15 views

Uploaded by mojicap

- Lucas_JR_T_2013
- Transition Prediction New Model Lopez 2015
- 3-D Flow and Heat Transfer Calculations of Film Cooling at the Leading Edge of a Symmetrical Turbine Blade Model
- A CFD Model for Orbital Gerotor Motor
- Ansys: Turbulence Modeling for Engineering Flows
- Annurev Shock Turb
- MODULE 15. GAS TURBINE ENGINE
- sa2
- E. Becu and V. Pavlov- Evolution of localized vortices in the presence of stochastic perturbations
- Jas_Chap_5_May_17
- 4 Power Plant Systems Summary
- Ansys-Journal_and_batch_file-run_simulation
- Rm.vae and Propulsion-i - Assessment Record Print
- Experimental Analysis of the Influence of Length to Diameter Ratio on Erosive Burning in a Solid Tubular Propellant Grain
- A Realistic Dynamic Modeling Approach to Support LNG Plant Compressor Operations
- Influence of the Volute on the Flow in a Centrifugal Compressor of a High-pressure Ratio Turbocharger
- 53530662-Turbomachinery
- Agenda
- 5A1
- Flow Pattern Assessment in Tubes of Reciprocating Scraped

You are on page 1of 12

James D. Chenoweth

*

, Brian York

Combustion Research and Flow Technology, Inc. Pipersville, PA 18947

The ability to accurately model axisymmetric, turbulent swirling jet flows over a variety

of inflow conditions is evaluated. The deficiency of the standard k- turbulence model in

predicting mixing rates in flows with streamline curvature is well known. A relatively

straightforward modification to this model is made based on a local value of the flux

Richardson number which accounts for the azimuthal velocity and its variation. To evaluate

the effectiveness of this modification two different experimental data sets are used to

compare the computational results against. All calculations were performed using the

structured, density based, CRAFT CFD

Both cases have initial swirl distributions that are equivalent to a solid-body rotation profile,

and have swirl numbers that are low enough to remain below the vortex breakdown regime.

They also have non-swirling jet data available for the same geometries and operating

conditions which allows the increased jet mixing rate of swirling jets over purely axial jets to

be confirmed. All calculations showed a significant improvement of centerline velocity decay

as well as downstream radial velocity profiles when the Richardson number correction was

activated. For the case with turbulence data, the centerline decay of turbulent kinetic

energy was also much improved. An important result that was discovered was the extreme

sensitivity of the downstream evolution of the jet to the specification of the initial k and

profiles, highlighting the critical need for a comprehensive experimental characterization of

all flow properties at the jet exit.

Nomenclature

D

V

Viscous flux vector

E, F, G Flux vectors

k, Turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent dissipation rate

P Static pressure

Q Vector of conservative variables

Q

V

Vector of primitive variables

R

f

Flux Richardson number

r Radial distance from jet axis (r=y for axisymmetric)

S Swirl number

u, v, w x, y, z components of velocity

Preconditioning matrix

Boundary layer thickness at jet exit

k

,

, Modeling constants

C1, C2 Modified coefficient of dissipation rate equation

I. Introduction

WIRLING flows are present in a wide variety of aerospace and industrial applications including both reacting

and non-reacting flowfields. Example reacting applications include gas turbine combustors, furnaces and liquid

rocket thrust chambers, in which swirl greatly enhances combustion efficiency through increased mixing, as well as

provides flame stability by inducing recirculation. A typical non-reacting application is circulation control over a

high-lift airfoil. In addition to these flows where swirl is imparted intentionally, there are also many occasions

S

**

Research Scientist, 3313 Memorial Parkway, Suite 108, Huntsville, AL 35801, and AIAA Member.

Treasurer and Principal Scientist, 6210 Kellers Church Road, Pipersville, PA 18947, and AIAA Member.

Secretary and Principal Scientist, 6210 Kellers Church Road, Pipersville, PA 18947, and AIAA Member.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1

AIAA-2007-5755

where swirl is induced as a side effect such as the flow through turbomachinery. Because of their prevalence in

engineering applications, swirling flows have been studied extensively both experimentally and computationally, but

despite this an in depth understanding of the underlying mechanisms for the unique properties of swirling flows has

not been obtained. This is due in part to the sensitivity of swirling flow to intrusive measurement techniques, and

the difficulty of computational models to isolate the effects of different, often coupled, complexities such as

turbulence amplification, combustion and the presence of recirculation.

The goal of this study was to investigate a single isolated complex feature of swirling flows, namely increased

turbulence intensity, isolated from other complexities. The standard k- turbulence model, which is widely used in

engineering computational models, is well known to under-predict mixing rates in flows with streamline curvature.

