Comparative Analysis of Total Pressure Measurement Techniques in Rotating Detonation Combustors

Hongyi Wei, Tim Kayser, E. Bach, C. O. Paschereit, Myles D. Bohon
{"title":"Comparative Analysis of Total Pressure Measurement Techniques in Rotating Detonation Combustors","authors":"Hongyi Wei, Tim Kayser, E. Bach, C. O. Paschereit, Myles D. Bohon","doi":"10.1115/1.4066049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Current total pressure measurement techniques in RDCs are based on different assumptions and therefore show different applicability for specific RDC operating conditions, and few studies have directly compared these techniques. Therefore, this study comprehensively tested three total pressure measurement techniques: the direct Kiel probe method, the Mach-corrected CTAP method, and the equivalent available pressure (EAP) method under different RDC geometries and mass flow rates, and compared them with their corresponding uncertainties considered. The results show that for all tests in this study, the EAP method shows the largest uncertainty range up to 24%, which is mainly contributed by the load cell calibration process, while the direct Kiel probe method has the lowest uncertainty range, which is consistently below 7%. These uncertainties were incorporated into the comparison between the three techniques via Gaussian process regression, showing that the direct Kiel probe method and the Mach-corrected CTAP method can present EAP-like total pressure. In particular, the total pressure of the SWCC and L modes measured by the three techniques is very comparable. This work shows that the comparability of total pressure techniques depends on the specific RDC environment, and provides the possibility to evaluate the RDC performance with the simplest implementation.","PeriodicalId":508252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4066049","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Current total pressure measurement techniques in RDCs are based on different assumptions and therefore show different applicability for specific RDC operating conditions, and few studies have directly compared these techniques. Therefore, this study comprehensively tested three total pressure measurement techniques: the direct Kiel probe method, the Mach-corrected CTAP method, and the equivalent available pressure (EAP) method under different RDC geometries and mass flow rates, and compared them with their corresponding uncertainties considered. The results show that for all tests in this study, the EAP method shows the largest uncertainty range up to 24%, which is mainly contributed by the load cell calibration process, while the direct Kiel probe method has the lowest uncertainty range, which is consistently below 7%. These uncertainties were incorporated into the comparison between the three techniques via Gaussian process regression, showing that the direct Kiel probe method and the Mach-corrected CTAP method can present EAP-like total pressure. In particular, the total pressure of the SWCC and L modes measured by the three techniques is very comparable. This work shows that the comparability of total pressure techniques depends on the specific RDC environment, and provides the possibility to evaluate the RDC performance with the simplest implementation.
旋转式爆燃燃烧器总压测量技术比较分析
目前的 RDC 总压测量技术基于不同的假设,因此在特定的 RDC 运行条件下显示出不同的适用性,很少有研究对这些技术进行直接比较。因此,本研究在不同的 RDC 几何结构和质量流量条件下全面测试了三种总压测量技术:直接基尔探头法、马赫校正 CTAP 法和等效可用压力 (EAP) 法,并在考虑了相应的不确定性后对它们进行了比较。结果表明,在本研究的所有测试中,EAP 方法的不确定性范围最大,可达 24%,这主要是由称重传感器校准过程造成的,而直接基尔探头方法的不确定性范围最小,始终低于 7%。通过高斯过程回归将这些不确定性纳入三种技术的比较中,结果表明直接基尔探头法和马赫校正 CTAP 法可以呈现类似 EAP 的总压。特别是,三种技术测量的 SWCC 和 L 模式的总压力非常相似。这项工作表明,总压技术的可比性取决于具体的 RDC 环境,并提供了以最简单的实现方式评估 RDC 性能的可能性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信