AIA A-94-2768

CFD ANALYSIS OF A RESEARCH GAS

TURBINE COMBUSTOR PRIMARY ZONE

E.J. Fuller and C.E. Smith

CFD Research Corporation
Huntsville, AL

30th AIANAS ME/SA WAS EE Joint

Propulsion Conference
June 27-29, 1994 / Indianapolis, IN
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024
 CFD ANALYSIS OF A RESEARCH GAS
TURBINE COMBUSTOR PRIMARY ZONE
E.J. Fuller'
ard
C.E. Smith"
CFD Reseatch Corporation
Huntsville, AL
Abstract
3-D, curvilinear, multi-block CFD modeling is a
valuable tool in gas turbine combustor design. One of
the most imponant, but often neglected, aspects of
c o m b u s t o r modeling is boundary condition
specification. This paper focuses on the critical
treatment of fuel nozzle/swirler boundary conditions and
fuel spray specification. An ambicnt-pressure research
combustor, using an advanced dual-spray airblast fuel
nozzle, was analyzed at three flow conditions
rcprescnting full power, idle, and start-up. Nozzle
boundary conditions for the 3-D simulations wcre
determined using 2-D multi-block CFD analysis of the
internal fuel nozzle passages. Verification of the 2-D
fuel nozzle modeling methodology was achieved
through a comparison of predicted and measured nozzle
exit velocitics and spray trajcctories, and good
engineering agreement found. 3 - D combustor
simulations were then performed and the results were
qualitatively compared to experimental long-exposure
- flame photographs. Computed flame patterns showed
good overall agreement with the flame photographs,
thus providing confidence in the overall C F D
combustor modeling approach.
Nomenclature
P - pressure
x - axial distance
r - radialdistance
u - axial velocity
V - radial velocity
w - tangcntial velocity
0 - equivalencentio
* Project Engineer
Member AIAA
**
Vice Presidenfingineering
Mcmbcr AIAA
1
C o p y r i g h t 0 1994 by t h e American Institutc of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved
Development of new gas turbine combustor
designs is a formidable and costly task, typically
requiring years of testing to meet desired goals. The
principal reason for high burner development costs is
the complexity and lack of understanding of the flow
patterns a n d physical mechanisms in advanced
combustors, especially the combustor primary zone.
Airflow enters the primary zone through many different
types of openings, e.g. fuel nozzles, dome swirlers,
cooling slots, and primary holes. Liquid hydrocarbon
fuel (c.g. JP8) is typically introduced into the primary
zone through airblast or piloted airblast fuel nozzles.
As atomization occurs, the fuel is broken into a wide
range of drop sizes followed by evaporation into
gaseous fuel(s), and reaction with air through a series of
complex chemical reactions.
An advanced annular high-temperature rise
combustor design is shown in Fig. 1 . This combustor
design attempts to increase turndown fuel-air ratio
without the complexity of air staging (e.g. variable
geometry) or fuel staging (e.g. double annular
cornbustor). Instead of treating the primary zone as one
lumped zone, the two recirculation zones in the
combustor primary zone are treated as two independent
and separately fueled reaction zones. A Central
Recirculation Zone (CRZ) is created along each nozzle's
centerline, and Dome Recirculation Zones (DRZ) are
caused by the sudden expansion of the nozzle airflow
discharging into the combustor. The intent of this
design is to control the fuel-air distribution in each
reaction zone to increase turndown fuel-air ratio
compared to conventional design.

