Shahzeb， 韩德重， 石中玉， 吴祯龙

南京航空航天大学 能源与动力学院，江苏 南京 210016

引用格式：

Shahzeb， 韩德重， 石中玉， 等. 惯性粒子分离器内砂尘、雨滴分离效率对比分析［J］. 中国粉体技术， 2026， 32（6）： 1-15.

Shahzeb ， Han Dezhong， Shi Zhongyu， et al. Comparative analysis of separation efficiency forsand particles and raindrops in inertial particle separators［J］. China Powder Science and Technology， 2026， 32（6）： 1-15.

DOI：10.13732/j.issn.1008-5548.2026.06.014

收稿日期： 2026-04-27， 修回日期： 2026-07-02， 上线日期： 2026-08-31。

基金项目： 国家自然科学基金项目，编号：12172174、12572287。

第一作者： Shahzeb（1999—），男，硕士生，研究方向为内流空气动力学。E-mail：Shahzebdawar0343@gmail.com。

通信作者： 吴祯龙（1988—），男，教授，博士，博士生导师，研究方向为航空发动机极端环境力学、进飞发内外流一体化设计及其衍生出的气液固多相流等多学科交叉实验与仿真。E-mail：zhenlongwu@nuaa.edu.cn。

摘要： 【目的】 研究平面拉伸型与轴对称型惯性粒子分离器对不同相态异物的分离性能，分析砂尘与雨滴在不同构型中的运动规律，为全天候发动机防护系统设计提供理论支撑。【方法】 采用基于湍动能（k）-比耗散率（ω） 剪切应力运输（shear stress sransport，SST）湍流模型和离散相模型的计算流体力学（computational fluid dynamics，CFD）仿真，对细砂（粒径为1~15 µm）和雨滴（粒径为20~100 µm）的颗粒运动轨迹进行分析。【结果】 平面构型具有稳定的二维流场结构，对细砂的分离效率更高；而轴对称构型受核心区质量通量增大和三维角涡的强烈吸入效应影响，细砂分离性能有所下降。在分离大直径雨滴时，平面拉伸模型中心体处存在极大的局部速度（225 m/s）和压力梯度，引发严重的韦伯数主导的飞溅现象，导致分离效率骤降；而轴对称模型气场更平稳（局部速度峰值仅35 m/s），有效抑制液滴飞溅，保持液滴结构完整，对较大粒径雨滴的分离效率普遍超过80%。【结论】 惯性粒子分离器构型与不同相态异物的分离机制间存在权衡关系：平面构型利于固态颗粒分离，轴对称构型则在液态雨滴分离中具有显著优势。

关键词： 惯性粒子分离器； 平面构型； 轴对称构型； 砂尘； 雨滴

Abstract

Objective The service life and operational reliability of gas turbine engines are severely threatened by various airborne pollutants during flight missions. In complex service environments such as desert dusty areas， rainy weather， and near-water low-altitude flight， solid sand particles and liquid raindrops ingested into the engine can cause severe erosion， abrasion， and corrosion damage to internal components. Therefore， it is essential to install high-efficiency intake dust and water removal devices at the front end of the engine intake channel， among which the inertial particle separator （IPS） has become one of the most widely used and promising pre-separation protective devices due to its simple structure， low flow resistance， and excellent passive separation performance. To clarify the differences in flow field characteristics and phase separation mechanisms of different IPS configurations， this study conducts a comparative numerical analysis of separation efficiencies for solid sand and liquid raindrops across planar and axisymmetric IPS configurations.

Methods In this study， high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics（CFD） simulations based on the k-ω SST turbulence model were adopted to accurately capture complex flow characteristics. Additionally， the discrete phase model （DPM） was coupled to enable two-way coupling between continuous-phase airflow and discrete-phase solid and liquid particles， thereby precisely tracking the motion trajectories， collision behavior，and separation characteristics of particles with different sizes. For particle size settings， the working conditions were divided into two typical categories. A fine particle group with diameters ranging from 1 μm to 15 μm was used to simulate atmospheric suspended fine sand dust， while the large-size liquid droplet group covering 20 μm to 100 μm （including 20， 30， 40， 50， 60， 70， 80， 90， and 100 μm） was set to simulate raindrops under rainy conditions. On this basis， the internal flow field distribution， particle motion behavior， and overall separation efficiency of the two separators were quantitatively analyzed and compared.

