Gas Turbine Afterburner Water Injection

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of using water injection in a gas turbine afterburner setup for a small boat. Participants explore the potential for increased thrust by injecting water into the afterburner, specifically after the power turbine, and the implications of this approach on performance and efficiency.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that injecting water into the afterburner could generate more thrust by converting the water into steam using the hot exhaust gases, thereby increasing pressure and mass flow.
  • Another participant raises a concern that increasing pressure in the exhaust stream could lead to back pressure on the main turbine, potentially reducing its power output.
  • A follow-up question suggests that injecting fuel into an afterburner might similarly create back pressure, prompting a discussion on the effects of nozzle geometry on performance.
  • One participant explains that variable nozzle geometry could mitigate back pressure issues, but cautions that injecting water may dilute the specific internal energy and lower stagnation temperature, which could counteract the thrust benefits typically sought in afterburners.
  • Another participant speculates on the possibility of using the increased volume from water injection to drive a larger free turbine for generating electricity, suggesting a simpler alternative to a combined cycle system.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility and effectiveness of water injection in the afterburner, with some supporting the idea and others highlighting potential drawbacks and complications. There is no consensus on whether the proposed method would yield a net benefit.

Contextual Notes

Participants note various assumptions regarding the effects of water injection on stagnation properties and the need for careful design considerations, such as nozzle geometry and mass flow rates. The discussion remains open-ended regarding the practical implications of the proposed approach.

voltech444
Messages
31
Reaction score
1
Hey I've been thinking of this idea for a while,

If I had a small boat with a home made gas turbine engine on it to power it solely with thrust. If I put an afterburner on it and nozzle; and had a small intake for water that filtered out all of the crud. Would it be possible to generate more thrust by injecting the water into the afterburner? Not like other types of water injection that inject water before the compressor or in the combustion chamber, but after the power turbine wheel in an afterburner like device. Not adding any extra fuel in the afterburner just spraying a mist of water.

My thinking is that the super hot gases coming out of the power turbine would super heat this water mist into steam. This would create a lot of extra pressure and mass and add another gas coming out to produce more thrust. The water droplets would flash vaporize into steam and cause a lot more pressure and mass.

I know a similar technique is used in other aircraft for short periods of time to get extra power but they are injecting the water before the compressor and in the combustion chamber. In the setup I am talking about it wouldn't change the operation of the turbine it would just take advantage of the hot gases coming out as thrust.

I understand why this technique is not used on commercial aircraft because of the heavy weight of the water required, but on a boat where there's unlimited water something like this could be viable

What do you think?
Thank you,
Jordan
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
By raising the pressure in the exhaust stream are you not increasing the back pressure on the main turbine? Very bad idea because that saps a lot of power from the main drive turbine.
 
Wouldn't the same be true if u injected fuel into an afterburner? Doesn't that create back pressure too?
 
voltech444 said:
Wouldn't the same be true if u injected fuel into an afterburner? Doesn't that create back pressure too?

Yes it would if the nozzle wasn't variable in geometry. The purpose of varying the nozzle geometry is to increase the throat area so that the nozzle can accept the amount of airflow that you're feeding it after correcting for the massive increase in stagnation temperature. You may need a variable geometry nozzle as well that can adjust the throat area to account for the variation in mass flow rate and stagnation temperature and pressure. What you would need to be concerned about is the fact that you aren't adding energy and enthalpy to the flow but rather diluting the specific internal energy/enthalpy as well as lowering stagnation temperature. This runs contrary to what a conventional afterburner does, which is heat up the air to increase exhaust velocity and raise thrust.

What your thrust augmentation system would do is greatly increase the mass flow rate, lower the stagnation temperature and most likely lower the stagnation pressure as well. My reasoning behind the stagnation pressure lowering is the fact that heat transfer dissipates stagnation pressure according to simple Rayleigh Flow heuristics. The reason why certain aircraft inject water into their engines is to raise mass flow rate and cool the turbine to allow for greater pressure ratios and fuel-to-air ratios for greater Brayton cycle and thrust performance. All that said, I'm sure you can derive a fair amount of increase in thrust from injecting water downstream of the turbine but I'm not sure exhaust velocity would improve that much as a result of the losses in stagnation properties. This means you may need to design a fairly large intake to draw in a lot of water to maximize the flow rate while taking care to avoid the issues of excessive specific enthalpy dilution and stagnation temperature reduction that result from the heat transfer from hot gas to water.

This all may end up proving to be more trouble than it's worth.
 
I'm wondering if you could utilize this extra volume to turn a larger free turbine which could turn an alternator. My thinking is that the water injection could utilize the waste heat in the exhaust stream and maybe make a more efficient turboshaft. I know it's different than what I originally posted, I was just trying to get an idea of what would happen. It's kinda like combining a combined cycle into one cycle; maybe it wouldn't be as efficient as a true combined cycle but it would be a lot simpler. The water would be lost; a radiator could be installed to capture some of the water.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K