0
Research Papers: Flows in Complex Systems

Comparative Studies of RANS Versus Large Eddy Simulation for Fan–Intake Interaction

[+] Author and Article Information
Yunfei Ma

Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
e-mail: ym324@cam.ac.uk

Nagabhushana Rao Vadlamani

Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras,
Chennai 600036, India
e-mail: nrv@iitm.ac.in

Jiahuan Cui

School of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
ZJU-UIUC Institute,
Zhejiang University,
Haining 310007, China
e-mail: jiahuancui@intl.zju.edu.cn

Paul Tucker

Professor
Department of Engineering,
University of Cambridge,
Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK
e-mail: pgt23@cam.ac.uk

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 23, 2018; final manuscript received September 3, 2018; published online October 5, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Riccardo Mereu.

J. Fluids Eng 141(3), 031106 (Oct 05, 2018) (13 pages) Paper No: FE-18-1286; doi: 10.1115/1.4041393 History: Received April 23, 2018; Revised September 03, 2018

The present research applied a mixed-fidelity approach to examine the fan–intake interaction. Flow separation induced by a distortion generator (DG) is either resolved using large eddy simulation (LES) or modeled using the standard k–ω model, Spalart–Allmaras (SA) model, etc. The immersed boundary method with smeared geometry (immersed boundary method with smeared geometry (IBMSG)) is employed to represent the effect of the fan and a wide range of test cases is studied by varying the (a) height of the DG and (b) proximity of the fan to the DG. Comparisons are drawn between the LES and the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) approaches with/without the fan effect. It is found that in the “absence of fan,” the discrepancies between RANS and LES are significant within the separation and reattachment region due to the well-known limitations of the standard RANS models. “With the fan installed,” the deviation between RANS and LES decreases substantially. It becomes minimal when the fan is closest to the DG. It implies that with an installed fan, the inaccuracies of the turbulence model are mitigated by the strong flow acceleration at the casing due to the fan. More precisely, the mass flow redistribution due to the fan has a dominant primary effect on the final predictions and the effect of turbulence model becomes secondary, thereby suggesting that high fidelity eddy resolving simulations provide marginal improvements to the accuracy for the installed cases, particularly for the short intake–fan strategies with fan getting closer to intake lip.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Longley, J. , and Greitzer, E. , 1992, “ Inlet Distortion Effects in Aircraft Propulsion System Integration,” AGARD, Steady and Transient Performance Prediction of Gas Turbine Engines, p. 18.
Tucker, P. , 2013, Unsteady Computational Fluid Dynamics in Aeronautics, Vol. 104, Springer Science & Business Media, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.
Defoe, J. J. , and Spakovszky, Z. S. , 2013, “ Effects of Boundary-Layer Ingestion on the Aero-Acoustics of Transonic Fan Rotors,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(5), p. 051013. [CrossRef]
Fidalgo, V. J. , Hall, C. , and Colin, Y. , 2012, “ A Study of Fan-Distortion Interaction Within the Nasa Rotor 67 Transonic Stage,” ASME J. Turbomach., 134(5), p. 051011. [CrossRef]
Barthmes, S. , Haug, J. P. , Lesser, A. , and Niehuis, R. , 2016, “ Unsteady CFD Simulation of Transonic Axial Compressor Stages With Distorted Inflow,” Advances in Simulation of Wing and Nacelle Stall, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 303–321.
Xie, Z. , Liu, Y. , Liu, X. , Sun, D. , Lu, L. , and Sun, X. , 2017, “ Computational Model for Stall Inception and Nonlinear Evolution in Axial Flow Compressors,” J. Propul. Power, 34(3), pp. 1–10.
Lieser, J. , Biela, C. , Pixberg, C. , Schiffer, H.-P. , Schulze, S. , Lesser, A. , Kähler, C. , and Niehuis, R. , 2011, “ Compressor Rig Test With Distorted Inflow Using Distortion Generators,” 60 Deutscher Luft-und Raumfahrtkongress DGLRK2011-241449, pp. 1507–1516.
Niehuis, R. , Lesser, A. , Probst, A. , Radespiel, R. , Schulze, S. , Kähler, C. , Spiering, F. , and Kroll, N. , 2013, “ Simulation of Nacelle Stall and Engine Response,” 21st International Society for Air Breathing Engines (ISABE) Conference, Busan, Korea, Sept. 9–13.
Übelacker, S. , Hain, R. , and Kähler, C. J. , 2016, “ Flow Investigations in a Stalling Nacelle Inlet Under Disturbed Inflow,” Advances in Simulation of Wing and Nacelle Stall, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 271–283.
Wartzek, F. , Holzinger, F. , Brandstetter, C. , and Schiffer, H.-P. , 2016, “ Realistic Inlet Distortion Patterns Interacting With a Transonic Compressor Stage,” Advances in Simulation of Wing and Nacelle Stall, Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 285–302.
Cao, T. , Hield, P. , and Tucker, P. G. , 2017, “ Hierarchical Immersed Boundary Method With Smeared Geometry,” J. Propul. Power, 33(5), pp. 1151–1163. [CrossRef]
Carnevale, M. , Wang, F. , Parry, A. B. , Green, J. S. , and di Mare, L. , 2018, “ Fan Similarity Model for the Fan–Intake Interaction Problem,” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 140(5), p. 051202. [CrossRef]
Liu, Y. , Yu, X. , and Liu, B. , 2008, “ Turbulence Models Assessment for Large-Scale Tip Vortices in an Axial Compressor Rotor,” J. Propul. Power, 24(1), pp. 15–25. [CrossRef]
Liu, Y. , Yan, H. , Liu, Y. , Lu, L. , and Li, Q. , 2016, “ Numerical Study of Corner Separation in a Linear Compressor Cascade Using Various Turbulence Models,” Chin. J. Aeronautics, 29(3), pp. 639–652. [CrossRef]
Liu, Y. , Lu, L. , Fang, L. , and Gao, F. , 2011, “ Modification of Spalart–Allmaras Model With Consideration of Turbulence Energy Backscatter Using Velocity Helicity,” Phys. Lett. A, 375(24), pp. 2377–2381. [CrossRef]
