0
Research Papers

CFD Analysis of Flow and Heat Transfer in a Direct Transfer Preswirl System

[+] Author and Article Information
Umesh Javiya

Thermo-Fluid Systems UTC, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Science, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UKu.javiya@surrey.ac.uk

John W. Chew1

Thermo-Fluid Systems UTC, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Science, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UKj.chew@surrey.ac.uk

Nicholas J. Hills

Thermo-Fluid Systems UTC, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Science, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UKn.hills@surrey.ac.uk

Leisheng Zhou2

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKlz242@bath.ac.uk

Mike Wilson

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKm.wilson@bath.ac.uk

Gary D. Lock

Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Bath, Bath BA2 7AY, UKg.d.lock@bath.ac.uk

1

Corresponding author.

2

Present address: School of Power and Energy Engineering, Northwestern Polytechnic University, Xi’an, China.

J. Turbomach. 134(3), 031017 (Jul 15, 2011) (9 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4003229 History: Received July 21, 2010; Revised September 30, 2010; Published July 15, 2011; Online July 15, 2011

The accuracy of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) for the prediction of flow and heat transfer in a direct transfer preswirl system is assessed through a comparison of CFD results with experimental measurements. Axisymmetric and three-dimensional (3D) sector CFD models are considered. In the 3D sector models, the preswirl nozzles or receiver holes are represented as axisymmetric slots so that steady state solutions can be assumed. A number of commonly used turbulence models are tested in three different CFD codes, which were able to capture all of the significant features of the experiments. A reasonable quantitative agreement with experimental data for static pressure, total pressure, and disk heat transfer is found for the different models, but all models gave results that differ from the experimental data in some respect. The more detailed 3D geometry did not significantly improve the comparison with experiment, which suggests deficiencies in the turbulence modeling, particularly in the complex mixing region near the preswirl nozzle jets. The predicted heat transfer near the receiver holes was also shown to be sensitive to near-wall turbulence modeling. Overall, the results are encouraging for the careful use of CFD in preswirl-system design.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Schematic diagram of test section (18)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Model domains and meshes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Axisymmetric model results, λT=0.369, Reϕ=0.78×106

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Path lines from axisymmetric models, λT=0.369

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

3D model results

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Axisymmetric model heat transfer results, Reϕ=0.78×106

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Heat transfer results from 3D models with wall functions

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Heat transfer results from 3D models with resolved wall layer treatments

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Heat transfer results from 3D models showing effects of including nozzles and stator disk heat transfer, Reϕ=0.78×106

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Contour plots of heat transfer coefficient on the rotor. The disk is rotating clockwise.

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 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