A Correlation-Based Transition Model Using Local Variables—Part II: Test Cases and Industrial Applications

[+] Author and Article Information
R. B. Langtry

 ANSYS CFX Germany, 12 Staudenfeldweg, Otterfing, Bavaria 83624, Germanyrobin.langtry@ansys.com

F. R. Menter

 ANSYS CFX Germany, 12 Staudenfeldweg, Otterfing, Bavaria 83624, Germanyflorian.menter@ansys.com

S. R. Likki

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Kentucky, 216A RGAN Building, Lexington, KY 40502–0503srinivas@engr.uky.edu

Y. B. Suzen

Department of Mechanical Engineering, North Dakota State University, Dolve Hall 111, P.O. Box 5285, Fargo, ND 58105suzen@engr.uky.edu

P. G. Huang

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Kentucky, 216A RGAN Building, Lexington, kY 40502-0503ghuang@engr.uky.edu

S. Völker

 General Electric Company, One Research Circle, ES-221, Niskayuna, NY 12309voelker@crd.ge.com

J. Turbomach 128(3), 423-434 (Mar 01, 2004) (12 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2184353 History: Received October 01, 2003; Revised March 01, 2004

A new correlation-based transition model has been developed, which is built strictly on local variables. As a result, the transition model is compatible with modern computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methods using unstructured grids and massive parallel execution. The model is based on two transport equations, one for the intermittency and one for the transition onset criteria in terms of momentum thickness Reynolds number. The proposed transport equations do not attempt to model the physics of the transition process (unlike, e.g., turbulence models), but form a framework for the implementation of correlation-based models into general-purpose CFD methods. Part I of this paper (Menter, F. R., Langtry, R. B., Likki, S. R., Suzen, Y. B., Huang, P. G., and Völker, S., 2006, ASME J. Turbomach., 128(3), pp. 413–422) gives a detailed description of the mathematical formulation of the model and some of the basic test cases used for model validation. Part II (this part) details a significant number of test cases that have been used to validate the transition model for turbomachinery and aerodynamic applications, including the drag crisis of a cylinder, separation-induced transition on a circular leading edge, and natural transition on a wind turbine airfoil. Turbomachinery test cases include a highly loaded compressor cascade, a low-pressure turbine blade, a transonic turbine guide vane, a 3D annular compressor cascade, and unsteady transition due to wake impingement. In addition, predictions are shown for an actual industrial application, namely, a GE low-pressure turbine vane. In all cases, good agreement with the experiments could be achieved and the authors believe that the current model is a significant step forward in engineering transition modeling.

Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Contours of turbulence intensity Tu for the Zierke (PSU) compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Cp distribution for the Zierke (PSU) compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Cf distribution for the Zierke (PSU) compressor

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Heat transfer for the VKI MUR241 (FSTI=6.0%) and MUR116 (FSTI=1.0%) test cases

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Skin friction Cf for the T3LB, T3LC, and T3LD test cases (freestream turbulence intensity=0.63%, 2.39%, and 5.39%)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Contours of velocity (top) and intermittency (bottom) due to separation induced transition on a circular leading edge for the T3LC test case

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Drag crisis of a cylinder in cross-flow

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Predicted instantaneous skin friction Cf for a cylinder in cross-flow at Reynolds numbers ReD of 100,000, 300,000, and 2,000,000

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Predicted transition location (x∕C) and drag coefficient as a function of angle of attack for a wind turbine airfoil

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Predicted blade loading for the Pak-B low-pressure turbine at various freestream turbulence intensities (FSTI) and Reynolds numbers

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Fully turbulent (top) and transitional (bottom) skin friction on the suction side of the 3D RGW compressor cascade compared to experimental oil flow visualization (middle, from Shulz and Galas (12), Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery, RWTH Aachen University)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Predicted skin friction (Cf) for the 3D GE low-pressure stator guide vane

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Convergence history for the GE low-pressure stator vane for a fully turbulent (top) and transitional (bottom) computation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Comparison of computed and experimental pressure coefficient distributions for T106 case

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Computed phase-averaged skin friction coefficient distribution on the suction surface of T106 blade

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Comparison of computed and experimental mean velocity profiles at various streamwise locations on the suction surface of T106 blade





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