Scillitoe, A. D. , Tucker, P. G. , and Adami, P. , 2015, “ Evaluation of RANS and ZDES Methods for the Prediction of Three-Dimensional Separation in Axial Flow Compressors,” ASME Paper No. GT2015-43975.
Tyacke, J. , Tucker, P. , Jefferson-Loveday, R. , Vadlamani, N. R. , Watson, R. , Naqavi, I. , and Yang, X. , 2014, “ Large Eddy Simulation for Turbines: Methodologies, Cost and Future Outlooks,” ASME J. Turbomach., 136(6), p. 061009. [CrossRef]
Tucker, P. , and Liu, Y. , 2006, “ Turbulence Modeling for Flows Around Convex Features,” AIAA Paper No. AIAA 2006-716.
Liu, Y. , Yan, H. , Lu, L. , and Li, Q. , 2017, “ Investigation of Vortical Structures and Turbulence Characteristics in Corner Separation in a Linear Compressor Cascade Using DDES,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 139(2), p. 021107. [CrossRef]
Scillitoe, A. D. , Tucker, P. G. , and Adami, P. , 2017, “ Numerical Investigation of Three-Dimensional Separation in an Axial Flow Compressor: The Influence of Freestream Turbulence Intensity and Endwall Boundary Layer State,” ASME J. Turbomach., 139(2), p. 021011. [CrossRef]
Yan, H. , Liu, Y. , Li, Q. , and Lu, L. , 2018, “ Turbulence Characteristics in Corner Separation in a Highly Loaded Linear Compressor Cascade,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 75, pp. 139–154. [CrossRef]
Gourdain, N. , Gicquel, L. Y. , and Collado, E. , 2012, “ Comparison of Rans and Les for Prediction of Wall Heat Transfer in a Highly Loaded Turbine Guide Vane,” J. Propulsion Power, 28(2), pp. 423–433. [CrossRef]
Thollet, W. , Dufour, G. , Carbonneau, X. , and Blanc, F. , 2016, “ Assessment of Body Force Methodologies for the Analysis of Intake-Fan Aerodynamic Interactions,” ASME Paper No. GT2016-57014.
Damle, S. V. , Dang, T. Q. , and Reddy, D. R. , 1995, “ Throughflow Method for Turbomachines Applicable for All Flow Regimes,” ASME J. Turbomach., 119(2), pp. 256–262. [CrossRef]
Sturmayr, A. , and Hirsch, C. , 1999, “ Throughflow Model for Design and Analysis Integrated in a Three-Dimensional Navier–Stokes Solver,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part A, 213(4), pp. 263–273. [CrossRef]
Simon, J. F. , and Leonard, O. , 2005, “ A Throughflow Analysis Tool Based on the Navier–Stokes Equations,” Sixth European Conference on Turbomachinery Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics, Lille, France, pp. 1–12.
Persico, G. , and Rebay, S. , 2012, “ A Penalty Formulation for the Throughflow Modeling of Turbomachinery,” Comput. Fluids, 60(10), pp. 86–98. [CrossRef]
Ma, Y. , Cui, J. , Vadlamani, N. R. , and Tucker, P. , “ Effect of Fan on Inlet Distortion: Mixed-Fidelity Approach,” AIAA J., 56(6), pp. 2350–2360.
Ma, Y. , Cui, J. , Vadlamani, N. R. , and Tucker, P. , 2018, “ A Mixed-Fidelity Numerical Study for Fan-Distortion Interaction,” ASME Paper No. GT2018-75090.
Iaccarino, G. , Mishra, A. A. , and Ghili, S. , 2017, “ Eigenspace Perturbations for Uncertainty Estimation of Single-Point Turbulence Closures,” Phys. Rev. Fluids, 2(2), p. 024605. [CrossRef]
Craft, T. , Launder, B. , and Suga, K. , 1997, “ Prediction of Turbulent Transitional Phenomena With a Nonlinear Eddy-Viscosity Model,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 18(1), pp. 15–28. [CrossRef]
Tucker, P. G. , 2016, Advanced Computational Fluid and Aerodynamics, Vol. 54, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Reid, C. , 1969, “ The Response of Axial Flow Compressors to Intake Flow Distortion,” ASME Paper No. 69-GT-29.
Haug, J. , Barthmes, S. , and Niehuis, R. , 2015, “ Full Annulus Unsteady CFD Simulations on Effects of Inflow Distortions in a Transonic Axial Compressor Stage,” 11th International Gas Turbine Congress, Paper No. IGTC-2015-090.
Sirovich, L. , 1967, “ Initial and Boundary Value Problems in Dissipative Gas Dynamics,” Phys. Fluids, 10(1), pp. 24–34. [CrossRef]
Peskin, C. S. , 2002, “ The Immersed Boundary Method,” Acta Numer., 11, pp. 479–517. [CrossRef]
Iaccarino, G. , and Verzicco, R. , 2003, “ Immersed Boundary Technique for Turbulent Flow Simulations,” ASME Appl. Mech. Rev., 56(3), pp. 331–347. [CrossRef]
Fadlun, E. , Verzicco, R. , Orlandi, P. , and Mohd-Yusof, J. , 2000, “ Combined Immersed-Boundary Finite Difference Methods for Three-Dimensional Complex Flow Simulations,” J. Comput. Phys., 161(1), pp. 35–60. [CrossRef]
Marble, F. E. , 1964, “ Three-Dimensional Flow in Turbomachines,” High Speed Aerodyn. Jet Propul., 10(10), pp. 83–166. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/452271.pdf#page=98
Xu, L. , 2002, “ Assessing Viscous Body Forces for Unsteady Calculations,” ASME Paper No. GT2002-30359.
Watson, R. , Cui, J. , Ma, Y. , and Hield, P. , 2017, “ Improved Hierarchical Modelling for Aerodynamically Coupled Systems,” ASME Paper No. GT2017-65223.
Launder, B. E. , and Jones, W. P. , 1969, “ On The Prediction Laminarisation,” HM Stationery Office, Cambridge, UK, Report No. CP 1036.
Gao, Y. , Liu, Y. , Zhong, L. , Hou, J. , and Lu, L. , 2016, “ Study of the Standard kε Model for Tip Leakage Flow in an Axial Compressor Rotor,” Int. J. Turbo Jet-Engines, 33(4), pp. 353–360. [CrossRef]
Tang, Y. , Liu, Y. , and Lu, L. , 2018, “ Solidity Effect on Corner Separation and Its Control in a High-Speed Low Aspect Ratio Compressor Cascade,” Int. J. Mech. Sci., 142(7), pp. 304–321. [CrossRef]
Kim, S. , Pullan, G. , and Hall, C. , 2018, “ Stall Inception in Low Pressure Ratio Fans,” ASME Paper No. GT2018-75153.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Parametric studies with varying ((b), (c), and (e)) heights of distortion generator ((b), (d), and (f)) fan-location. Nomenclature given here for each case will be followed throughout the paper.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Computational setup and boundary conditions of the Darmstadt rotor

