0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Investigation of the Performance of Turbulence Models With Respect to High Flow Curvature in Centrifugal Compressors

[+] Author and Article Information
Shady Ali

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
The University of Western Ontario,
London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada
e-mail: sali332@uwo.ca

Kevin J. Elliott

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
The University of Western Ontario,
London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada
e-mail: kjameselliott@gmail.com

Eric Savory

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
The University of Western Ontario,
London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada
e-mail: esavory@uwo.ca

Chao Zhang

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
The University of Western Ontario,
London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada
e-mail: czhang3@uwo.ca

Robert J. Martinuzzi

Department of Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering,
University of Calgary,
Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada
e-mail: rmartinu@ucalgary.ca

William E. Lin

Department of Mechanical and
Materials Engineering,
The University of Western Ontario,
London, ON N6A 5B9, Canada
e-mail: wlin26@uwo.ca

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 27, 2015; final manuscript received October 7, 2015; published online December 23, 2015. Assoc. Editor: Sharath S. Girimaji.

J. Fluids Eng 138(5), 051101 (Dec 23, 2015) (10 pages) Paper No: FE-15-1215; doi: 10.1115/1.4031779 History: Received March 27, 2015; Revised October 07, 2015

The goal of this research is to evaluate the performance of three turbulence models with respect to flow with high curvature in a centrifugal compressor stage designed for an aero-engine. The effectiveness of the curvature correction terms in the two-equation turbulence models is the main focus of this study, as implemented in the curvature-corrected shear stress transport (SST-CC) model of Smirnov and Menter. The SST-CC model uses a production multiplier in the k and ω equations. SST-CC results were compared against the SST model and previous simulations by Bourgeois et al. (2011, “Assessment of Turbulence Model Predictions for an Aero-Engine Centrifugal Compressor,” ASME J. Turbomach., 133(1), pp. 1–15) using the Reynolds stress model (RSM–SSG) for stage performance characteristics, experimental velocity profiles at the impeller–diffuser interface, and velocity contours at the diffuser exit. The production multiplier was investigated in the compressor impeller. The comparisons showed that the SST-CC model better predicted the choke region in the pressure characteristic and efficiency characteristic, whereas the SST model better predicted the stall region. However, both models predicted a similar mean flow velocity field. Analysis of the production multiplier demonstrated that the term provided the expected effects near the walls of the convex and concave surfaces. However, away from the walls where turbulent production term was insignificant, the production multiplier showed abnormal predictions. The rotation effects were found to be weaker than the curvature effects near the impeller trailing edge of the current compressor.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Geometry of the compressor stage

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Centrifugal compressor computational domain

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Pressure characteristic for the SST, SST-CC, and RSM–SSG models as compared to the experimental data. Thebars on the experimental points indicate experimental uncertainty.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Efficiency characteristic for the SST, SST-CC, and RSM–SSG models as compared to the experimental data. Thebars on the experimental points indicate experimental uncertainty.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Circumferential velocity at the mixing plane, normalized by blade tip speed. The bars on the experimental points indicate experimental uncertainty.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Radial velocity at the mixing plane, normalized by blade tip speed. The bars on the experimental points indicate experimental uncertainty.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Normalized axial velocity contours (ca) at the diffuser exit: (a) experimental data [1], (b) SST, (c) SST-CC, and (d)RSM–SSG [17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Normalized circumferential velocity (cθ) contours at the diffuser exit: (a) experimental data [1], (b) SST, (c) SST-CC, and (d) RSM–SSG [17]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Streamwise planes and lines of interest and corresponding fr1 contours and radius of curvature component: (a) planes and lines shown on the impeller, (b) curvature of interest and corresponding fr1 at ξ = 0.21, (c) curvature of interest and corresponding fr1 at ξ = 0.65, and (d) curvature of interest and corresponding fr1 at ξ = 0.96

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Profiles of turbulence production and production multiplier (a) along the circumferential direction at ξ = 0.21 and ζ = 0.5, (b) along the spanwise direction at ξ = 0.65 and θ = 0.5, and (c) along the circumferential direction at ξ = 0.96 and ζ = 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Contours of r* and r̃ at planes: (a) and (b) ξ = 0.21, (c) and (d) ξ = 0.65, and (e) and (f) ξ = 0.96

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