Results and Discussion Simulation results indicated that the planar stretched IPS possessed a stable two-dimensional internal flow field. The core channel exhibited uniform velocity distribution and weak secondary flow disturbance， which substantially promoted the inertial separation of microscale solid particles and yielded superior fine sand separation performance. In contrast， the axisymmetric configuration presented typical three-dimensional flow features. Large-scale three-dimensional corner vortices， occupying a spanwise proportion of 14.5%， interfered with the inertial separation process of fine particles and ultimately degraded the fine-particle separation capability. For particles with identical diameters， raindrops had lower density and smaller Stokes numbers， resulting in a 3%~4% lower separation efficiency compared with sand particles.Under large-size raindrop separation conditions， the performance difference between the two configurations was further magnified. The hub of the planar separator generated an ultra-high flow velocity of up to 225 m/s， accompanied by severe local pressure drop and abrupt pressure gradient variations. The increased Weber number induced intense droplet splashing and secondary atomization. Massive fragmented microdroplets escaped with the mainstream airflow， leading to a significant deterioration in water separation efficiency. By comparison， the axisymmetric separator maintained a much milder and more stable internal aerodynamic environment， with a peak hub velocity of only 35 m/s and internal static pressure close to the inlet pressure. Such steady flow conditions effectively suppressed droplet splashing， deformation， and secondary breakup， thereby maintaining the structural integrity of liquid droplets. Consequently， its separation efficiency for large-size raindrops was stably maintained above 80%. These results established that geometric topology fundamentally governed the flow environment and， consequently， the dominant separation physics， with secondary atomization identified as the critical penalty mechanism for liquid contaminants in high-energy IPS designs.

Conclusion In this study， a trade-off is observed between the IPS configuration and the separation mechanism for contaminants in different phases. The planar configuration favors solid particle separation， while the axisymmetric configuration has a significant advantage in liquid raindrop separation.In practical engineering applications， targeted selection of IPS configuration should be conducted according to diverse operating conditions. The planar IPS should be prioritized for desert environments， whereas the axisymmetric IPS is more applicable to rainy and near-water conditions. Optimization of hybrid configurations can be adopted for complex meteorological conditions， enabling full-domain and all-weather flight adaptability of aero-engineintake protection systems.

Keywords： inertial particle separator； planar configuration； axisymmetric configuration； sand particle； raindrop

参考文献（References）

［1］Colucci F. Safety spotlight： enduring power［J］. Vertifilte， 2007， 53（2）： 25-27.

［2］Saeed F， Al-Garni A Z. Analysis method for inertial particle separator［J］. Journal of Aircraft， 2007， 44（4）： 1150-1158.

［3］Stallard P. Helicopter engine protection［J］. Perfusion， 1997， 12（4）： 263-267.

［4］Hamed A， Tabakoff W C， Wenglarz R V. Erosion and deposition in turbomachinery［J］. Journal of Propulsion and Power， 2006， 22（2）： 350-360.

［5］Dziubak T， Bąkała L， Karczewski M， et al. Numerical research on vortex tube separator for special vehicle engine inlet air filter［J］. Separation and Purification Technology， 2020， 237： 116463.

［6］Filippone A， Bojdo N. Turboshaft engine air particle separation［J］. Progress in Aerospace Sciences， 2010， 46（5/6）： 224-245.

［7］Barone D， Loth E， Snyder P H. Flow field and efficiency of a two-dimensional inertial particle separator［J］. Journal of the American Helicopter Society， 2017， 63（1）： 012006.

［8］Connolly B J， Loth E， Snyder P H， et al. Influence of scavenge geometry on separation efficiency for an inertial particle separator［C］//Proceedings. 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. San Diego： AIAA， 2016： AIAA-2016-1596.

［9］Connolly B J， Loth E， Smith C F. Novel outer surface geometry for an inertial particle separator［C］//Proceedings. 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. Atlanta： AIAA， 2017： AIAA-2017-5053.

