Shock Waves

pp 1–13 | Cite as

AUSM scheme: its application to a realistic combustor configuration, the Energy Efficient Engine

  • K. MikiEmail author
  • J. Moder
  • M.-S. Liou
Original Article


Highlights of work inspired by Liou and performed in the last few years with the ultimate goal of simulating combustor–turbine interactions are presented. First, we have updated the Open National Combustion Code (OpenNCC) by implementing the advection upstream splitting method (AUSM) and the extended version of the AUSM-family scheme (AUSM\(^+\)-up) and then performed a series of verification tests. The AUSM\(^+\)-up scheme and the standard Jameson–Schmidt–Turkel scheme are compared in terms of accuracy and convergence. Next, the second-order AUSM\(^+\)-up scheme is applied to model unsteady flow fields inside a combustor sector from the Energy Efficient Engine (\({\hbox {E}}^3\)) program, in conjunction with a sensitivity analysis of turbulent combustion models. Three different turbulent combustion models are considered: the eddy break-up model, the linear eddy model, and the probability density function model, as well as the laminar finite-rate chemistry model. A comprehensive comparison of the flow fields and the flame structures is provided. Our main interest here is not to select the best model out of four different models with lack of data under the exact same conditions, but to understand how different turbulent combustion models impact thermal variation along the surface of first-stage vanes (i.e., hot streaks). Considering that these models are often used in combustor/turbine communities, the intent of this study is to provide some guidelines on numerical modeling of combustor–turbine interactions and, thus, help improve future designs of the combustor and high-pressure turbine.


Advection upstream splitting method (AUSM) Combustor–turbine interaction Hot streaks 



This work was sponsored by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Transformational Tools and Technologies project. The authors would like to thank Christopher Heath, Thomas Wey, Tsan-Hsing Shih, Clarence Chang, Manthena S. Raju, Paul Giel, and Kumud Ajmani for their assistance in preparing and running the simulations. The simulations were conducted on the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Pleiades computer cluster. Grid generation was conducted with Cubit (provided by the Sandia National Laboratories), and flow visualization was conducted with Visit (provided by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory).


