0
Research Papers

Modular Turbulence Modeling Applied to an Engine Intake

[+] Author and Article Information
Ugochukwu R. Oriji

e-mail: uro20@cam.ac.uk

Paul G. Tucker

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

Thesis to be submitted.

Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute (IGTI) of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY. Manuscript received May 29, 2013; final manuscript received August 10, 2013; published online September 27, 2013. Editor: Ronald Bunker.

J. Turbomach 136(5), 051004 (Sep 27, 2013) (10 pages) Paper No: TURBO-13-1086; doi: 10.1115/1.4025232 History: Received May 29, 2013; Revised August 10, 2013

The one equation Spalart–Allmaras (SA) turbulence model in an extended modular form is presented. It is employed for the prediction of crosswind flow around the lip of a 90 deg sector of an intake with and without surface roughness. The flow features around the lip are complex. There exists a region of high streamline curvature. For this, the Richardson number would suggest complete degeneration to laminar flow. Also, there are regions of high favorable pressure gradient (FPG) sufficient to laminarize a turbulent boundary layer (BL). This is all terminated by a shock and followed by a laminar separation. Under these severe conditions, the SA model is insensitive to capturing the effects of laminarization and the reenergization of eddy viscosity. The latter promotes the momentum transfer and correct reattachment prior to the fan face. Through distinct modules, the SA model has been modified to account for the effect of laminarization and separation induced transition. The modules have been implemented in the Rolls-Royce HYDRA computational fluid dynamic (CFD) solver. They have been validated over a number of experimental test cases involving laminarization and also surface roughness. The validated modules are finally applied in unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) mode to flow around an engine intake and comparisons made with measurements. Encouraging agreement is found and hence advances made towards a more reliable intake design framework.

Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Jones, W., and Launder, B., 1972, “The Prediction of Laminarization With a Two-Equation Model of Turbulence,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, 15, pp. 301–314. [CrossRef]
Craft, T., Launder, B., and Suga, K., 1996, “Development and Application of a Cubic Eddy-Viscosity Model of Turbulence,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 17(2), pp. 108–115. [CrossRef]
Tucker, P. G., 2011, “Computation of Unsteady Turbomachinery Flows: Part 2—LES and Hybrids,” Progress Aerosp. Sci., 47(7), pp. 546–569. [CrossRef]
Loiodice, S., Tucker, P., and Watson, J., 2010, “Modeling of Coupled Open Rotor Engine Intakes,” Proceedings of the 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Orlando, FL, January 4–7, AIAA Paper No. 2010-840. [CrossRef]
Jefferson-Loveday, R. J., Tucker, P. G., Nagabhushana Rao, V., and Northall, J. D., 2013, “Differential Equation Specification of Integral Turbulence Length Scales,” ASME J. Turbomach., 135(3), p. 031013. [CrossRef]
KožulovićD., and Lapworth, B. L., 2009, “An Approach for Inclusion of a Nonlocal Transition Model in a Parallel Unstructured Computational Fluid Dynamics Code,” ASME J. Turbomach., 131(3), p. 031008. [CrossRef]
Aupoix, B., and Spalart, P., 2003, “Extensions of the Spalart–Allmaras Turbulence Model to Account for Wall Roughness,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 24(4), pp. 454–462. [CrossRef]
Shur, M., Strelets, M., Travin, A., and Spalart, P., 2000, “Turbulence Modeling in Rotating and Curved Channels: Assessing the Spalart-Shur Correction,” AIAA J., 38(5), pp. 784–792. [CrossRef]
Launder, B., and Jones, W., 1969, “Sink Flow Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 38(4), pp. 817–831. [CrossRef]
Warnack, D., and Fernholz, H. H., 1998, “The Effects of a Favourable Pressure Gradient and of the Reynolds Number on an Incompressible Axisymmetric Turbulent Boundary Layer. Part 1. The Boundary Layer With Relaminarization,” J. Fluid Mech., 359, pp. 357–381. [CrossRef]
Bradshaw, P., 1969, “The Analogy Between Streamline Curvature and Buoyancy in Turbulent Shear Flow,” J. Fluid Mech., 36(01), pp. 177–191. [CrossRef]
Lapworth, L., 2004, “HYDRA CFD: A Framework for Collaborative CFD Development,” Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Scientific and Engineering Computation (IC-SEC 2004), Singapore, June 30–July 2.
Mellor, G., and Herring, H., 1968, “Two Methods of Calculating Turbulent Boundary Layer Behavior Based on Numerical Solutions of the Equations of Motion,” Proceedings of the Computation of Turbulent Boundary Layers Conference, Stanford, CA, August 18–25, Vol. 1, pp. 331–345.
Spalart, P., and Allmaras, S., 1992, “A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows,” Proceedings of the AIAA 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 6–9, AIAA Paper No. 92-0439. [CrossRef]
Rumsey, C. L., and Spalart, P. R., 2009, “Turbulence Model Behavior in Low Reynolds Number Regions of Aerodynamic Flowfields,” AIAA J., 47(4), pp. 982–993. [CrossRef]
van Driest, E. R., 1956, “On Turbulent Flow Near a Wall,” AIAA J., 23(11), pp. 1007–1011. [CrossRef]
Holzäpfel, F., 2004, “Adjustment of Subgrid-Scale Parameterizations to Strong Streamline Curvature,” AIAA J., 42(7), pp. 1369–1377. [CrossRef]
Tucker, P. G., Rumsey, C. L., Spalart, P. R., Bartels, R. B., and Biedron, R. T., 2005, “Computations of Wall Distances Based on Differential Equations,” AIAA J., 43(3), pp. 539–549. [CrossRef]
Tucker, P., 2011, “Hybrid Hamilton-Jacobi-Poisson Wall Distance Function Model,” Comput. Fluids, 44(1), pp. 130–142. [CrossRef]
Schlichting, H., 1979, Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
Jones, W. P., and Launder, B. E., 1972, “Some Properties of Sink-Flow Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 56(02), pp. 337–351. [CrossRef]
Acharya, M., Bornstein, J., and Escudier, M. P., 1986, “Turbulent Boundary Layers On Rough Surfaces,” Exp. Fluids, 4(1), pp. 33–47. [CrossRef]
Wakelam, C. T., Hynes, T. P., Hodson, H. P., Evans, S. W., and Chanez, P., 2012, “Separation Control for Aeroengine Intakes, Part 2: High-Speed Investigations,” J. Propul. Power, 28(4), pp. 766–772. [CrossRef]
Smits, A. J., Young, S. T. B., and Bradshaw, P., 1979, “The Effect of Short Regions of High Surface Curvature on Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 94(02), pp. 209–242. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Modular nature of Boeing SA model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Key flow physics zones