Combustor designers havc realized that CFD
analysis hclps to rcduce many of the costs associatcd
with burner dcvclopmenr by providing improved
-_ undcrstanding, and can be uscd to scrccn candidatc
designs in a qualitative manner. O n c of the most
important aspccts in C F D combustor modcling is
boundary condition specification. Fuel nozzlc/swirlcr
boundary conditions arc vcry difficult to spccify. The
fucl nozzlc/swirlcr has complex flow fcaturcs at its'
discharge planc, such as highly swirled airflow and a
wide rangc of fucl spray droplcts and vclocitics.
Rclativcly small changes in the nozzle/swirlcr design
h a v c becn shown to significantly changc thc
acrodynamic flow pattern in combustor primary zoncs.
Likcwisc, C F D simulations havc shown extreme
scnsitivity to fucl nozzle/swirler boundary condition
spccification.' To improvc our undcrsmnding of fucl
nozzlc/swirlcr boundary condition specification, this
paper focuses on a methodology to obtain bctrer CFD
analysis of combustor primary zones. This paper first
discusses the mcthodology of modcling the internal
passagcs of airblast-typc fucl nozzlcs. Comparison
bctwccn predictcd 2-Daxisymmctric CFD analysis and
cxpcrimcntal fucl nozzle measurements will be shown
to verify thc mcthodology. Ncxt, 3-D CFD analysis of
an ambicnt-pressure research combustor will be
presented at thrce distinctly different flow conditions.
Qualiwtivc comparisons of predictcd flamc pattcrns and
expcrimcntal photographs w i l l be prcscntcd.
-~
Euel Noz.rle AMIY&S
Thc specification of the fuel nozzle boundary
conditions, for the 3-D research combustor simulation,
were obtaincd using a scparatc 2-D axisymmctric C F D
analysis of thc internal passages of the dual-spray
airblast fucl nozzlc. To gain confidcncc in the nozzle
predictions, a validation fuel n o u l c case was performed
and comparcd to a documcnted airblast fucl nozzle
experiment.2
W e r i c a l Cadn
Numerical simulations wcrc pcrformcd using the
cornmcrcially available C F D code CFD-ACE. T h e
basic capabilitics/mcthodologics in CFD-ACE includc:
1. co-locatcd, fully implicit and strongly
conscrvativc finite volume formulation;
2. solution of two- and threc-dimensional
Navier-Stokcs equations for
incomprcssiblc and compressiblc flows;
2
~
3. non-orthogonal curvilinwr coordinatcs;
4. multi-block grid topology;
5. upwind, central (with damping), second
order upwind and Osher-Chakravarthy
differcncing scbemcs;
6. standard and extended K-E turbulence
models, the two-scale turbulence model2o.
and the low-Reynolds number K-E modci;
I. instantaneous, one-step, and four-step hcat
release combustion models and a post-
processed prescribed pdf Zeldovich NO,
model:
8. modificd form of Stone's strongly implicit
solver and conjugate gradient solver;
9. prcssurc-bascd solution algorithms
including SIMPLE and a variant of
SIMF'LEC;
10 Lagrangian spray tracking and vaporization
with turbulent-dispersion model; and
I1 conjugatc hcat transfer including radiation.
CFD-ACE has undergone a considerable amount
of sysrematic quantitative validation for both
incompressible and compressible flows.
of FII&JQE&
. .
VabWmn&u&
To verify our 2-D CFD fuel nozzle methodology,
a validation fuel nozzle case was performed. McVey,
et. al.7- performed and documented a series of
experiments directed at gathering information on the
operation of large-scale airblast fuel nozzles under
isothermal conditions. Their intent was to closely
simulatc thc flow bchavior in a combustor in which a
strong interaction of a swirling airstream with liquid
spray occurs. Thrce instrumentation tcchniques were
cmploycd in the study: a high-resolution patternator to
cstablish the spray mass flux distribution; a single-
component phase-Doppler particlc analyzer (PDPA) to
determine the spatial distribution of mean droplet size as
well as axial components of velocity of both phases;
and a two-component laser-Doppler velocimeter (LDV)
for documenting thc three components of gas flow
vclocity in the absence of spray.
The cxperimcntal configuration, shown
schcmatically in Fig. 2, contains inner and outcr co-
rotating air swirlers. The vane angles of the outer and
inner air swirlers wcrc 40' and 45",respectively. All
testing was performed under unconfined, atmospheric
prcssurc conditions at ambient temperature, and water
was uscd as thc injcctant. The air-side pressure drop
 was sclcctcd to prtxlucc an air vclocity typical of cngine
full power conditions, and the injcctant flow was choscn
to prcscrvc thc liquid-to-gas momcntiim ratio. Tablc 1
-. prcscnts thc rclevant test conditions. Rcfcrcnce 2
rcportcd spray droplct s i x s ranging from 10 to 300
microns, with a SMD of 76 microns a t thc first axial