  1. 1.
    Godunov, S.K.: A difference method for the numerical calculation of discontinuous solutions of hydrodynamic equations. Math. Sb. 47, 271–306 (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Roe, P.L.: Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 43, 357–372 (1981). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Leer, B.: Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme II: Monotonicity and conservation combined in a second order scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 14, 361–370 (1974). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Toro, E.: Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics: A Pratical Introduction. Springer, London (1999). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Steger, J., Warming, R.F.: Flux vector splitting of the inviscid gasdynamic equations with application to finite-difference methods. J. Comput. Phys. 40, 263–293 (1981). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    van Leer, B.: Flux-vector splitting for the Euler equations. Eighth International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluid Dynamics. Lecture Notes in Physics, vol. 170, pp. 507–512. Springer, Berlin (1982).
  7. 7.
    Liou, M.-S., Steffen, C.J.: A new flux splitting scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 107, 23–39 (1993). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liou, M.-S.: A sequel to AUSM: AUSM\(^+\). J. Comput. Phys. 129, 364–382 (1996). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liou, M.-S.: A sequel to AUSM, Part II: AUSM\(^+\)-up for all speeds. J. Comput. Phys. 214, 137–170 (2006). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chang, C.-H., Liou, M.-S.: A robust and accurate approach to computing compressible multi-phase flow: stratified flow model and AUSM\(^+\)-up scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 225, 840–873 (2007). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Liou, M.-S., Chang, C.-H., Theofanous, L.N.: How to solve compressible multi-fluid equations: a simple, robust and accurate method. AIAA J. 46, 2345–2356 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kim, K.H., Kim, C., Rho, O.-H.: Methods for the accurate computations of hypersonic flows: I. AUSMPW+Scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 174, 38–80 (2001). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shimna, E., Kitamura, K.: On new simple low-dissipation scheme of AUSM-family for all speeds. 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Orlando, FL, AIAA paper 2009-136 (2009).
  14. 14.
    Kitamura, K., Hashimoto, A.: Reduced dissipation AUSM-family fluxes: HR-SLAU2 and HR-AUSM\(^+\)up for high resolution unsteady flow simulations. Comput. Fluids 126, 41–57 (2016). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stubbs, R., Liu, N.-S.: Preview of the national combustion code. 33rd Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Joint Propulsion Conferences, Seattle, WA, AIAA Paper 1997-3114 (1997).
  16. 16.
    Miki, K., Moder, J., Liou, M.-S.: Enhancing open national combustion code and application of energy efficient engine combustor. J. Propuls. Power 34, 415–427 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., Turkel, E.: Numerical solutions of the Euler equations by finite volume methods using Runge-Kutta time-stepping schemes. 14th Fluid and Plasma Dynamic Conference, Palo Alto, CA, vol. 81, Issue 1259, AIAA Paper 1981–1259 (1981).
  18. 18.
    Roe, P.L.: Characteristic-based schemes for the Euler equations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 18, 337–365 (1986). MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fureby, C., Löfström, C.: Large-eddy-simulation of bluff-body stabilized flames. Symposium (International) on Combustion, vol. 25, pp. 1257–1264 (1994).
  20. 20.
    Kerstein, A.: Linear-eddy model of turbulent scalar transport and mixing. Combust. Sci. Technol. 60, 391–421 (1988). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Menon, S., Kerstein, A.: Stochastic simulation of the structure and propagation rate of turbulent premixed flames. Symposium (International) on Combustion, vol. 24, pp. 443–450 (1992).
  22. 22.
    Pope, S.B.: A Monte Carlo method for the PDF equations of turbulent reactive flow. Combust. Sci. Technol. 25, 159–174 (1981). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pope, S.B.: PDF methods for turbulent reactive flows. Progr. Energy Combust. Sci. 11, 119–192 (1985). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raju, M.S.: Current status of the overall spray solution procedure (combined CFD/scalar-Monte-Carlo-PDF/spray computations) developed under NCC. 42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 2004-0327 (2004).
  25. 25.
    Shih, T.-H., Liu, N.-S.: Simulations of spray reacting flows in a single element LDI injector with and without invoking an Eulerian scalar PDF method. NASA/TM-2012-217676 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shih, T.-H., Liu, N.-S.: Very large eddy simulations of a Jet-A spray reacting flow in a single element LDI injector with and without invoking an Eulerian scalar DWFDF method. 21st AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, San Diego, CA, AIAA Paper 2013-2948 (2013).
  27. 27.
