Modeling of a 7-elements GOX/GCH4 combustion chamber using RANS with Eddy-Dissipation Concept model

An efficient modeling framework for wall heat flux prediction in rocket combustion chambers using non adiabatic flamelets and wall-functions

“…The latter, however, is not expected to have such an influence to justify the considerable differences with the experiments observed in Fig. 4(a), as also stated in [41]. Different laws for ν t,w could indeed be tested in order to obtain better results; while interesting, a similar analysis would be beyond the purpose of the present analysis.…”

“…All the simulations employ the frozen combustion model and the standard k − as turbulence model. the considered thermodynamic conditions [30,41].…”

“…Fig. 19 were derived from the corresponding time-averaged circumferential variation err θ of the wall heat flux reported in Zips et al [31] and defined as err θ = q θ − q avg q avg (41) being q θ the time-averaged wall heat flux at the considered azimuthal position θ (centerline or corner) and q avg the mean profile plotted in Fig. 18.…”

“…Numerical simulations based on non-adiabatic tabulated approaches (such as the flamelet model [37]) and wall functions for wall heat flux predictions, in particular, showed good results compared to the available experimental data, although a large scatter of the calculated wall heat flux was observed depending on the employed numerical setting. Moreover, despite efforts in investigating the effect of the frozen or equilibrium chemistry assumption on the ensuing wall heat flux [38,39,40] and of different turbulence [30,41] and turbulence-chemistry interaction [32] turbulent quantities is also assessed, given their impact on the selected models. Section 5 presents the test case chosen for the validation of the proposed numerical framework and results of the 2D and 3D URANS wall modeled simulations of the selected test case: differences between the wall heat fluxes obtained with the tested models are presented and discussed.…”

Delayed Detached Eddy Simulations with Tabulated Chemistry for Thermal Loads Predictions

“…It was possible to further investigate injector-injector interactions by means of a second chamber, consisting of seven coaxial injectors [21]. The literature shows that a wide variety of combustion models coupled with RANS [22][23][24][25][26][27] and LES [28] could deliver reasonable results in terms of wall heat flux prediction. Nevertheless the overall trend shows that the quality of the prediction of wall heat flux and axial pressure distribution depends on the interaction between three models: the (subgrid) turbulence model [15], the chemical reaction mechanism, and the turbulence-chemistry interaction model [12,28].…”