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Performance map of the Darmstadt rotor at 65% rotating speed (SC: smooth casing, B120: 120 deg beam)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Carpet plots comparing the (a) velocity profiles and (b) TKE profiles between RANS and LES for the case duct, H (without fan)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Circumferential variation of total pressure distribution for 65% speed, monitored at (a) rotor inlet, (b) rotor outlet, and (c) stator outlet

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Radial variation of mass flux at x = 4.5H, using IBMSG and geometry resolved approach. Fan placed at location 0.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mesh sensitivity study from LES showing the radial variation of (a) velocity and (b) TKE at x = 4.5H, for the case duct H without

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Comparison of TKE profiles obtained from LES against the RANS (with frozen velocity field from LES), for the case duct H without fan

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Carpet plot showing LES predictions of (a) velocity profiles and (b) TKE profiles at two different Reynolds numbers for case Loc0, H

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Radial variation of mass flux with and without fan

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Carpet plot showing the velocity profiles with and without fan. Locus of inflection points is also overlaid. Dash-dotted line corresponds to fan leading edge location.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Carpet plots comparing velocity profiles predicted by RANS against LES for a given distortion generator of height, H and varying fan locations: cases (a) Loc 0, (b) Loc 1, and (c) Loc 2

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Radial distributions of (a) total pressure ratio, (b) acceleration parameter, and (c) angle of incidence predicted by RANS and LES at x = 4.5H. Cases compared for same beam height, H and varying fan location: Loc0, Loc1, Loc2. Test case without fan (duct, H) is also shown.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Carpet plots comparing the velocity profiles predicted by RANS and LES for a given fan-location Loc0 and varying beam heights (a) H, (b) H/2, and (c) H/4

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Radial distributions of (a) total pressure ratio, (b) acceleration parameter, and (c) angle of incidence predicted by RANS and LES at x = 4.5H. Cases compared for same fan location, Loc0 and varying beam heights: H, H/2, H/4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Variation of maximum discrepancy in d theta (typically observed at the casing) with acceleration parameter for all the test cases with varying fan locations and beam heights

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Carpet plot comparing the prediction of TKE from LES against kω SST model for case Loc0, H

Tables

Errata

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