固体火箭技术
固體火箭技術
고체화전기술
JOURNAL OF SOLID ROCKET TECHNOLOGY
2014年
5期
616-621
,共6页
李映坤%韩珺礼%陈雄%沈振华
李映坤%韓珺禮%陳雄%瀋振華
리영곤%한군례%진웅%침진화
SST湍流模型%固体火箭发动机内流场%数值计算
SST湍流模型%固體火箭髮動機內流場%數值計算
SST단류모형%고체화전발동궤내류장%수치계산
SST turbulence model%solid rocket motor inner flow field%numerical calculation
为准确模拟固体火箭发动机燃烧室内流场,采用基于格心的迎风型有限体积法求解定常雷诺平均Navier-Stokes方程,在空间离散方法上,采用AUSM-PW矢通量分裂格式,时间推进采用三阶三步TVD型Runge-Kutta显式方法,将Ment-er F R提出的SST( shear-stress-transport)湍流模型及其改进形式用于燃烧室湍流流场的数值模拟,并将计算结果与Wilcox的和Spalart-Allmaras湍流模型进行了对比。结果表明, Menter F R的SST湍流模型计算的燃烧室内的径向速度分布与实验值吻合得最好,最大误差约为5.1%;计算的燃烧室内湍流强度分布与实验的规律一致,而其余湍流模型计算的结果与实验值有很大差异。
為準確模擬固體火箭髮動機燃燒室內流場,採用基于格心的迎風型有限體積法求解定常雷諾平均Navier-Stokes方程,在空間離散方法上,採用AUSM-PW矢通量分裂格式,時間推進採用三階三步TVD型Runge-Kutta顯式方法,將Ment-er F R提齣的SST( shear-stress-transport)湍流模型及其改進形式用于燃燒室湍流流場的數值模擬,併將計算結果與Wilcox的和Spalart-Allmaras湍流模型進行瞭對比。結果錶明, Menter F R的SST湍流模型計算的燃燒室內的徑嚮速度分佈與實驗值吻閤得最好,最大誤差約為5.1%;計算的燃燒室內湍流彊度分佈與實驗的規律一緻,而其餘湍流模型計算的結果與實驗值有很大差異。
위준학모의고체화전발동궤연소실내류장,채용기우격심적영풍형유한체적법구해정상뢰낙평균Navier-Stokes방정,재공간리산방법상,채용AUSM-PW시통량분렬격식,시간추진채용삼계삼보TVD형Runge-Kutta현식방법,장Ment-er F R제출적SST( shear-stress-transport)단류모형급기개진형식용우연소실단류류장적수치모의,병장계산결과여Wilcox적화Spalart-Allmaras단류모형진행료대비。결과표명, Menter F R적SST단류모형계산적연소실내적경향속도분포여실험치문합득최호,최대오차약위5.1%;계산적연소실내단류강도분포여실험적규률일치,이기여단류모형계산적결과여실험치유흔대차이。
In order to accurately simulate the solid rocket motor inner flow field,the Reynolds-average Navier-Stokes equations were solved with three-order three-step Runge-Kutta iterative algorithm by cell center finite volume method, AUSM-PW scheme were implemented for spatial discretization. Also, SST ( shear-stress-transport) turbulence model developed by Menter was used to simulate the turbulence flow field of the combustion chamber. Then the result was compared with Wilcox and Spalart-Allmaras turbu-lence model. Simulated results show that the general agreement between computed axial velocity profiles and experimental result is excellently good and the maximum error is only about 5.1%.The overall trends of the numerical turbulent intensity match quite well with experiment for all locations, and there is big disagreement between experiment and the other turbulence models.