mcasurcmcnt station of x = 2.840 cm.
A 2 - D axisymmctric, multi-block grid of the
cxpcrimcntal configuration was gcncratcd with exactly
10,000 cells (Fig. 3). Total prcssurc boundary
conditions wilh flow anglcs cqual to the vane angles
wcrc spccificd at thc trailing cdgcs o l thc air-swirl
vancs. T h c ovcrall pressure drop across thc fuel nomle
was ninc pcrccnt, hut a two percent pressurc drop was
assumed across the vanes. The two pcrccnt was
determined from a straight vane prcssurc loss corrclation
of Rcfcrcncc 3. T w o numcrical simulations wcrc
pcrformcd, the first being an air-only simulation and thc
sccond with watcr injcction.
In thc numerical watcr injection casc, a Rosin-
Raminlcr droplct distribution was irscd with 1 1 sizcs
ranging from 10 to 300 microns. Thc SMD was
spccificd to hc 76 microns. Water droplcts wcrc
introduced into the flowficld at the radial and axial
location of thc fucl slot cxit, (Fig. 4). Thc droplcts
wcrc inscrtcd a t thrcc different axial locations: leading
-~ cdgc, middlc, and trailing cdgc of fucl slot. Note that
the intcrnal fucl flow passage was not modclcd. The
initial vclocitics of the droplets wcrc paramcuically
varied, as discussed in thc following scction, to
asccrtain thc clfccts of thc initial conditions on thc
spray uajcctories.
leal Detorls
T h c numcrical details of thc 2-D nozzlc
calculations arc:
1. wholc-ficld solution of u-momentum, v-
momcntum, prcssurc corrcction, turbulcnt
kinctic cncrgy k, and dissipation ratc 6
2. upwind diflercncing for all variablcs;
3. standard k-& modcl with wall functions;
and
4. turbulcnt Prandtl number of 0.9.
Fuel Nozzle Val-
. .
Rcsultq from thc "air-only'' casc arc illustratcd in
Fig. 5 and 6, which comparc the cxpcrimcntal and
numcrical prcdictcd axial and tangcntial vclocitics,
.
respectively. Comparisons arc madc close to the nozzlc
cxit planc (x = 0.114 cm), and two downstream
stations, (x = 1.270 cm and 2.540 cm). At the nozzlc
exit plane, the existence of a central vortex corc region
of low axial velocity can be secn in both the
cxperimcntal and numcrical rcsults. Howevcr, the
calculation did not prcdict as low a vclocity on the
nozzle centerline. Both the numerical and expcrimcntal
results show a distinct axial vclocity shouldcr at r =
11.0 cm, thc exit radius of the nozzle. Thc numerical
rcsults can he seen to over-prcdict the peak axial
vclocity by approximately 10%. At suhscqucnt
downstream stations, overall good agrcement bctwccn
Ihc expcrimcntal and computational rcsults can be seen.
In both cases, the central core can be obscrvcd to slowly
sprcad radially outward with the numerical rcsults
sprcading slightly faster. The computations continue to
slightly over-predict the peak velocities by ncarly 10%.
CFD-ACE did prcdict the ncgativc axial velocity rcgion
along the ccnterline found at thc second axial station in
the experiments. Integration of the computationally
prcdicted axial velocity curve gives a massflow rate or
0.0267 kgis, whcreas McVcy's intcgration of his axial
vclocity curves yicldcd a massflow rate of 0.028 kg/s.
The numerical over-prcdiction of nearly eight percent
indicated that perhaps fhc swirl vane losscs were grcatcr
than the estimates made using Reference 3.
The anti-symmetric tangential vclocity pattern,
seen in Fig. 6, is thc expected profile for axisymmetric
swirling flow. At the nozzle exit plane, the
experimcntal rcsults show a very stecp vclocity gradicnt
in the vortex core, a double peaked smcture in the high
vclocity region, and an apparcnt swirl reversal in rhc
outer low-velocity region. As was thc case for thc axial
velocity predictions, the computations compared well in
thc overall shape of the expcrimcntal curve. Thc
computations did not predict as steep a velocity gradicnt
as found in the experiments, nor the swirl reversal found
in the outer low-velocity region. At the latcr
d o w n s t r c a m stations, t h e computations and
experimcntal rcsults gcnerally agree in shape and
magnitude, however the expcriments continue to show a
stccpcr velocity gradient than thc numcrical prcdictions.
Ovcrall, the comparisons between thc computations 'and
experiments wcre good in an engineering scnsc.
Comparison of predicted and measured spray
rcsults arc shown in Fig. 7. Experimental points, in
Fig. 7, depict thc Sautcr mcan droplct rizc at each radial
mcasurcmcnt station. The largcr d r o p l e ~arc
~ ccnuirugcd
 to the pcriphcry of the spray in both the prediction and
measurements. McVcy's results indicate that droplets
on the ofdcr 01 10-10-40 microns tend to stay in the
inrcrior of the flow for all axial stations, with larger
droplets being slung to the outer flow rcgions. The