While some have proceeded to algebraic Reynolds stress models (Gatski and Speziale

1

), or even full Reynolds

stress models, to account for the streamline curvature, the extra expense and complexity of these models is not

always practical for engineering level calculations. Another approach is to apply ad-hoc modifications to the

standard k- model to account for swirl-related effects on turbulence. All of these modifications involve modifying

the eddy viscosity directly, or through the turbulent length scale, based on a local value of either a gradient or flux

Richardson number. This is the approach we have chosen because it is a relatively simple modification in terms of

coding, and it does not bear the expense of more sophisticated approaches such as EASM. The particular

modification we chose to implement was that given by Dash, et al,

2

. In a more recent assessment of turbulence

model upgrades by Pajayakrit and Kind

3

, this correction was found to be the most reliable overall.

To evaluate the effectiveness of this particular implementation of the Richardson number correction, two

experimentally measured swirling jet flows were selected to validate against that both had low swirl intensities. The

low swirl intensity was necessary because at higher swirl numbers (typically S > 0.5) vortex breakdown can occur

and you must deal with the complexity of recirculation. Here the swirl number is defined as the ratio of the

integrated tangential momentum to the integrated axial momentum over the entire jet exit plane. In that regime the

governing flow equations are no longer parabolic, and errors due solely to defects in the turbulence model cannot be

isolated with certainty.

The first data set chosen was that of Faeth, et al,

4

taken at NASA Glenn Research Center. Although the

experiment also included particle laden jets only single phase gaseous jet results were considered in the present

study. These data were taken at a swirl number of 0.19 that is well below the vortex breakdown regime. In addition

to velocity profiles, the experiment also measured turbulence intensity at several downstream locations. It also

contained measurements of the same geometry with a purely axial jet. This allowed for a direct comparison of the

jet mixing rate for swirling versus non-swirling jets. Henceforward, this data set will be referred to simply as the

Faeth case.

The second data set chosen for validation was obtained from the experiments of Farokhi, et al,

5

. This purpose of

this experiment was to study the effects of initial swirl distribution on the evolution of the jet. Two different swirl

distributions were created at the jet exit. One was a solid-body type profile just as in the Faeth case. The other was

a free vortex type profile where w~1/r. Both profiles had the same constant swirl number of 0.48, which was

considerably higher than the Faeth case, but still low enough to not be in the vortex breakdown regime. To

eliminate as many complexities as possible, and be consistent with the Faeth case, the solid-body profile case was

the one chosen to be studied in this effort because the free-vortex profile displayed some asymmetry which would

have precluded an axisymmetric solution. Unlike the Faeth data set, this one did not contain any downstream

measurements of turbulence intensity. Henceforward, it shall be referred to simply as the Farokhi case.

All simulations were completed using the density based, structured, CRAFT CFD

code. Since the geometry is

very simple for both of the jet cases simulated, and quad elements are ideally suited for resolving shear flows, a

structured code is ideally suited for this study. A supplemental discovery of this investigation was the tremendous

benefit that using a preconditioning methodology can have for a density based code trying to solve a subsonic jet

into quiescent air. All swirling cases were run in 2D axisymmetric mode. In this case y=r, and all derivatives in the

tangential direction are by definition zero, and thus the generalized 3D Cartesian momentum equations can be

solved allowing the effect of the swirl velocity to be automatically included in the radial momentum equation

without altering the equations.

Comparisons of a swirling jet versus a purely axial jet for the identical geometry and conditions, as measured in

the Faeth case, clearly shows the mixing rate enhancement effect of imparting swirl to an axial jet. This

demonstrates the importance of these flows to applications where mixing rate is the controlling factor for some

engineering design parameter, such as the heat flux rise rate near the faceplate of a liquid rocket combustor. For the

swirling jet cases, calculations confirmed that neither data set was in the vortex breakdown regime, giving

confidence that the differences between mixing rate prediction were being solely driven by turbulence model effects.

Calculations for both cases showed conclusively that the Richardson number correction applied to the standard k-

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

2

AIAA-2007-5755

model greatly improves the ability to predict jet mixing rates. As will be discussed in greater detail later, an

important discovery of this investigation was the extreme sensitivity of the jet evolution to the initial profiles given

for k and at the jet exit. This highlights a critical need for an experimental data set of a subsonic, turbulent,

swirling jet that completely characterizes all velocity and turbulence values at the jet exit, as well as downstream

turbulence measurements. This data set could be then used to unambiguously validate the accuracy of current

turbulence models, and subsequently, any upgrades to those models.

II. Flowfield Governing Equations

All computations carried out for this study were conducted using the CRAFT CFD

purpose, structured, density-based, finite-volume flow solver that solves the compressible Navier-Stokes equations

(Sinha, et al. [6]). The solver is fully implicit and uses Roe/TVD numerics for the inviscid fluxes, and second-order

central differencing for viscous and diffusive terms. CRAFT is generalized enough to simulate finite rate chemistry

and multi-phase flows, and contains standard polynomial curve fits for the thermodynamic properties. However, for

the simulations in this study only a single-phase gaseous jet with the assumption of an ideal gas was considered.

This section will give a summary description of the entire set of governing equations, with a more detailed

description of the turbulence model given in the next section.

