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

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