possible. Though, with the knowledge of m& , N 2 m& and m& ' , which is the inlet air mass flow with precooling, and the air temperature T t1 without cooling, one can derive the temperature drop ( T ta - T t1' ) = ∆ T t1 quite trustworthy. Three different calculation methods were examined. The first method uses enthalpies to derive the temperature drop. If we assume that the inlet air is dry, that only LN2 leaves the injector, that all the nitrogen is η .( m& N 2 .L v,N2 + m& N 2 .c p,N2 .(T 1' - T N2 ) ) [12] T 1' can be calculated from relation 12. Since the static and the stagnation pressures are measured at the inlet, one can derive the gas velocity. Thereby T t1' can be obtained and consequently the temperature drop. There was one objection against the use of this formula : m& N 2 was not gauged with high accuracy. Therefore a better calculation method had to be found. The new method is based on the assumption that the inlet airspeed, for a constant RPM, is independent of the inlet temperature. Additionally, one physical parameter has to be constant, regardless of the fact that precooling was applied. Examining the stagnation inlet pressure p t1 and the static inlet pressure p 1 , the following phenomenon can be found ( fig. 9 ). The stagnation pressure with and without precooling is more or less the same ( very low friction losses due to N2-injection ). Thus, the assumption that the stagnation pressure remains invariant may be justified. On the other hand, the difference between the static pressures is not significant, which leaves the method of calculating T t1 with a constant static pressure more or less acceptable. Furthermore, the latter theory is much easier to use, which will be proven here after.

Static and Stagnation Inlet Pressures = f(RPM) 105000 104000 103000 102000 Pressure ( Pa ) 101000 100000 99000 98000 p1 air only pt1 air only p1 LN2 pt1 LN2 97000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 85000 RPM fig.9 Using Castelli's law, one can derive the next relation between the mass flows m&' and m& : 20 18 Deviation of the different calculation methods to their corresponding DT1 % dev. Stagnation - Static % dev. Stagnation - Enthalpy m& ρ = m& ' ρ' [13] With a constant total pressure, the density ratio becomes quite complex. The following equation, originating from formula 13 is obtained, using the ideal gas law : 2/ 7 2 ⎛ m ⎞ 7 2 5/ 7 ( 1 0.2 ) 2/ − + M ⎜ T ⎟ = T + 0. M TT & ⎝ m & ' 1 1 1' 2 ⎠ 1 1 1' [14] From equation 14, T 1' and T t1' can be calculated. The determination of T 1' with the method of constant static pressure p 1 is easily obtained using relation 13 and the ideal gas law : m & T = 1' m& ' T 1 [15] One can assume that T 1' determined by the method of constant stagnation pressure approximates the Deviation ( % ) 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 40000 45000 50000 55000 60000 65000 70000 75000 80000 85000 RPM fig. 10 real value of T 1' best, because its hypothesis is based on measured data. It should be mentioned that the stagnation temperature drop equals the static temperature drop, since the inlet airspeed is considered to be constant. Now we can obtain an idea of the deviation between the calculated temperature drop ∆ T t1 originating from the different methods ( fig. 10 ), using measurement data. It is obvious that the deviation between equation 14 and 15 is minor : about 3.5%. As a consequence, the use of formula 15 is justified to

evapor<strong>at</strong>ed before entering <strong>the</strong> compressor and th<strong>at</strong><br />

<strong>on</strong>ly a <strong>small</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> nitrogen is injected, leaving<br />

<strong>the</strong> airspeed unaffected, <strong>the</strong> following equ<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong><br />

may be used :<br />

m&.c pa .(T a - T 1' ) =<br />

fig. 7<br />

fig. 8<br />

coexistence. C<strong>on</strong>sequently, we cannot define <strong>the</strong><br />

present amount <strong>of</strong> gas or liquid, excluding any type<br />

<strong>of</strong> flow meter.<br />

4.2 Temper<strong>at</strong>ure T t1 measurement<br />

The temper<strong>at</strong>ure T t1 was planned to be measured<br />

with a <strong>the</strong>rmocouple type N. Unfortun<strong>at</strong>ely, <strong>the</strong><br />

cooling <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> air wasn't homogeneous. The<br />

nitrogen cooled just a <strong>small</strong> amount <strong>of</strong> air, which<br />

went as good as straight into <strong>the</strong> engine, without<br />

any vortical speed wh<strong>at</strong> was hoped for. Install<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong><br />