The equation system can be written in vector form as:

v

Q E F G

S D

t x y z

+ + + = +

(1)

where Q is the vector of dependent variables in conservative form, E, F, G are the flux vectors, S is a vector of

source terms, and D

v

is a vector containing the viscous fluxes. The viscous fluxes are given by the standard full

compressible form of the Navier-Stokes equations. The vectors Q and E are defined below,

i

u

v

w

Q

H P

Y

k

x

y

z

i

U

uU P

vU P

wU P

E

HU

YU

kU

U

+

+

+

=

l

l

l

(2)

For solving low-speed jets the equations in this form can be very difficult to solve, both from a stability

standpoint, and in the amount of time it takes to obtain convergence. This is due mainly to stiffness of the

equations, and round-off errors since the variation in density is small due to the low Mach number of the flow,

especially in the entrainment region above the jet. To alleviate these problems in CRAFT, a Merkle-style

7

preconditioning method has been applied. This transforms Equation (1) to:

v

v

Q E F G

S D

t x y z

+ + + = + (3)

where is the preconditioning matrix given by,

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3

AIAA-2007-5755

( )

( )

1

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0

i

i

i

i

i i

i

j

i

i

p T Y

p T Y

p T Y

p T

p p T T Y Y

ij

i Y

i p i T

i Y

p T Y

p T Y

Y

Y

H h H h H h

u u u

v v v

w w w

u v w

Y Y

k k k

0

Y

+

+

+ +

)

i

(4)

The vector Q

v

is the new vector of dependent variables in primitive variable form given as,

(

T

v

Q P u v w T Y k = (5)

where P

'

represents the gauge pressure, i.e., the actual pressure with a specified reference pressure subtracted off.

By solving for the gauge pressure the problems arising from round-off error are minimized.

III. Turbulence Model Description

A unified two-equation k- model specialized for jets and shear flows has been developed and been in use for

several years by workers at CRAFT-TECH. Only a general overview is given here, including a description of the

modification to the dissipation rate equation to account for streamline curvature, and the reader is referred to Ref. [8]

for a detailed discussion. This model retains the same basic coefficients as the original formulation of Jones and

Launder

9

and contains extensions necessary to account for compressibility and vortex stretching effects on turbulent

mixing. These revisions have been based on validation using a comprehensive set of free shear data sets to arrive at

a generalized framework for aeropropulsive problems. This framework includes the specific application of interest

in the current study, i.e., low-speed round jets. The k- turbulence model equations incorporated into CRAFT CFD

code are,

u k

k j

t

k

P D

k

t x x x

j j k j

+ = + +

k

(6)

u

j

t

P D SS

t x x x

j j j

+ = + + +

(7)

where:

u

i

P

k ij

x

j

(8)

D

k

= (9)

1

P C P

k

k

= (10)

2

D C

k

= (11)

2

k

C

t

= (12)

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4

AIAA-2007-5755

u

u u

2 j

i n

k

ij t ij t

x x 3 x

j i n

= + +

(13)

with constant coefficients C

1

=1.43, C

2

=1.92, C

=0.09,

k

=1.0, and

=1.3.

The standard k- turbulence model does not accurately address the round-jet anomaly; i.e., it over predicts the

mean flow mixing rates for round-jets than is observed experimentally. The SS

term included in Equation (2) is a

source term correction recommended by Pope

10

to account for this. Although it is a globally applied correction

term, it is only operative in regions where vortex-stretching is appreciable, e.g., in the vicinity of the jet axis. This

correction was implemented and validated in the CRAFT CFD

6

.

The fundamental idea of correcting the turbulent transport equations to account for the effect of swirl induced

amplified turbulence level, is that this effect can be modeled by effectively increasing the turbulent length scale. To

this end we modified Equation (2) by replacing the constant coefficient in the production source term with the

following variable expression,

( )

1 1

1.0 0.9

f

C C R

= + (14)

Here, R

f

is a non-dimensional parameter referred to as the flux Richardson number, that accounts for the swirl

velocity and its radial gradient and is defined as follows:

( )

( )

2

2 /

/

f

w w r

r

R

u

r w r

r r

=

2

+

(15)

In Equation (15), w is the tangential (swirl) velocity, and r is the radial coordinate (same as y for axisymmetric

cases). Note that R

f

may be positive or negative depending on the sign of the numerator and its value becomes

significant only in regions where both the swirl velocity and its radial gradient is large. We note that this was the

same approach used in the computational studies undertaken in Ref. [11] and Ref. [4].

