A Numerical Study of The Three-Dimensional Incompressible Rotor Airflow Within A Tesla Turbine
A Numerical Study of The Three-Dimensional Incompressible Rotor Airflow Within A Tesla Turbine
discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303862681
CITATIONS READS
3 200
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Constantin Schosser on 09 June 2016.
1.9 1
V1 =0.01
air at 25◦ V1 =0.1
0.75 V1 =0.2
1.8 V1 =0.3
V1 =0.4
0.5 V1 =0.5
V1 =0.6
1.7 V1 =0.7
mechanical limit
0.25 V1 =0.8
V1 =0.9
V1 =1.0
1.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
radius ratio R [−]
angular speed Ω [−]
Figure 4. Valid Ω values, limited by material σy
Figure 6. Influence of inlet angles on performance
The following model analysis and CFD comparison
considers these mechanical limits.
isentropic efficiency ηis [−]
1
3. TURBINE DESIGN PARAMETERS V1 =0.01
V1 =0.1
The design parameters of a Tesla rotor are presen- 0.75 V1 =0.2
ted here. The results are derived from the theoret- V1 =0.3
0.25 V1 =0.8
mechanical limit
0.25 R2 =0.6 the grid has been refined until the outlet velocities
R2 =0.4 had converged. A stationary mesh with co-rotating
R2 =0.2
sidewalls and a rotating mesh show identical results.
0 Rotating domain results are presented here.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
angular speed Ω [−]
inlet
Figure 8. Influence of radius ratio R2 on perf.
1:1 periodic
isentropic efficiency ηis [−]
0.5
R2 =0.8
R2 =0.6
0.4 R2 =0.4
R2 =0.2
wall 1
0.3
0.2
mechanical limit
outlet
0.1
0 1:1 periodic
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Figure 11. ICEM Mesh, 1/4 disk, gap width 0.2
angular speed Ω [−]
mm, 756000 nodes, view 1
Figure 9. Influence of radius ratio R2 on efficiency
The applied CFD settings are:
3.4. Machine parameter relations • geometry: r1 =0.125m, r2 =0.03m, 2s=0.2mm
The economical power coefficient C pt (Eq. 9) relates • meshes: 224000, 540000, 756000, 1458000,
shaft power to the total pressure difference between 3400000 nodes (results from underlined mesh)
inlet and outlet. When C pt is maximized, the best
• rotating domain section (1:1 periodic interface)
R
wall 1
Figure 10. Mapping of power coefficient C pt (R)
outlet
compromise between power per gap and efficiency
is found. Fig. 10 introduces the economical power
mapping of a Tesla rotor in terms of machine para- wall 2
meters Ω and R for constant and best possible values 1:1 periodic
for inlet velocity ratio V1 and friction parameter β.
During the whole design process it is necessary to Figure 12. ICEM Mesh, 1/4 disk, gap width
consider the upper limit of the angular velocity Ωv , 0.2mm, 756000 nodes, view 2
4.1. Inlet conditions in more detail in the next section. Fig. 13 and 15
In the laminar CFD, as well as in the theoretical confirm the theory, that more power per gap leads to
model, the inlet velocity w1 (Fig. 2) is kept con- lower isentropic efficiencies - or vice versa.
stant. The inlet angle α, hence the velocity compon-
mechanical limit
the performance map of a Tesla turbine over the
whole range of valid angular velocities and invest-
igated inlet conditions. It can be observed, that there 0
is a very good quantitative agreement between lam- 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
inar CFD and analytical solution at low inlet angles. angular speed Ω [−]
With increasing α and Ω, the solutions differ more
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦
and more from each other. The analytical solution
α = 5◦ α = 10◦ α = 15◦ α = 20◦ α = 25◦
overpredicts shaft power. Same applies to Fig. 14,
Figure 15. Isentropic efficiency, CFD comparison
1
power coefficient C po [−]
β ≈ 7 − 32
air at 25◦ 4.2. Inflow effect
0.75
The inflow effect on turbine performance is invest-
igated by CFD to estimate errors of the theoretical
0.5 model. In contrast to the expected profile devel-
opment across the rotor, the model simply scales
mechanical limit
V1
V (R, Z) = −
· G (R, Z) (13)
R
0.75 The continuity equation in radial direction requires
Z 1
0.5 G (R, Z) dZ = 1. (14)
0
mechanical limit
V1 = 0.27
R=0.99 circ. velocity U (R) [−] 1
R=0.98
−0.4 R=0.96
R=0.92
0.75
R=0.80
−0.8 R=0.60
R=0.40
0.5
block profile F, G profile theory
"block profile"
0.25
approximation theoretical, parabolic profile
−1.6 Ω = 0.13
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
gap position Z[−]
radius ratio R [−]
Figure 17. Velocity profiles G (R, Z) Figure 20. Circ., abs. bulk velocity comparison
block profile
α = 25◦ F, G profile and therefore explain the differences in performance
0.8 theory results (see Eq. 8). The first CFD shows the highest
block profile
U (R). The difference is caused by a higher pressure
F, G profile
0.6
theory
block profile 0
radial velocity V (R) [−]
0.4 α = 15 ◦
F, G profile
block profile Ω = 0.13
F, G profile Ω = 0.13
theory
theory Ω = 0.13
0.2 −0.25 block profile Ω = 0.92
α=5 ◦
F, G profile Ω = 0.92
0
0.75 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
torque coefficient Cto [−]
V1 = 0.27
gap position Z[−]