spccification of the initial vclocitics of the spray
droplets is very difficult to dcterminc. In an airblast
fucl nozzle, fuel is supplied at low pressure ( i s . low
velocity) to a filming surface whcrc the shearing action
of a high velocity swirling airstream acts to atomizc the
fuel. Thc. liquid film is broken into ligaments and then
into many sizes of droplcts. Droplct-droplet interaction
has bccn found to be important in the initial breakage
region where coalescence as well as secondary
atomization occurs. Without a spray breakup model, it
is not possible to capturc these effects. From an
engineering pcrspcclivc, thc modclcr can only specify
total mass-flow, drop sizes, and initial vclocitics.
Atomization modcling is an area ofnecdcd rcscarch.
To assess the effect of initial droplet velocity,
three numcrical cases were performed in which the
initial velocities of the spray droplets set to be: 1) equal
to the local air velocity (Case I), 2) cqual to 1/2 the
local air velocity (Case 2), and 3) cqual to 114 the local
air velocity (Case 3). A l l fuel droplets were rcleascd
into the flow at the fuel passage exit (Fig. 4), at
idcntical velocities. Fig. 7 illustrates the effects of the
droplet initial conditions. As was the case for thc
experiments, the larger droplets wcre centrifuged farther
outward than the smaller droplets. The numerical
simulations show that the droplcls arc slung farther into
the periphery as the droplet initial velocity incrcascs.
Initial vclocity effects can be sccn to become morc
significant further downstream. At thc axial plane of x
= 2.54 cm, there is approximately a 20% diffcrencc in
radial location between Casc 1 and 3, whereas nearly a
70% difference in radial locations is found at thc last
axial station of x = 5.08 cm. The numerical
simulations show a ncarly hyperbolic distribution
which does not accuratcly reflect the "bucket" found in
the cxperimcntal results. Expcrimcntally, the proccss
o f liquid film to ligaments to droplets would create non-
uniformity of droplet initial velocities and the data from
Reference 2 suggests that the initial droplet velocities
differ significantly For droplets less than approximately
50 microns, than those greatcr than 50 microns. From
the numerical simulations performed, the best initial
conditions for the spray was found to be Casc 3 in
which the droplcts wcrc injcctcd at 1/4 thc local air
velocity.
4
n of the V A l r b l a s t Fuel
iwLiik
A schematic of the dual-spray fuel nozzle
concept4 is prescnted in Fig. 8. The dual-spray airblast
atomizer consists of two fuel passages (designated pilot
and main) and three air passages (designated inner, mid,
and outer). Pilot fuel is discharged between the inncr
and mid airstreams, while main fuel is discharged
bctwecn the mid and outer airstreams. The high
velocity airstreams shcar and atomize the liquid shects
into a fine mist. The airstreams arc swirlcd by curvcd
axial vanes, and all streams are co-rotating. Such a fuel
nozzle is designed to pass all of thc dome airflow except
cooling flow, and providcs improved atomization at low
fucl flows and low air pressure drops compared to a
conventional airblast atomizers. The C R Z of the
research combustor, maintained at an equivalence ratio
near 1.0, is fueled by the pilot atomizer, and used for
combustion stability. The main atomizer fuels the
DRZ.
The multi-block feature of CFD-ACE was used
to model the complcx intcrnal airflow passages of the
dual-spray nozzle (Fig. 9). T h e calculation domain
started just downstream of the swirl vanes in each air
passage, and extended into a dump combustor. Air AP's
at ambient conditions of 3%, representing full powcr
and idle, and 0.36, representing light-off conditions,
were numerically simulated. The total pressure and
flow direction were specified at each airflow inlet, and a
loss coefficient was assumed using Reference 3 to
account for the swirl vane pressure loss. The inner and
mid air passages each contained a 45" swirler and thc
outer air passage containcd a 60" swirler.
w o r a v N- and Discussion
Fig. 10 presents the streamline pattern of the
dual-spray nozzle at full powcr conditions dctcrmincd
from a 2-D axisymmetric analysis. One can see a
Central Recirculation Zone (CRZ) and a Dome
Recirculation Zonc (DRZ) created by the fuel nozzle.
From the CFD analysis, thc nozzle ACd was dctcrmined
to bc 0.085 in2, which compared very well with the
expcrimcntally measured value of 0.086 in'.
Expcrimen(ally, a single-component Acrometrics
Phase Dopplcr Particle Analyzcr (PDPA) was used to
dctcrminc an area-averaged S M D of the spray 2.54 cm
downstream of the nozzle cxit. The area-avcngcd SMD
or the nozzlc configuration was determined to be:
 Air