IV. Validation for Faeth Swirling Jet Case

The validation case used to study the effectiveness of the flux Richardson correction was a subsonic, swirling jet

case with data taken at NASA Glenn Research Center

4

. The test apparatus consisted of an air jet tube with an inside

diameter of 19 mm that discharged into quiescent, ambient air. Swirl was generated by injecting air tangentially

through slots upstream of the nozzle exit. Although in the experiment particle laden jets were also measured, for

this task only the single phase jet was looked at for both a non-swirling jet and a single swirl case with a swirl

number of 0.19. Detailed experimental data of both axial variation of flow variables as well as radial variation of

flow variables downstream at X/D=10 are compared with simulations. The paper, which had an accompanying CFD

calculation, notes that experimental data was obtained at X/D=0.5 and in fact the CFD calculation presented in the

paper used this near-field as the starting point for their calculations. Unfortunately, the authors have neglected to

present the near-field experimental data at X/D=0.5 in the paper and we were unable to use this as the starting point

for our calculations. The description of how the inlet profile was generated in our calculation as well other numerical

details are given below.

For our calculations here, a hexagonal, axisymmetric grid was used with dimensions of 271X101 in the x and y

directions, respectively. The grid went two points upstream into the jet and imposed a fixed profile there as the

boundary condition. Since the inlet profiles have not been reported in the paper as noted earlier, the profiles for u

velocity and k- values were obtained from a fully developed, non-dimensional pipe solution, which was

dimensionalized based on jet diameter and the centerline velocity at the jet exit (given as test condition from

experiment). For the non-swirling case, this value was 14.86 m/s. For the swirling case tested, this value was 12.94

m/s. The tangential velocity profile was determined by assuming a solid body rotating flow, i.e., w=r, where is

a constant angular frequency which is determined from the maximum air tangential velocity at the exit (given as test

condition from experiment). Because of the radial variation of w, the radial momentum equation must be considered

which leads to the radial pressure gradient equilibrium condition,

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

5

AIAA-2007-5755

2

P w

r r

=

(16)

This equation is integrated to obtain the radial pressure profile imposed at the jet inlet. An axisymmetric

symmetry boundary condition was applied along the centerline. Entrainment boundaries were set to subsonic inflow

boundaries with ambient pressure and temperature. The exit boundary was a non-reflecting boundary 75 diameters

downstream of the exit.

The flowfield for the non-swirling case was initialized at ambient conditions, while the swirling case copied the

exit profile downstream several diameters to prevent a large gradient being setup initially. Both cases proved to be

very stable and converged without issue. This was due in large part to the fact that preconditioning was employed

on both cases since the velocities of the jet were low and the ambient velocities generated from entrainment of the

jet were even lower. The use of preconditioning allowed large CFL numbers (O~10) to be used which contributed

to the quick convergence. Although not tested explicitly on this case, past experience has indicated that a low Mach

number flow such as this (0.04 at exit, less than 0.001 in free-stream) would be very difficult with a standard density

based code, and even if a solution could be obtained it would certainly not be obtained as fast as with

preconditioning, both in terms of actual CPU time and man-in-the-loop hours.

The results from the non-swirling case are shown in Figure 1. The plot of axial velocity along the centerline for

the non-swirling jet shows excellent agreement with the data. The turbulent kinetic energy comparison shows some

differences; the data continues to rise after the core of the jet has mixed and the shear layer has hit the axis. The

reasons for this are not entirely clear and the authors do not provide an explanation. Our numerical calculations

perform as expected from physical grounds where the turbulent kinetic energy asymptotes to the value at the end of

the jet potential core and remains constant thereafter.

Centerline Axial Velocity, S=0

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 10 20 30 40

x/d

u

/

u

cExp. Data

Standard k-e

(a)

Turbulent Kinetic Energy, S=0

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 10 20 30 40

x/d

k

c

/

u

c

2

Exp. Data

Standard k-e

(b)

Figure 1. Axial Variation Of Flow Variables For Jet With No Swirl;

(A) Centerline Velocity, (B) Turbulence Intensity.

The corresponding axial variation for the swirl case is shown in Figure 2. The deficiency of the standard k-

model in predicting turbulence for swirling flows is clearly observed with the flux Richardson correction showing an

obvious improvement over the standard model; this is particularly noticeable for the turbulent kinetic energy where

the Richardson number correction gives significantly better mixing and higher values of the turbulent kinetic energy

downstream. One important point we would like to highlight is that on comparing Figure 1 and Figure 2 (for no-

swirl vs. swirl flows) we observe that swirling flows have significantly higher mixing rates than non-swirling flows,

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

6

AIAA-2007-5755

and accounting for this enhanced mixing is essential for modeling many engineering swirl applications. The second

important point we want to note is that proper characterization of the inlet profiles for swirl and turbulence

intensities are essential to get the right distribution downstream. The turbulence intensity plot in Figure 2c (swirl

case) indicates that the turbulence intensities are being under predicted significantly at the inlet, and that the pipe

flow analogy used is failing. In contrast the pipe flow analogy is adequate for the non-swirling case (Figure 1b)

where the turbulent intensities match at the inlet. Despite the seemingly good results for the axial variation, the

consequence of incorrect inlet profiles becomes apparent when the radial distribution is compared with experimental

data in the near-field as discussed below.

