0
TECHNICAL PAPERS

Measurements and Predictions of a Highly Turbulent Flowfield in a Turbine Vane Passage

[+] Author and Article Information
R. W. Radomsky, K. A. Thole

Mechanical Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0238

J. Fluids Eng 122(4), 666-676 (Jul 10, 2000) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1313244 History: Received August 30, 1999; Revised July 10, 2000
Copyright © 2000 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Ames,  F. E., 1995, “The Influence of Large-Scale High-Intensity Turbulence on Vane Heat Transfer,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119, pp. 23–30.
Radomsky, R. W., and Thole, K. A., 1998, “Effects Of High Freestream Turbulence Levels and Length Scales on Stator Vane Heat Transfer,” ASME Paper No. 98-GT-236.
Goldstein,  R. J., Lau,  K. Y., and Leung,  C. C., 1983, “Velocity and Turbulence Measurements in Combustion Systems,” Exp. Fluids, 1, pp. 93–99.
Bradshaw, P., 1973, “Effects of Streamline Curvature on Turbulent Flow,” AGARDograph 169.
Launder,  B. E., Reece,  J. C., and Rodi,  W., 1975, “Progress in the development of a Reynolds-stress Turbulence Closure,” J. Fluid Mech., 68, pp. 537–566.
Durbin,  P. A., and Speziale,  C. G., 1991, “Local Anisotropy in Strained Turbulence at High Reynolds Numbers,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 113, pp. 707–709.
Lakshminarayana,  B., 1991, “An Assessment of Computational Fluid Dynamic Techniques in the Analysis and Design of Turbomachinery-The 1990 Freeman Scholar Lecture,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 113, pp. 315–352.
Luo,  J., and Lakshminarayana,  B., 1997, “Prediction of Strongly Curved Turbulent Duct Flows with Reynolds Stress Model,” AIAA J., 35, No. 1, pp. 91–98.
Kang,  M., Kohli,  A., and Thole,  K. A., 1999, “Heat Transfer and Flowfield Measurements in the Leading Edge Region of a Stator Vane Endwall,” ASME J. Turbomach., 121, No. 3, pp. 558–568.
Kang,  B., and Thole,  K. A., 1999, “Flowfield Measurements in the Endwall Region of a Stator Vane,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 458–466.
Radomsky, R. W., and Thole, K. A., 1999, “Flowfield Measurements for a Highly Turbulent Flow in a Stator Vane Passage,” accepted for ASME J. Turbomach.
Bangert, B., Kohli, A., Sauer, J., and Thole, K. A., 1997, “High Freestream Turbulence Simulation in a Scaled-Up Turbine Vane Passage,” ASME Paper No. 97-GT-51.
Moffat,  R. J., 1998, “Describing Uncertainties in Experimental Results,” Experimental and Fluid Science, 1, pp. 3–17.
Patankar, S. V., 1980, Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow, Hemisphere, Washington D.C.
FLUENT User’s Guide, 1998, Release 5.0, Fluent Inc., Lebanon, N. H.
Kim, S. E., and Choudhury, D., 1995, “A Near-Wall Treatment Using Wall Functions Sensitized to Pressure Gradient,” ASME FED Vol. 217, Separated and Complex Flows, ASME.
Launder,  B. E., and Spalding,  D. B., 1974, “The Numerical Computation of Turbulent Flows,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 3, pp. 269–289.
Yakhot,  V., and Orszag,  S. A., 1992, “Development of Turbulence Models for Shear Flows by a Double Expansion Technique,” Phys. Fluids A, 4, No. 7, pp. 1510–1520.
Shih,  T. H., Liou,  W. W., Shabbir,  A., Yang,  Z., and Zhu,  J., 1995, “A New k-ε Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds Number Turbulent Flows,” Comput. Fluids, 24, No. 3, pp. 227–238.
Lien,  F. S., and Leschziner,  M. A., 1994, “Assessment of Turbulent Transport Models Including Non-Linear RNG Eddy Viscosity Formulation and Second-Moment Closure for Flow Over a Backward-Facing Step,” Comput. Fluids, 23, No. 8, pp. 983–1004.
Speziale,  C. G., Sarkar,  S., and Gatski,  T. B., 1991, “Modelling the Pressure-Strain Correlation of Turbulence: An Invariant Dynamical Systems Approach,” J. Fluid Mech., 227, pp. 245–272.
Monson,  D. J., and Seegmiller,  H. L., 1992, “An Experimental Investigation of Subsonic Flow in a Two-Dimensional U-duct,” NASA Contract Report 103931.
Wolfstein,  M., 1969, “The Velocity and Temperature Distribution of One-Dimensional Flow with Turbulence Augmentation and Pressure Gradient,” Int. J. Heat Mass Trans., 12, pp. 301–318.
Mayle,  R. E., Dullenkopf,  K., Schulz,  A., 1998, “The Turbulence That Matters,” ASME J. Turbomach., 114, pp. 707–714.