Air

Figure 1. Fuel and Airflow Patterns in Advanced High Temperature RISE Combustor Primary
Zone

10
 thc thrce-nozzlc start-up condition cxpcriments. A
singlc large ycllow flamc can bc seen at each fucl nozzlc
location, indicating vcry rich combustion, and no DRZ
- tlamc is visiblc. Distinct "licks" of flames can be
obscrvcd on thc flamc fringcs illustrating the time
dcpcndcnt naturc of thc problcm. Figurc 16 shows thc
results from the thrce-nozzle simulated idle condition.
The whitish color of the CRZ flame dcmonstratcs that
slightly rich combustion is taking placc in this rcgion.
Surrounding cach of the CRZ flames is a halo of blue
flame indicating that lcan combustion is taking placc in
thc DRZ's.
Grid GeucaLim
A grid gcneration packagc called ICEM-CFD5,G
was uscd to gcncratc the 3-D single-block grid of the
rcsearch combustor. ICEM-CFD couples thc Computcr
Aidcd Dcsign (CAD) tool of ICEM DDN to an
algebraic volume mcsh generation system, ICEM
MULCAD and ICEM Padamm. A singlc-nozzle sector
grid, starting at the fucl nozzle exit plane was gcneratcd
with approximatcly 80,000 cells (Fig. 17). Thc grid
was heavily conccntratcd in the primary zone region.
Since thc tlow-field is rcctangular in shape, thc multi-
block capabilitics of CFD-ACE wcrc not ncccssary.
Cyclic boundaries on the plancs bctwecn nozzles were
specifid. Thc fucl nozzlc cxit was modclcd to thc cxact
geomctric dimcnsion, and thc diameter of thc primary
holcs were calculated from the known massflow and an
_,
assumed ACd of 0.8. With thc fully Body Fitted
Coordinate (BFC) gridding technique used, skewed cells
are created in the "corncrs" of thc circles uscd to
rcpresent the fucl nozzle and primary holcs. Howevcr,
axially downstrcam of the dome face, the grid cclls
hecamc progrcssivcly morc cartcsian thus eliminating
the cell skcwncss. 100 cclls were uscd to modcl the
nozzlc cxit and 9 cclls were used to modcl cach primary
holc. In ordcr to model the liner cooling slots, grid
lines werc placcd such that thc outer boundaries of the
louvcrs wcre modeled. Cells inside the louver outcr
boundarics were blocked to thc flow, essentially wasting
approximatcly 3000 cclls.
*
and Roundarv(.ondltlons ..
Thc numcrical dctails of lhc 3-D combustor rig
calculations arc:
1. wholc-ficld solution of u-momentum, v-
momcntum, w-momentum, pressure
corrcclion, turbulcnt kinetic cncrgy k ,
6
dissipation rate E , total enthalpy, and
mixture fraction:
2. upwind differencing for all variables;
3. variable fluid properties;
4. adiabatic walls:
5. standard k-E model with wall functions;
6. turbulent Prandtl number of 0.9;
7. onc-stcp reaction kinetics modcl of
Wcstbrook and Dryer; and
8. solution of spray trajectories and
vaporization.
3-D numcrical reacting simulations wcrc
performed for the simulated full power, simulated idlc,
and start-up conditions. Boundary conditions for thc
primary holes were determined by the air pressurc drop
across the liners, rcsulting in a jet velocity of
approximatcly 72 m/s at full powcr and idlc, and 22.9
m/s a t start-up conditions. Cooling slot initial
vclocitics were calculated from the measured liner
pressure drop and effective flow areas, yielding an
upstream cooling slot vclocity of 23.2 mls, and a
downsueam cooling slot velocity of 9.2 mls for the full
power and idle simulations. For the start-up conditions,
thc downstream and upsueam cooling slot vclocitics
wcrc detcrmined to b e 2.9 m/s and 7.3 mls,
rcspcctivcly. As previously discussed, thc initial
conditions for the fuel nozzle were taken from 2-D fuel
nozzle C F D simulations. In the full power simulation,
the primary and main fuel droplet initial sizes ranged
from 15 to 60 microns with an SMD of 30 microns.
Primary fuel SMD was set to be 30 microns in the idlc
simulation, and 45 microns in the start-up numerical
computation. Results of the 2-D analysis were uscd to
determinc thc radial location a t which the spray exited
the fuel nozzle. Analysis of the 2-D dud-spray nozzle
simulation showed that a no-slip condition between the
droplets and air existed a t the nozzle exit. Thcreforc,
spray droplets were given initial velocities equal to the
local air velocities.
and Dlscu~slon
Fig. 18-20 present the velocity results along thc
plane through the nozzle ccntcrlinc for the full powcr,
idlc powcr and star-up conditions, respcctivcly. The
prcdictcd CRZ's for the full powcr and idle conditions
arc vcry similar in size and shapc. The airflow from thc
primary jets can be seen to penetrate fully across the
combustor, impinging on the opposite lincr. Very
little primary air penetrates upstream into thc primary
zone. Duc to increascd fucl and heat release in thc domc
 rccirculation zoncs, thc DRZ's in the full powcr
simulation are largcr than in the idlc casc. Results from
thc start-up simulation show that the primary air jcts
-. penctratc lcss across thc combustor than idlc or full
powcr cascs. Thus, for thc start-up casc, thc primary jct
airflow is turncd downstrcam to impinge on tlic
opposite lincr at a furthcr disoncc from the dome facc.
Again, no primary air is found to pcnctratc upsueam
into the primary zonc.
Fig. 21-21 prcscnt contours of thc vaporized
(gascous) cquivalcncc ratios for each of thc numerical
simulations. In thc full power simulation (Fig. 21),