Radial profiles of the axial velocity, swirl and turbulent kinetic energy are given in Figure 3 for X/D=10. We

observe that the profiles with the flux Richardson number correction come much closer to the data for both the axial

velocity and the turbulence intensity. However, the peak values of turbulence intensities are under predicted

significantly in this relatively near field location; the peak values come closer further downstream as seen in the

axial variation plots Figure 3. The radial variation of swirl shows very poor comparison with the experimental peak

value occurring at a much higher radius. At this point we believe this discrepancy is due to differences in the radial

distribution of swirl profiles at the inlet between the experiment and the calculation highlighting the sensitivity of

swirling flow solutions to the initial conditions.

Centerline Axial Velocity, S=0.19

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

x/d

u

/

u

c

Exp. Data

Standardk-e

Flux Richardson

Correction

(a)

Maximum Swirl Velocity, S=0.19

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

x/d

w

M

/

w

M

0

Exp. Data

Standardk-e

FluxRichardson

Correction

(b)

Turbulent Kinetic Energy, S=0.19

0

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

x/d

k

c

/

u

c

2

Exp. Data

Standardk-e

Flux Richardson

Correction

(c)

Figure 2. Axial Variation of Flow Variables for Jet With Swirl (a): Centerline Velocity,

(b) Maximum Swirl Velocity, (c) Turbulence Intensity.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

7

AIAA-2007-5755

Axial Velocity at X/D=10

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

r/x

u

/

u

c

Exp. Data

Standardk-e

FluxRichardson

Correction

(a)

Swirl Velocity at X/D=10

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

r/x

w

/

w

m

Exp. Data

Standardk-e

Flux Richardson

Correction

(b)

Turbulent Kinetic Energy at X/D=10

0

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.1

0.12

0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3

r/x

k

/

u

c

2

Exp. Data

Standardk-e

FluxRichardson

Correction

(c)

Figure 3. Radial Variation on Flow Variables At X/D=10 For Jet With Swirl:

(a) Axial Velocity, (b) Swirl Velocity, (c) Turbulent Kinetic Energy.

V. Validation for Farokhi Swirling Jet Case

To further validate the effectiveness of the flux Richardson number correction for modeling swirling flows, an

additional experimental swirling jet case was selected from the literature. The case selected was a swirling jet case

tested by Farokhi, et al,

5

as discussed in the introduction. In the experiment two swirl manifolds are used to

generate two different initial swirl profiles at the jet exit. One manifold generates an axisymmetric swirl profile that

behaves like a solid body rotation (w=r), and the other generates a non-axisymmetric, free-vortex flow (w~1/r),

but both have the same constant swirl number of 0.48. This swirl number is considerably higher than the value of

0.19 that was used for the earlier Faeth jet case, but for the solid-body profile it is still low enough to stay out of the

vortex breakdown regime. Because the free-vortex flow displays non-axisymmetric velocity profiles, we decided,

for this effort, to focus only on the solid-body swirl profile to assess the effectiveness of the Richardson number

correction.

The test apparatus used in the experiment consisted of a converging nozzle with an exit diameter of 11.43 cm

discharging into quiescent, ambient air. The jet centerline velocity was 62 m/s at the exit. Swirl was generated

upstream of the nozzle by a set of concentric manifold rings with attached elbow nozzles that injected air

tangentially into the axial flow. The flowrate through these manifolds could be adjusted to change the swirl number

and swirl velocity profile. All experimental measurements were made with a five-hole pitot probe and data reported

are time-mean values. One reason this experiment was chosen as a validation test case was its detailed

characterization of the velocity profiles just downstream of the jet exit at X/D=0.06. In addition to the u, v, and w

profiles given at the exit, the radial pressure gradient resulting from the swirling flow was also measured and

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

8

AIAA-2007-5755

reported in the paper, making it unnecessary to assume a swirl profile then integrate the radial momentum equation

to obtain the pressure gradient as had to be done for the Faeth case. Unfortunately, although a detailed

characterization of velocity and pressure was given, no turbulence data were taken during the experiment making it

necessary to assume profiles for k and for the simulation. Results from the Faeth jet indicated the extreme

sensitivity of the downstream evolution of a swirling jet to the inlet turbulence values, and the Farokhi jet further

demonstrated this as discussed below.

For our calculations here, a hexagonal, axisymmetric grid was used with dimensions of 271X101 in the x and y

directions, respectively. This is the same grid used in the Faeth case, but with a scaling factor applied to account for

the larger diameter. The grid went two points upstream into the jet and imposed a fixed profile there as the

boundary condition. The grid extended 75 jet diameters axially downstream of the jet exit. The initialization

procedure was as for the swirling Faeth case; the inlet profile values were copied ten diameters downstream, and

then over a distance of several diameters these values were interpolated down to ambient conditions.