［10］Connolly B J， Loth E， Smith C F. Unsteady simulation of an inertial particle separator［C］//Proceedings. AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum. Indianapolis： AIAA， 2019： AIAA-2019-4342.

［11］Connolly B J， Loth E， Smith C F. Shape and drag of irregular angular particles and test dust［J］. Powder Technology， 2020， 363： 275-285.

［12］Connolly B J， Loth E， Smith C F. Unsteady separated flows in an S-duct and a bifurcating duct［J］. Journal of Aircraft， 2022， 59（1）： 47-57.

［13］Connolly B J， Loth E， Smith C F. Efficiency of inertial particle separators［J］. Powder Technology， 2023， 413： 118004.

［14］Breitman D S， Dueck E G， Habashi W G. Analysis of a split-flow inertial particle separator by finite elements［J］. Journal of Aircraft， 1985， 22（2）： 135-140.

［15］Vittal B V R， Tipton D L， Bennett W A. Development of an advanced vaneless inlet particle separator for helicopter engines［J］. Journal of Propulsion and Power， 1986， 2（5）： 438-444.

［16］Chen Hao， Tan Huijun， Yuan Yongqing， et al. Separated flows in bifurcated region of a vaneless inertial particle separator［J］. Journal of Aircraft， 2017， 54（3）： 1234-1237.

［17］Goss C M， Connolly B J， Loth E， et al. Scaling effects on inertial particle separator performance［C］//Proceedings. AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum. Indianapolis： AIAA， 2019： AIAA-2019-4340.

［18］Marchhart T， Connolly B J， Loth E， et al. Design of an axisymmetric-sector inertial particle separator wind tunnel［C］//Proceedings. AIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum. Chicago： AIAA， 2022： AIAA-2022-3258.

［19］Bojdo N， Filippone A. Design guidelines for inertial particle separators［J］. Journal of Turbomachinery， 2025， 147（10）： 101013.

［20］Rodriguez-Saenz C R， Loth E， Smith C F. Development and aerodynamic performance of an axisymmetric-sector inertial particle separator wind tunnel［C］//Proceedings. ASME 2023 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition （IMECE2023）. New Orleans： ASME， 2023： V004T05A002.

［21］Rodriguez-Saenz C R， Loth E. Experimental characterization of an axisymmetric-sector inertial particle separator wind tunnel［J］. Aerospace Science and Technology， 2025， 163： 110281.

［22］Stiefel W. Environmental icing test of T800 helicopter engine with integral inlet particle separator［C］//Proceedings. 25th Joint Propulsion Conference. Monterey： AIAA， 1989： AIAA-89-2324.

［23］Chen Ningli， Du Jianmin， Hu Yaping， et al. Study of the flow and impingement of water droplets inside an inertial particle separator［J］. AIP Advances， 2020， 10（4）： 045313.

［24］Qiu Changbo， Chen Ningli， Hu Yaping， et al. Numerical study of ice accretion inside an inertial particle separator［J］. AIP Advances， 2022， 12（5）： 055027.

［25］Bahramian L， Amani A， Rigola J， et al. Numerical study of an inertial particle separator efficiency under the effect of ice accretion caused by the water impingement［C］//Proceedings. 9th European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering. 2024： 195.

［26］Barone D， Loth E， Snyder P. A 2-D inertial particle separator research facility［C］//Proceedings. 28th Aerodynamic Measurement Technology， Ground Testing， and Flight Testing Conference including the Aerospace T&E Days Forum.2012： 3290.

［27］Barone D， Loth E， Snyder P. Efficiency of an inertial particle separator［J］. Journal of Propulsion and Power， 2015， 31（4）： 997-1002.

［28］Duffy R J， Shattuck B F. Integral engine inlet particle separator. Volume 2： Design guide［R］. ADA015064， Fort Belvoir：Defense Technical Information Center， 1975.

［29］Tabakoff W， Hamed A， Murugan D M. Effect of target materials on the particle restitution characteristics for turbomachinery application［J］. Journal of Propulsion and Power， 1996， 12（2）： 260-266.

［30］Wu Zhenlong， Cao Yihua. Numerical simulation of flow over an airfoil in heavy rain via a two-way coupled Eulerian-Lagrangian approach［J］. International Journal of Multiphase Flow， 2015， 69： 81-92.