the main fuel can bc sccn to penetrate into the DRZ's,
and thc primary fucl into the CRZ. The exucmcly fucl-
rich regions in thc combustor arc, of course, undcsirablc
a t actual cngine full powcr conditions. In this
simulation, thc cxtrcmcly rich rcgions arc an artifact of
thc ambient temperature flow conditions. Notc that thc
cquivalcncc ratio is Icss than onc (fucl-lean) downstream
of the primary zonc. Fig. 22 prcscnts thc cquivalcnce
ratio results from thc idlc computation. As was
observed in the cxperimenu, little-to-no fucl is found
bctwccn thc fucl nozzlcs. Thc nozzlc centcrlinc planc,
Fig. 22c, again shows that fuel-lean conditions exist
downstrcam of thc primary jcts, with a vcry rich CRZ,
and small pockets of fucl in the dome recirculation
zoncs. RCSUIL?from thc start-up simulation, (Fig. 2 3 ,
shows a vcry largc and fucl-rich CRZ which actually
cxtends to thc lincr walls by an axial location of 2.8
cm. With the low pressure drop of the start-up
condition, thc CRZ dominates thc flow-ficld causing thc
D R Z s to be quite small in size. Equivalcncc ratios
along thc nozzlc centcrline, Fig. 23c, dcmonstratcs that
littlc fucl from the pilot enters the DRZ's. Fuel
droplets werc not able to pcnctratc across the mid-
passagc air and outcr-passage air before complete
evaporation. Thc large C R Z found in the numcrical
simulation matchcs wcll with thc visual observations of
the start-up experiments.
To qualitatively compare computed results with
llamc photographs, a simple dircct volume rcndcring
rncthodology was devclopcd to gcncratc flame picturcs
from thc numerical calculations. A commercially
availablc flow visualization package callcd CFD-VIEW
was uscd to dcmonsuatc the mcthodology.
Volumc rcndcring is thc technique of visualizing
volumcs. rather than surfaccs. Thc benefit of volumc
I
rendering is that a more complete overvicw of a
particular model is generatcd, since all of the data
contribute to the picture, rathcr than just those cclls
which arc intersected by some surface. To do this, the
data values in cach cell have to be mapped to an
opacity, as wcll as to a color. There are two major
types of volume rendering: raycasting7.8, and direct
volume rcndcring9-'*, Raycasting a volume entails
generating a light ray through the volume, and is
typically slow for this type application. Direct volume
rcndcring works by traversing the grid, and rendering a
littlc polygon in cach grid cell. It takes advantage of
the fact that most current graphics workstations
incorporate Gourand shading with interpolation of
alpha, in addition to red, grccn, and bluc.
CFD-VIEW allows mapping of scalar data values
to color as well as opacity. Hence, a limited form of
direct volume rcndcring is possible, by stacking a
number of planes through the grid, and drawing these
planes in the back-to-front order. Due to thc namrc of
digital compositing, however, f u l l 24 bit color
rcsolution is required to prevent loss of accuracy. An
extension currently being contcmplated for CFDVIEW,
is a marc accuratc direct volume rendering method:
entailing both more freedom in the viewing angles, a s
wcll as morc faithful mapping and compositing of the
data. One of the as yet unresolvcd issucs is that of thc
rendering order12.13.
Flame color was determined from the local
stoichiomcuy in cach cell. As a prcliminary model, the
following colors were assumed:
for 0.6 < @ < 1.0 (lean combustion), flame color
is a shade of blue due to the OH species emitting
radiation in thc low wavelcngth visible spectra:
for 1.0 < 0 < 1.5 (rich combustion), flame color
is near white from fucl minor spccies radiation at
high temperature; and
for 1.5 < 0 < 3.0 (vcry rich combustion), flamc
color is a shade of yellow duc to soot radiation.
Thc results in this paper should be considered
prcliminary, in that morc effort is nceded to improve thc
volume rendcring as well as to improve thc flamc color
model (e& include other effects besides equivalencc
ratio).
 I3a.m V-si
. .
Fig. 21-26 presents computcd flame pattcrns
generatcd from the CFD calculations. Fig. 24 presents
_<,
thc simulatcd full power condition from two diffcrcnt
anglcs. Evcn with the crudcness of the flamc
visualization proccdurc, one can see stiking similarities
bctwccn thc numcrical simulation and the experimcntal
photographs of Figurc 4. The computations show a
ball of flamc in the CRZ, and flames in thc DRZ on the
top and bottom walls. The side view picture of thc
numerical full-power case is also similar to the
cxperimcntal rcsults, in that one can obscrvc thc balls
of ycllow flame in thc CRZ and DRZ's indicating fucl
rich combustion. Note that in thc numerical prediction,
thc CRZ flame does not extcnd as far downstrcam as
obscrvcd in the cxperimcntal photographs.
Fig. 26 shows the numcrical flame rcsults for the
idlc simulation. In both cases, a large ball of nearly
whilc flame is ohservcd in the CRZ, indicating fucl-rich
combustion. Thc C R Z flamc is surrounded by blue
flamcs on the top and bottom walls, indicating fuel-lean
combustion in thcsc regions. No flamc is obscrvcd
betwecn thc fucl nozzles in both the numerical
prcdictions and expcrimcntal results, confirming thc
apparcnt lack of fucl pcnctration bctwcen fuel nozzles.
Fig. 25 presents the numcrical flame photographs for
the start-up conditions and can be compared to the