    Ciepluch, C.C., Davis, D.Y., Gray, D.E.: Results of NASA’s Energy Efficient Engine program. J. Propuls. Power 3, 560–568 (1987). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Burrus, D.L., C’hahrour, C.A., Foltz, H.L., Sabia, P.E., Seto, S.P., Taylor, J.R.: Energy Efficient Engine combustor test hardware detailed design. Report No. NASA-CR-168301 (1984)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Halila, E.E., Lenahan, D.T., Thomas, T.T.: Energy efficient engine high pressure turbine test hardware detailed design. Report No. NASA/CR-1982-167955 (1982)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Huang, Y., Yang, V.: Dynamics and stability of lean-premixed swirl-stabilized combustion. Progr. Energy Combust. Sci. 35, 293–364 (2009). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Miki, K., Moder, J., Liou, M.-S.: Computational study of combustor–turbine interactions. J. Propuls. Power 34, 1529–1541 (2018). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Koupper, C., Bonneau, G., Gicquel, L., Duchanine, F.: Large Eddy simulations of the combustor turbine interface: Study of the potential and clocking effects. ASME Turbo Expo 2016, No. GT2016-56443, Seoul, South Korea, June 13–17 (2016).
  33. 33.
    Roux, S., Cazalens, M., Poinsot, T.: Outlet-boundary-condition influence for large eddy simulation of combustion instabilities in gas turbines. J. Propuls. Power 24, 541–546 (2008). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Dorney, D., Gundy-Burlet, K., Sondak, D.: A survey of hot streak experiments and simulations. Int. J. Turbo Jet Engines 16, 1–15 (1999). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Sridhar, M., Sunnam, S., Goswami, S., Liu, J.: CFD aerodynamic performance validation of a two-stage high pressure turbine. ASME Turbo Expo 2011, No. GT2011-45569, Vancouver, Canada, June 6–10 (2011).
  36. 36.
    He, L., Menshikova, V., Haller, B.R.: Effect of hot-streak counts on turbine blade heat load and forcing. J. Propuls. Power 23, 1235–1241 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Quresh, I., Smith, A.D., Chana, K.S., Povey, T.: Effect of temperature nonuniformity on heat transfer in an unshrouded transonic HP turbine: an experimental and computational investigation. J. Turbomach. 134, 011005–011005-12 (2012). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Casaday, B., Prenter, R., Bonilla, C., Lawrence, M., Clum, C., Ameri, A.A., Bons, J.P.: Deposition with hot streaks in an uncooled turbine vane passage. J. Turbomach. 136, 41017 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Feng, Z., Liu, Z., Shi, Y., Wang, Z.: Effects of hot streak and airfoil clocking on heat transfer and aerodynamic characteristics in gas turbine. J. Turbomach. 138, 021002 (2015). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shih, T.-H., Zhu, J., Lumley, J.: A new Reynolds stress algebraic equation model. Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 125, 287–302 (1995). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shih, T.-H., Liu, N.-S.: Modeling of internal reacting flows and external static stall flows using RANS and PRNS. Flow Turbul. Combust. 81, 279–299 (2008). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kim, W.-W., Menon, S.: A new dynamic one-equation subgrid-scale model for large eddy simulations. 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 1995-356 (1995).
  43. 43.
    Raju, M.: LSPRAY-II: a Lagrangian spray module. NASA/CR-2012-217294, NASA Glenn Research Center (2012)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Heath, M.C.: Parametric modeling investigation for radially staged low-emission combustion. J. Propuls. Power 32, 500–515 (2016). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chen, K.-H., Liu, N.-S.: Evaluation of a non-linear turbulence modeling using mixed volume unstructured grids. 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 1998-0233 (1998).
  46. 46.
    Iannetti, A.C., Moder, J.P.: Comparing spray characteristics from Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) National Combustion Code (NCC) calculations against experimental data for a turbulent reacting flow. NASA/CR-2010-216735, NASA Glenn Research Center (2010)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ajmani, K., Chen, K.-H.: Unsteady-flow computations for the NCC. 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit Reno, NV, AIAA Paper 2001-0972 (2001).
  48. 48.
    Wey, T., Liu, N.-S.: Modeling jet engine aerosols in the postcombustor flow path and sampling system. J. Propuls. Power 23, 930–941 (2007). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wey, T., Liu, N.-S.: Updates to simulation of a single-element lean-direct injection combustor using a polyhedral mesh derived from hanging-node elements. 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, National Harbor, MD, AIAA Paper 2014-1385 (2014).
  50. 50.
    Fureby, C., Moller, S.I.: Large eddy simulations of chemically reactive flows applied to bluff body stabilized flames. AIAA J. 33, 2339–2347 (1995). CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Liu, N.-S., Wey, T.: The TFNS subgrid models for liquid-fueled turbulent combustion. 50th AIAA Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, OH, AIAA Paper 2014-3569 (2014).
  52. 52.
    Haworth, D.C.: Progress in probability density function methods for turbulent reacting flows. Progr. Energy Combust. Sci. 36, 168–259 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Franzelli, B., Riber, E., Sanjose, M., Poinsot, T.: A two-step chemical scheme for kerosene–air premixed flames. Combust. Flame 157, 1364–1373 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Roshko, A.: On the development of turbulent wakes from vortex streets. NACA 1191 (1954)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.NASA Glenn Research CenterClevelandUSA

Personalised recommendations