As mentioned earlier, the velocity and pressure profiles were simply taken from the experimental data presented

in the paper, but the lack of turbulence data meant we had to assume a distribution of k- to impose as a boundary

condition at the inlet. The approach taken with the earlier Faeth jet case of using a non-dimensionalized, fully

developed pipe flow is not applicable here; the inlet mean velocity profile in Figure 4 shows only a thin boundary

layer. Two different approaches were tried here. One was to use freestream turbulence quantities (i.e., ignore the

boundary layer) and the alternate approach was to specify turbulent viscosity as proportional to an assumed mixing

length and the velocity gradient in the y-direction:

y

u

l

t

=

2

(17)

An equilibrium assumption was then assumed to exist between the production and dissipation of turbulent

kinetic energy to yield the following for turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation:

C

y

u

l

k

2

2

=

(18)

3

2

y

u

l

=

(19)

where the length scale is assumed as,

) 09 . 0 , 41 . 0 ( y MIN l = (20)

The boundary layer thickness, , was estimated from Figure 4 to be 2.4% of the jet radius, and the standard value

of 0.09 was assumed for C

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6

r/D

U

(

m

/

s

)

Figure 4. Experimental Axial Velocity Profile at X/D = 0.06.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

9

AIAA-2007-5755

The calculations with the Richardson number correction required one additional change to that used in the Faeth

validation case. We had to apply a filter that limited the Richardson number at small radius values close to the

centerline as well as restricted the correction to the source term, (1.0+0.9R

f

), from going below zero, as suggested

by Leschziner and Rodi

11

. Since the flux Richardson number definition contains derivatives of 1/r terms, it can be

very sensitive at small values of r and noise in the swirl velocity derivates can cause large values of Richardson

number to occur near the axis that can lead to unphysical solutions and also make the calculation unstable. The

reason why this problem may not have appeared in the earlier test case may be attributed to the lower swirl numbers

in that case.

After applying this filter the solution was very stable with the Richardson correction activated. Both solutions

(with and without Richardson number) were run using preconditioning, and as was the case for the Faeth jet this

allowed large CFL numbers (~5) to be utilized for very efficient turnaround time. Without preconditioning,

convergence, if obtainable at all, would take considerably longer because CFL numbers would not be as high, and

the solution would be limited by the low Mach number (M~0.002) region in the freestream.

The mean velocity decay along the centerline is shown in Figure 5; the black line corresponds to the solution

with specification of freestream turbulence condition, while the blue line corresponds to the specification of a

boundary layer turbulent distribution. Both these cases were done with the swirl correction on. For reference we

also show a calculation done without the swirl correction with freestream turbulence specification. We note two

points: 1) the effectiveness of the Richardson number correction in increasing mixing is clearly observed (blue and

black line versus red line), 2) The sensitivity of the solution to inlet turbulence specification is again highlighted

(black line with freestream turbulence vs. blue line with inlet boundary layer turbulence specified). Figure 6 shows

the downstream evolution of the axial velocity profiles. The dramatically increased mixing from swirl that is

correctly represented by the swirl correction becomes apparent even by X/D=2. While both the data and the

Richardson correction solutions (blue and black curves) both show a rapid decay of axial velocity, with their

centerline values having dropped to half the initial value by X/D=4, the standard k- turbulence model with no

correction (red curve) shows almost no decay even at X/D=4. Overall, the Richardson number correction to the

standard k- model does a good job of capturing the downstream evolution of the axial velocity with the comparison

getting even better as more realistic inlet turbulence profiles are specified (blue vs. black solution curves).

Cent erline Axial Velocity Decay

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

X/D

U

c

/

U

c

o

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

Figure 5. Effect of Richardson Number Correction on Axial Velocity Decay.

X/D=1.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

r/D

U

(

m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

X/D=2.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

r/D

U

(

m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

(a) (b)

X/D=3.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1 1.5

r/D

U

(

m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

X/D=4.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 0.5 1 1.5

r/D

U

(

m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

(c) (d)

Figure 6. Downstream Development of Axial Velocity.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

10

AIAA-2007-5755

X/D=1.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

r/D

W

(m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

X/D=2.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

r/D

W

(m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

(a) (b)

X/D=3.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 0.5 1 1.5

r/D

W

(m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

X/D=4.0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

-0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5

r/D

W

(m

/s

)

Exp. Data

Ri. Correction

No Ri. Correction

Profile fromdu/dy

(c) (d)

Figure 7. Downstream Development of Tangential Velocity.

VI. Conclusion

The standard k- turbulence model has been shown to be inadequate when it comes to predicting mean mixing

rates for swirling axisymmetric flows. A simple, straightforward modification to the dissipation rate transport

equation has been made based on the local value of the flux Richardson number. This modification was then

validated against two independent experimental data sets that measured the downstream evolution of axisymmetric,

swirling jets. In both cases, the modified turbulence model was clearly superior to the standard formulation. This

was true both for axial and tangential velocity decay downstream, as well as for downstream prediction of turbulent

kinetic energy for the Faeth data set that included those measurements.

In performing the current calculations it was discovered that the downstream evolution of both cases was

extremely sensitive to initial k and profiles specified at the jet exit. For the Faeth case, velocity and turbulence

profiles generated based on a fully developed pipe flow solution proved to be sufficiently appropriate for that case.