Hinze, J., 1975, Turbulence, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Luo,  J., and Lakshminarayana,  B., 1997, “Analysis of Streamline Curvature Effects on Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows,” AIAA J., 35, No. 8, pp. 1273–1279.
Gibson,  M. M., and Rodi,  W., 1981, “A Reynolds-Stress Closure Model of Turbulence Applied to the Calculation of a Highly Curved Mixing Layer,” J. Fluid Mech., 103, pp. 161–182.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Schematic of stator vane test section
Grahic Jump Location
Computational domain modeling a single passage of a vane cascade
Grahic Jump Location
Normalized total velocity, |U|/Uinlet, and turbulent kinetic energy, k/Uinlet2, for different grid sizes at X/P=0.06 for the 19.5% case
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Comparison of measured and predicted streamwise velocity profiles, U/Uinlet, (Monson and Seegmiller 22) at the 90 degree location in the turn; (b) comparison of measured and predicted normalized turbulent kinetic energy, (u′2+v′2)/U2 (Monson and Seegmiller 22) at the 90 degree location in the turn; (c) comparison of measured and predicted normalized Reynolds shear stress, uv/Uinlet2 (Monson and Seegmiller 22) at the 90 degree location in the turn
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of measured and predicted one-dimensional energy spectra at one-third chord upstream of the vane stagnation
Grahic Jump Location
(a) RMS levels of the velocity fluctuations in addition to the computed and predicted normalized turbulent kinetic energy distribution, k/Uinlet2, at the inlet to the test section at X/C=−0.33 for the 19.5% case; (b) RMS levels of the velocity fluctuations in addition to the computed and predicted normalized turbulent kinetic energy distribution, k/Uinlet2, at the inlet to the test section at X/C=−0.33 for the 10% case
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Comparison of measured and predicted normalized turbulent kinetic energy, k/Uinlet2, approaching the vane stagnation for the 19.5% case; (b) comparison of measured and predicted dissipation rate, εC/Uinlet3, approaching the vane stagnation for the 19.5% case
Grahic Jump Location
Profiles of normalized streamwise, U/Uinlet, and pitchwise, V/Uinlet, velocity at the inlet to the test section at X/C=−0.33
Grahic Jump Location
Measured and predicted normalized freestream velocity, |U|/Uinlet, around the vane at several turbulence levels
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of normalized total velocity, |U|/Uinlet, contours between (a) 0.6% experiment, (b) 19.5% experiment, (c) 19.5% k-ε, and (d) 19.5% RSM
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Normalized turbulent kinetic energy, k/Uinlet2, at a line at the geometrical stagnation for the 19.5% case; (b) normalized Reynolds shear stress, uv/Uinlet2, at a line at the geometrical stagnation for the 19.5% case; (c) comparison of streamwise, u/Uinlet, pitchwise, v/Uinlet, and spanwise, w/Uinlet, turbulence levels at a line between geometrical stagnation points for the 19.5% case
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Comparison between measured and predicted normalized turbulent kinetic energy, k/Uinlet2, at X/P=0.295 for the 19.5% case; (b) comparison between measured and predicted normalized Reynolds shear stress, uv/Uinlet2, at X/P=0.295 for the 19.5% case
Grahic Jump Location
(a) Comparison between measured and predicted normalized turbulent kinetic energy, k/Uinlet2, at the geometric stagnation and X/P=0.295 for the 10% case; (b) comparison between measured and predicted Reynolds shear stress, uv/Uinlet2, at the geometric stagnation and X/P=0.295 for the 10% case
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of normalized Reynolds shear stress contours, uv/Uinlet2, between (a) 10% experiment, (b) 19.5% experiment, (c) 10% RSM, and (d) 19.5% RSM
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of normalized turbulent kinetic energy contours, k/Uinlet2, between (a) 10% experiment, (b) 19.5% experiment, (c) 10% RSM, and (d) 19.5% RSM
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of normalized turbulent kinetic energy production, P(k)C/ρUinlet3, contours between (a) 10% experiment and (b) 19.5% experiment
Grahic Jump Location
Comparison of normalized dissipation rates, εC/Uinlet3, at 19.5% between (a) realizable k-ε model and (b) RSM

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In