cxpcrimcntal results shown in Figurc 15. A single
large ball of ycllow flame can be seen in the
computational predictions, indicating vcry fuel-rich
combustion, and high Icvels of soot formation. Unlike
the experimental photograph, which is a timc instant
visualization o f the flame, thc numerical results arc a
timc averaged (stcady state) rcsult, thus no "licks" of
flame are found due to the timc averaging. From the
thrcc cnginc condition simulations, ovcrall flame
structures werc found to compare well with
expcrimcntal photognphs.
3-D, curvilinear, singlc-block CFD simulations
havc bccn pcrformed on a rcscarch combustor primary
zone at thrcc diffcrcnt flow conditions. The critical
spccification of iucl nozzle boundary conditions was
dctcrmincd using scparate 2-D, multi-block, C F D
analysis of the internal passagcs of the fucl nozzle.
Distinctly diffcrcnt flamc pattcrns could bc qualiratively
capturcd in thc CFD analysis, providing improvcd
8
d
understanding of the physical flow features in the
combustor primary zone.
The study prescnted in this papcr showed
1. 2-D axisymmevic analysis of a fuel nozzle
can be used to specify the initial boundary
conditions in a 3-D numerical combustor
simulation.
2. In the 2-D axisymmetric fucl nozzle
analysis, the assumption of initial droplet
velocities equal to 1/4 the local air
velocity was found to be a fairly good
assumption, yielding reasonable spray
droplet paths. However, advances in the
accurate modeling o f the air-fuel
interactions a t the filming lip in an
airblast fuel nozzle are ncccssary to bettcr
prcdict the spray droplet uajectorics.
3. Flame visualization, using just the local
equivalence ratio, was found to give good
qualitative agrecmcnt betwecn numcrical
simulations and experimental results.
Such techniques could b e used by engine
designers as a means of non-intrusively
visualizing the internal flow characteristics
of gas turbine combustors.
4. An overall CFD combustor methodology
for the prediction of primary zone
performance has been qualitatively
validated.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the NASA
Lewis Research Center for funding p a n of this work
under SBIR Contract Number NAS3-26616. T h e
contract monitor is Ms. Yolanda Hicks. Our thanks arc
also cxtendcd lo Mr. Lee Mekkes and Mr. Joel Sheldon,
of Dclavan Inc., for their valuable assistance during thc
fuel nozzlc design and experiments. The authors would
likc to cxprcss their appreciation to the US. Army
Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, U.S. Army
Aviation and Troop Command, Fort Eustis, Virginia
for their funding of the fuel nozzlc development under
Contract DAAJ02-92-C-0031, and to Mr. Gary Butlcr,
Army Technical Monitor. Many thanks are exprcsscd
to Dr. Jcroen Van Der Zijp o f CFDRC for his
 assistance in thc numcrical flamc visualization efforts, 12. Williams, P.L., "Visibility Ordering Mcshcd
and to Ms. Mami Kent for her accuratc preparation of Polyhedra," ACM Trans. on Graphics, Val. 11,
the typescript. No. 2, pp. 103-126, April 1992.
- 13. Williams, P.L., "Issues in Inreractivc Direct
References Projection Volume Rendering of Nonrcctilincar
Meshed Data Sets," Center for Supcrcomputing
1. Fuller, E.J. and Smith, C.E., "Integratcd CFD Research and Devclopment, Report No. 1059,
Modcling of Gas Turbinc Combustors," AIAA- University ol Illinois at Urbana, Dec. 1990.
93-2196, AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 29th Joint
Propulsion Confcrcnce, Junc 1993.
2. McVey, J.B, Kennedy, J.B., and Russell, S.,
"Application of Advanced Diagnostics to Airblast
Injcctor Flows," Journal of Engineering for Gas
Turbincs and Power, Vol. 111, January 1989,
pp. 53-62.
3. Lafebvre, A.H, Gas Turbine Combustion,
Hcmispherc Publishing C o p , NY, 1983. Tablc 1. McVey2 Test Conditions
4. Smith, C.E., Fuller, E.J., Crockcr, D.S., "Dual-
Spray Airblast Fucl Nozzle for Advanced Small
Gas Turbine Combustors," AIAA-93-2336, Injcctant Flow Rate 71.4 kg/h
AIAAISAEIASMEIASEE 29th Joint Propulsion Swirlcr Pressure Drop 70 mm Hg
Confcrcnce, June 1993. Droplet Size Range 10-300ym
5. lCEM Product Specification, Control Data, Characteristic Wocity 125 m/s
1991.
6. Bcrtin, D., Lordon, J. and Moreaux, V., "A New
Automatic Grid Gcneration Environmcnt for
CFD Applications," Aerospariale, 1992.
7. Lcvoy, M., "Display of Surfaces from Voluinc
Data," IEEE Computcr Graphics and
Applications, Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 29-37,
May 1988. Table 2. Research Combustor Test Conditions
8. Schlusselberg, D.S., and Smith, W.K., "Thrcc-
Dimensional Display of Mcdical Image
Volumes," Proc. NCGA 86, Nail. Computer
Graphics Association Fairfax Virginia, Vol. 111,
pp. 114-123, May 1986.
I F ~ IPower
Idle
I I 12.5
9. Laur, D., and Hanrahan, P., "Hierarchical start-up 1.25 0
Splatting: A Progrcssive Refinement Algorithm
for Volume Rendering," Porc. Siggraph 1991,
Computer Graphics, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 285-
288, July 1991.
IO. Wcstovcr, L., "Footprint Evaluation for Volume
Rcndering," Computer Graphics, Vol. 24, No. 4,
pp. 367-376, August 1990.
11. Wilhclms, J., and van Gcldcr, A,, "A Coherent
Projection Approach for Direct Volume
Rcndcring," Proc. Siggraph 1991, Computcr
Graphics, Vol. 25, No. 4 , pp. 275-284,
July 1991.