<strong>of</strong> an extra two <strong>the</strong>rmocouples did not bring solace.<br />

It became evident th<strong>at</strong> with this type <strong>of</strong> injector, no<br />

direct gauging <strong>of</strong> T t1 was possible.<br />

Though, with <strong>the</strong> knowledge <strong>of</strong> m& ,<br />

N 2 m& and<br />

m& ' ,<br />

which is <strong>the</strong> inlet air mass flow with precooling,<br />

and <strong>the</strong> air temper<strong>at</strong>ure T t1 without cooling, <strong>on</strong>e can<br />

derive <strong>the</strong> temper<strong>at</strong>ure drop ( T ta - T t1' ) = ∆ T t1<br />

quite trustworthy. Three different calcul<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong><br />

methods were examined. The first method uses<br />

enthalpies to derive <strong>the</strong> temper<strong>at</strong>ure drop. If we<br />

assume th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> inlet air is dry, th<strong>at</strong> <strong>on</strong>ly LN2<br />

leaves <strong>the</strong> injector, th<strong>at</strong> all <strong>the</strong> nitrogen is<br />

η .( m&<br />

N 2<br />

.L v,N2 + m&<br />

N 2<br />

.c p,N2 .(T 1' - T N2 ) ) [12]<br />

T 1' can be calcul<strong>at</strong>ed from rel<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> 12. Since <strong>the</strong><br />

st<strong>at</strong>ic and <strong>the</strong> stagn<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> pressures are measured <strong>at</strong><br />

<strong>the</strong> inlet, <strong>on</strong>e can derive <strong>the</strong> gas velocity. Thereby<br />

T t1' can be obtained and c<strong>on</strong>sequently <strong>the</strong><br />

temper<strong>at</strong>ure drop.<br />

There was <strong>on</strong>e objecti<strong>on</strong> against <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> this<br />

formula : m&<br />

N 2<br />

was not gauged with high accuracy.<br />

Therefore a better calcul<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> method had to be<br />

found. The new method is based <strong>on</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

assumpti<strong>on</strong> th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong> inlet airspeed, for a c<strong>on</strong>stant<br />

RPM, is independent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> inlet temper<strong>at</strong>ure.<br />

Additi<strong>on</strong>ally, <strong>on</strong>e physical parameter has to be<br />

c<strong>on</strong>stant, regardless <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> fact th<strong>at</strong> precooling was<br />

applied. Examining <strong>the</strong> stagn<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> inlet pressure<br />

p t1 and <strong>the</strong> st<strong>at</strong>ic inlet pressure p 1 , <strong>the</strong> following<br />

phenomen<strong>on</strong> can be found ( fig. 9 ). The<br />

stagn<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> pressure with and without precooling is<br />

more or less <strong>the</strong> same ( very low fricti<strong>on</strong> losses due<br />

to N2-injecti<strong>on</strong> ). Thus, <strong>the</strong> assumpti<strong>on</strong> th<strong>at</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

stagn<strong>at</strong>i<strong>on</strong> pressure remains invariant may be<br />

justified. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r hand, <strong>the</strong> difference<br />

between <strong>the</strong> st<strong>at</strong>ic pressures is not significant,<br />

which leaves <strong>the</strong> method <strong>of</strong> calcul<strong>at</strong>ing T t1 with a<br />

c<strong>on</strong>stant st<strong>at</strong>ic pressure more or less acceptable.<br />

Fur<strong>the</strong>rmore, <strong>the</strong> l<strong>at</strong>ter <strong>the</strong>ory is much easier to use,<br />

which will be proven here after.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!