project 39 - development of gas supersonic …

PROJECT 39 - DEVELOPMENT OF GAS SUPERSONIC SEPARATORS - OPTIMISATION, NUMERICAL SIMULATION AND EXPERIMENTS

Paulo V. M. Yamabe¹, Breno A. Avancini² , Douglas Serson², Jairo P. C. Filho², Ulisses A. S. Costa²,

Julián Restrepo², Reinaldo M. Orselli³, Marcelo T. Hayashi³, José R. S. Moreira² , Julio R.

Meneghini¹, Bruno S. Carmo², Ernani V. Volpe ², Emilio C. N. Silva¹

¹ Department of Mechatronics Engineering and Mechanical Systems, University of São Paulo

² Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of São Paulo

³ Department of Aerospace Engineering, Federal University of ABC

V WORKSHOP INTERNO RCGI

21 e 22 de agosto de 2018

RESEARCH CENTRE FOR GAS INNOVATION

Outline

• Introduction

• WCCM Presentation: Comparison between numerical approaches to simulate a supersonic nozzle

• Parametric Optimization (second throat)

• Shape Optimization

2


Outline

• Introduction


• Parametric Optimization


3


Project 39: Development of gas supersonic separators - optimization, numerical simulation and experiments

4

Engineering Physical-Chemistry Economics and Energy Policies 𝑪𝑶𝟐 Abatement

𝑪𝑶𝟐 Separation


Supersonic Separator

5

𝐶𝐻4 + 𝐶𝑂2

𝐶𝐻4

𝐶𝑂2

𝐶𝑂2

Fixedblades

Uses the cooling properties of a converging-diverging nozzle with the principles of centrifugal separation

Advantages: Compact, no moving parts, no extra chemical products


Outline

• Introduction




7


Comparison between numerical approaches to simulate a supersonic nozzle

• 13th World Congress on Computational Mechanics, July 22-27, New York-USA

• Objective: Use different numerical approaches for the same test case and compare the results (i.e. shock position, Stagnation Temperature conservation)

8


Computer codes

9

Fluent

Commercial

Finite Volume Method

Multiphysics models

Benchmark

SU2

Open source

Finite Volume Method

Designed for compressible fluids

Adjoints equations

Nektar

Open source

Finite Element Method

High-order methods (DNS)

FEniCS

Open source

Finite Element Method

Variational formulation


Main Hypothesis

11

• Inviscid (2D Compressible Euler equations)

• Perfect Gas

• No phase change

• Single component


Geometry and boundary conditions

12

𝑇0291.30𝐾

𝑃0104071.61 𝑃𝑎

𝑃83049𝑃𝑎Slip

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑥 = 2.5 + 3𝑥

5− 1.5

𝑥

5

2

𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑥 ≤ 5

𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑥 = 3.5 −𝑥

56 − 4.5

𝑥

5+

𝑥

5

2

𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑥 > 5

Arina R., Numerical simulation of near-critical fluids, Applied Numerical Mathematics, Volume 51, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 409-426, ISSN 0168-9274,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2004.06.002.


Mesh

13

12600 elements

Results compared at the center line of the geometry (y=0)


Comparison - Density [𝑘𝑔/𝑚3]

14

0,45

0,55

0,65

0,75

0,85

0,95

1,05

1,15

1,25

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0

Fluent Nektar FEniCS SU2


Comparison - Density [𝑘𝑔/𝑚3]- (zoom)

15

0,45

0,55

0,65

0,75

0,85

0,95

1,05

6,85 6,90 6,95 7,00 7,05 7,10 7,15



Comparison –Stagnation Temperature [𝑲]

16

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 8,0 9,0 10,0



Comparison –Stagnation Temperature [𝑲]

17

0.96%

1.59%

1.83%

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

6,60 6,70 6,80 6,90 7,00 7,10 7,20 7,30 7,40



Conclusion of comparison

18

• Shock position: – All numerical approaches predicted the shock near 7.0– Nektar predicted the shock upstream

• Total Temperature conservation:– FVM (Fluent and SU2) - no oscillations– FEM (Nektar and FEniCS) - oscillations near shock

• Cannot discard any of the computer programs (yet)– Can improve the results with some tuning (using different methods and

schemes)

• Still needs experimental tests to validate the solvers (for this particular case)


Outline

• Introduction


• Parametric Optimization (second throat)


19


CFD flow modeling

• Fluent

• Turbulence model: 𝑘𝜖 − 𝑅𝑁𝐺;

• Equation of state: Ideal gas;

• Main assumptions of the flow:

– Adiabatic flow;

– No chemical reactions;

– Gases flowing in equilibrium;

21


Second throat – Geometry definition

23

𝑦4 = 𝑦3 − 𝑦3 − 𝑦2 ∗ 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟ሻ𝑦3 = 𝑦𝐴𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑎(𝑥

Mach number field in 6.4-0.4 geometry

Geometry code: 𝑥 - 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟


Second throat – Static temperature

24

220

230

240

250

260

270

280

290

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Stat

icte

mp

erat

ure

(K)

Position (LU)

Static temperature along axis

6.4-0.2

6.4-0.4

6.4-0.6

6.4-0.8

Arina


Second throat – Total pressure

25

97000

98000

99000

100000

101000

102000

103000

104000

105000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Tota

l Pre

ssu

re(P

a)

Position (LU)

Total pressure along axis

6.4-0.2

6.4-0.4

6.4-0.6

6.4-0.8

Arina


Outline

• Introduction




26


CH4 as an Ideal Gas: Stagnation properties

27

Stagnation pressure [Pa]

Stagnation temperature [K]

RESEARCH CENTRE FOR GAS INNOVATION 28

CH4 as an ideal gas: Temperaturedistribution [Celsius]

RESEARCH CENTRE FOR GAS INNOVATION 29

CH4 as an ideal gas: Pressure distributionat several Optimization Cycles

Method: Hicks-Henne bump functions


Next Steps

• Use different computer codes: OpenFOAM, Comsol, CFD++

• Study the influence of the collector

• Study Turbulence models

• Study shape optimization

• Study real gas effects

• Implement topology optimization


Next Steps

• Use different computer codes: OpenFOAM, Comsol, CFD++

• Study the influence of the collector

• Study Turbulence models

• Improve shape optimization

• Study real gas effects

• Implement topology optimization

THANK YOU

project 39 - development of gas supersonic …

Documents