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Geometry used for cases 1–5. (a) Cases 1 and 3, (b) case 2, and (c) cases 4 and 5.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Grid independence study for mesh 1 = 6 × 106 grid nodes and mesh 2 = 26 × 106 grid nodes for normalized lip isentropic Mach number plotted against the normalized lip axial length, for MaEX = 0.50 and ReD = 7 × 105

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

A 3D 90 deg sector intake rig mesh and lip: (a) mesh with every third grid line omitted and (b) lip zone

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Variation of shape factor with acceleration parameter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Variation of momentum thickness Reynolds number with acceleration parameter

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Log mean velocity profile for KS = 1.5 × 10−6 and 2.5 × 10−6 for the modified and the standard SA model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Wall normal variation of Reynolds shear stress for KS values

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Axial variation of H for Warnack's geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Axial variation of Cf for Warnack's geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Axial variation of R2 for Warnack's geometry

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Nondimensional Reynolds shear stress profile for Warnack's geometry at X = 1.603 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Nondimensional mean axial velocity profile at X = 1.603 m

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Log mean velocity profile for fully rough regime hS+ = 220

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Axial variation of Cf for fully rough regime hS+ = 220

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Log mean velocity profile for fully rough lower limit case hS+ = 70

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Axial variation of Cffor fully rough lower limit case hS+ = 70

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Stream lines showing separation bubble. (a) Standard model and (b) modular “three-component SA model.”

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Normalized lip isentropic Mach number plotted against the normalized lip axial length for MaEX = 0.55 and ReD = 7 × 105

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 21

Stagnation pressure ratio plotted against normalized fan radius for MaEX = 0.55 and ReD = 7 × 105

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 22

Normalized lip isentropic Mach number plotted against the normalized axial length for rough surface MaEX = 0.55 and hs+ = 75.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 23

Grid independence study for mesh 1 = 6 × 106 grid node and mesh 2 = 26 × 106 grid node for normalized mean velocity at the highlight

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 24

Grid independence study for mesh 1 = 6 × 106 grid node and mesh 2 = 26 × 106 grid node for normalized mean velocity at the fan face

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 25

Grid independence study for mesh 1 = 6 × 106 grid node and mesh 2 = 26 × 106 grid node for shear stress at the highlight

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 26

Grid independence study for mesh 1 = 6 × 106 grid node and mesh 2 = 26 × 106 grid node for shear stress at the fan face

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