9
 Air

Air

Figure 1. Fuel and Airflow Patterns in Advanced High Temperature RISE Combustor Primary
Zone

10
 a) ASSEMBLY

ALL

1 .o

Figure 2. Airblast Fuel Nozzle2

11
 t

--

Figure 3. McVey Fuel Nozzle Multi-Block Grid

Figure 4. McVey Fuel Nozzle Spray Trajectories

12
 100.0
(a)X - 0.1 an
tSO.0
(a.) X - 0.1 a n

80.0
-
ii-
100.0

60.0
-
2.
SO.0

J
.o.o
-0 0.0

z$ .SO.@
20.0 5
2
.100.0
0.0

.3.0 .2.0 .1.D 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 .1so.o

d.0 -2.0 .l.O 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

R.dl.1 Los.Llon (em) Radial Padtlon (cm)

(b.) X - 1.27 cm (b.) X - 1.27 cm

Radlmi Locallon (cm)

(C)X - 2.54 an
100.0

80.0

0.0

I
.3.0 -2.0 .?.O 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

Rd1.l Losdon (em)

Radld Locmli~n(em)

Figure 5. Axial Velocity Comparisons Figure 6. Tangential Velocity Comparisons

13
 (1.) X - 0.1 an

m
N

.6.0 .4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0

Radial PoaHlon (crn)

120.0
(c.) X - 2.54 cm
\i*0.5
* 0.25

/ * a .

100.0 _..............:................. 1.................;..............

......... j ................. I..............
.:.r.
.. ::
--mP
!. . j:. . .
2
P
,o.o _ .............. ................. ............ .......... .....................
j
:.

:
1
/
..__*

. / . .)
.
*
j
:
j
j

j
.
.......... ......... ..... ................
*
.
.
j
. :
j
j .
j

.j
. j

1 : .

). f
0.0
-8.0 -4.0 -2.0 0.0 2.0 4.0 0.0
Radial Position (cm)

Figure 7. Spray Radial Position Comparison

14
i

--
--t- I
m I
45'

-/ / /

Figure 8. Schematic of Dual-Spray Airblast Fuel Nozzle

Figure 9. Dud-Spray Nozzle Grid

15
 Figure 10. Dual-Spray Airblast Fuel Nozzle Streamlines

Figure 11. Dual-Spray Airblast Fuel Nozzle Spray Trajectories

16
 Downstream slots - 0.063 Dia.

-I----
I
2.50
--
f - -Nozzle Centerline

Upstream slots - 0.100 Dia.

10 holes/Nozzle
I
c-2 1
0.0625
0.125

Side View
All Cooling
Slots Similar

Figure 12a. Combustor Rig Side View

(all Dimensions in inches)

T
3.14
.I)------ o'
2
1.75 :
-T I

1.57

Nozzle Centerline

0.39
Upper Liner

Lower Liner-
0
Top View

Figure 12b. Combustor Rig Top View

17
.
 Fuel Nozzle

&Plenum

Plenum b
Figure 1 2 . Combustor Rig Schematic

Primary Holes
15.1%
I
I 1
Linermome Cooling Liner Cooling
13.8% 5.5%

NOE: 13.7% Available for

17.5% Downstream Liner
Cooting
15.1%

13.8% 5.5%
I I

Figure 13. Combustor Rig Airflow Splits

18
20
22
(b) x = 2.54 cm
24
25
Figure 24 (h). Simulated Full Power