For the Farokhi jet case this assumption was invalid and a turbulence profile generated based on physical reasoning

more appropriate to the measured velocity profile at the exit was needed. The reason the pipe profile was sufficient

for the Faeth case, but not the Farokhi case, was attributed to the fact that the jet swirl number for the latter case was

~2.5 times higher than the former. This extreme sensitivity to initial conditions demonstrates the clear need for a

complete experimental characterization of all velocity and turbulence values at the jet exit. Until such a data set is

available, it is difficult to make any definitive evaluations of the accuracy of particular turbulence models for

swirling flows, other than relative comparisons between models given the same initial conditions.

VII. Acknowledgements

This research was funded through a SBIR under Contract No.: NNM06AA58C funded by NASA Marshall

Space Flight Center. The contract monitor was Mr. Kevin Tucker. The technical inputs given by Dr. Jeff West and

Mr. Kevin Tucker are gratefully acknowledged.

References

1.

Gatski, T. B., and Speziale, C. G., On Explicit Algebraic Stress Models for Complex Turbulent Flows,

Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 254, pp. 59-78, 1993.

2.

Dash, S.M., Beddini, R. A., Wolf, D.E., and Sinha, N., Viscous/Inviscid Analysis of Curved Sub- or

Supersonic Wall Jets, AIAA Journal, Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 12-13, 1985.

3.

Pajayakrit, P., and Kind, R.J., Assessment and Modification of Two Equation Turbulence Models, AIAA

Journal, Vol. 38, No. 6, pp. 955-963, 2000.

4.

Bulzan, D.L., Shuen, J.-S., and Faeth, G.M., Particle-laden Swirling Free Jets: Measurements and

Predictions, AIAA Paper No. AIAA-87-0303, 25

th

Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 12-15, 1987.

5.

Farokhi, K.W., Taghavi, R. and Rice, E.J., Effect of Initial Swirl Distribution on the Evolution of a Turbulent

Jet, AIAA Journal, Vol. 27, No. 6, pp. 700-706, June 1989.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

11

AIAA-2007-5755

6.

Sinha, N., Dash, S. M., and Hosangadi, A., Applications of an Implicit, Upwind NS Code, CRAFT, to

Steady/Unsteady Reacting, Multi-Phase Jet/Plume Flowfields, AIAA Paper No. AIAA 92-0837, 30th AIAA

Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 6-9, 1992.

7.

Choi, Y-H. and Merkle, C.L., The Application of Preconditioning to Viscous Flows, Journal of

Computational Physics, Vol. 105, pp. 207-223, 1993.

8.

Papp, J. L., and Dash, S.M., Turbulence Model Unification and Assessment for High-Speed Aeropropulsive

Flows, AIAA Paper No. AIAA-2001-0880, 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV,

January 8-11, 2001.

9.

Jones, W. P., and Launder, B.E., The Prediction of Laminarization with a Two-Equation Model of

Turbulence, Int. J. of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 15, 1972, pp. 301-314.

10.

Pope, S., An Explanation of the Turbulent Round-Jet/Plane-Jet Anomaly, AIAA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 3,

1978, pp. 279-281.

11.

Leschziner, M.A., and Rodi, W., Computation of Strongly Swirling Axisymmetric Free Jets, AIAA Journal, Vol. 22, No.

12, pp. 1742-1747, 1983.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

12

- Lucas_JR_T_2013Uploaded bypooya shahbazi
- Transition Prediction New Model Lopez 2015Uploaded bylighthillj
- 3-D Flow and Heat Transfer Calculations of Film Cooling at the Leading Edge of a Symmetrical Turbine Blade ModelUploaded byaravindv88
- A CFD Model for Orbital Gerotor MotorUploaded bykanteron6443
- Ansys: Turbulence Modeling for Engineering FlowsUploaded bykristeen78
- Annurev Shock TurbUploaded byAshwin Ramachandran
- MODULE 15. GAS TURBINE ENGINEUploaded byPart-66 Free
- sa2Uploaded byJithin Mohan
- E. Becu and V. Pavlov- Evolution of localized vortices in the presence of stochastic perturbationsUploaded by23213m
- Jas_Chap_5_May_17Uploaded by蒲俊雄
- 4 Power Plant Systems SummaryUploaded bymich48chin
- Ansys-Journal_and_batch_file-run_simulationUploaded byThangasivam
- Rm.vae and Propulsion-i - Assessment Record PrintUploaded bykeerthivasan
- Experimental Analysis of the Influence of Length to Diameter Ratio on Erosive Burning in a Solid Tubular Propellant GrainUploaded byhoomanamiri
- A Realistic Dynamic Modeling Approach to Support LNG Plant Compressor OperationsUploaded bysunilncpl
- Influence of the Volute on the Flow in a Centrifugal Compressor of a High-pressure Ratio TurbochargerUploaded byjswxie
- 53530662-TurbomachineryUploaded byfleigen
- AgendaUploaded byThusitha Wickramasinghe
- 5A1Uploaded byJeremy Coleman
- Flow Pattern Assessment in Tubes of Reciprocating ScrapedUploaded byGabriel P. Fuentes Bello
- Fluent-Intro 15.0 WS07 Sliding MeshUploaded bymatteo_1234
- Pump Blade AngleUploaded byTarunPatra
- Basic Practices in Compressors Selection.pdfUploaded bywinarnob
- 0.Degradation in Gas Turbine SystemUploaded byazizoucr9
- course0.5Uploaded byLobna Bouzrara
- Engines PilotUploaded bypilotirani
- E.M. Drobyshevski and V.S. Yuferev- Topological pumping of magnetic flux by three-dimensional convectionUploaded byYokdm
- IPTC-10032-MSUploaded byJosé Timaná
- Principles of Turbomachinery.pdfUploaded byPrantik Das
- Haile3Uploaded byAnonymous yJNxgVAS

