Computational Analyses in Support of Sub-Scale Diffuser Testing for the A-3 Facility. Part 1: Steady Predictions

Abstract

Simulation technology can play an important role in rocket engine test facility design and development by assessing risks, providing analysis of dynamic pressure and thermal loads, identifying failure modes and predicting anomalous behavior of critical systems. Advanced numerical tools assume greater significance in supporting testing and design of high altitude testing facilities and plume induced testing environments of high thrust engines because of the greater inter-dependence and synergy in the functioning of the different sub-systems. This is especially true for facilities such as the proposed A-3 facility at NASA SSC because of a challenging operating envelope linked to variable throttle conditions at relatively low chamber pressures. Facility designs in this case will require a complex network of diffuser ducts, steam ejector trains, fast operating valves, cooling water systems and flow diverters that need to be characterized for steady state performance. In this paper, we will demonstrate with the use of CFD analyses’s advanced capability to evaluate supersonic diffuser and steam ejector performance in a sub-scale A-3 facility at NASA Stennis Space Center (SSC) where extensive testing was performed. Furthermore, the focus in this paper relates to modeling of critical sub-systems and components used in facilities such as the A-3 facility. The work here will address deficiencies in empirical models and current CFD analyses that are used for design of supersonic diffusers/turning vanes/ejectors as well as analyses for confined plumes and venting processes. The primary areas that will be addressed are: (1) supersonic diffuser performance including analyses of thermal loads (2) accurate shock capturing in the diffuser duct; (3) effect of turning duct on the performance of the facility (4) prediction of mass flow rates and performance classification for steam ejectors (5) comparisons with test data from sub-scale diffuser testing and assessment of confidence levels in CFD based flowpath modeling of the facility. The analyses tools used here expand on the multi-element unstructured CFD which has been tailored and validated for impingement dynamics of dry plumes, complex valve/feed systems, and high pressure propellant delivery systems used in engine and component test stands at NASA SSC. The analyses performed in the evaluation of the sub-scale diffuser facility explored several important factors that influence modeling and understanding of facility operation such as (a) importance of modeling the facility with Real Gas approximation, (b) approximating the cluster of steam ejector nozzles as a single annular nozzle, (c) existence of mixed subsonic/supersonic flow downstream of the turning duct, and (d) inadequacy of two-equation turbulence models in predicting the correct pressurization in the turning duct and expansion of the second stage steam ejectors. The procedure used for modeling the facility was as follows: (i) The engine, test cell and first stage ejectors were simulated with an axisymmetric approximation (ii) the turning duct, second stage ejectors and the piping downstream of the second stage ejectors were analyzed with a three-dimensional simulation utilizing a half-plane symmetry approximation. The solution i.e. primitive variables such as pressure, velocity components, temperature and turbulence quantities were passed from the first computational domain and specified as a supersonic boundary condition for the second simulation. (iii) The third domain comprised of the exit diffuser and the region in the vicinity of the facility (primary included to get the correct shock structure at the exit of the facility and entrainment characteristics). The first set of simulations comprising the engine, test cell and first stage ejectors was carried out both as a turbulent real gas calculation as well as a turbulent perfect gas calculation. A comparison for the two cases (Real Turbulent and Perfect gas turbulent) of the Mach Number distribution and temperature distributions are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively. The Mach Number distribution shows small yet distinct