- CFD On the development of large-scale structures of a jet normal.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Passive scalar mixing in jets in cross.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical Investigations of Effusion Cooling.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical Simulations of Supersonic Flow in a Linear Aerospike Micronozzle.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Penetration of a Transverse Supersonic Jet.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical simulation of multistage turbine sound generation and propagation.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical simulation of a jet in crossflow..pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD On the structure of jets in a crossflow.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Particle image velocity and planar laser induced flourescence measurements on lobed jet mixixng flows.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- Toyota Fj40 1980 BrochureUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical Investigations of Film Cooling and its Influence on the Hypersonic Boundary-Layer Flow.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical Simulation and Experiments of Jets in Cross.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical Simulation and Experiments of Jets in Cross.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Numerical Investigations of Multi.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- cfd notesUploaded byAjit Chandran
- CFD Missile Fuel Venting and Plume AIAA-2007-1012.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD LES of Jets in Cross Flow and its Application to a Gas Turbine Burner.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Monte Carlo simulation of nitrogen oxides dispersion from a vehicular exhaust plume and its sensitivity studies.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Nervier Stokes Simulation of PlumeVertical Launching System Interaction Flow fields.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Les Modeling of Aerothermal Prediction of Jets in Cross Flow.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Les Modeling of Aerothermal Prediction of Jets in Cross Flow.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Mixing of Multiple Jets With a Confi ned Subsonic.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Mechanisms of jet mixing in a supersonic.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD LES predictions of mixing enhancement for Jets In Cross-Flows.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD LES Synthetic Jet.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Les of turbulent mixing in film cooling flows.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- CFD Measurement and prediction of emissions of aerosols and gaseous.pdfUploaded bymojicap
- Introduction to Fluid Mechanics - Ch11Uploaded byNguyễn Hồng Quân
- CFD LES of Jets in Cross Flow and Its Application.pdfUploaded bymojicap

- Brake Adjust Press 938gUploaded byrjan7pe
- Electromagnetism IIUploaded byKatherine Heigl Madrigal
- 4 Rotary DrillingUploaded byNguyễn Việt Ánh
- Scratch and Wear Resistance of Transparent Topcoats on Carbon Laminates 1Uploaded bysoqh
- Apsim 7.2 - Training Manual (as at 23 Aug 2010)Uploaded bymollenburger
- System Verilog TrainingUploaded byVlsi Guru
- Rinnai 560PTR Heater User ManualUploaded byAsad Malik
- IC_8253 PIT intels Programable interval timer ICUploaded byAsawari Dudwadkar
- Draft Well PileUploaded bySrinivasan Durai
- Tecnotion TM Series SpecsheetUploaded byElectromate
- SPE-173213-MSUploaded bymejiasid
- marine diesel.docxUploaded byNafi Annur
- Selenium CommandsUploaded bykishore_cap19545
- OTIS Technology MSRS Rail SystemUploaded byTwobirds Flying Publications
- Electromagnetic EngineUploaded byGiri Wip Nx
- Gravity Made SimpleUploaded byTomas Solon
- c Objective Questions and Answers PDFUploaded byragamalekhya
- papers-mathematics-mains-2000.pdfUploaded byDilip Bhati
- US96 480US BoosterBulletin Tcm67 9543Uploaded byJose Santos
- Sm Ras-3m23gacv-e Ras-m10 13 16 Gk(c)VP-eUploaded byGogured
- manual_CS121_en.pdfUploaded bySerManRus
- DSE4510-DSE4520-Data-Sheet-(USA).pdfUploaded byThẩm Dương
- TA Final (to Be Printed) (2)Uploaded byagautam07
- Bhel Rig InfoUploaded byKamal
- Trane Diagnostics ManualUploaded byUmar Majeed
- STRATEGY FORMULATION.pptUploaded bytine
- GNU Emacs Lisp Reference ManualUploaded byManuel Vázquez Acosta
- Manual 1 Torres AmcotUploaded byRobert Hernandez
- Excel Formulas or Functions to Calculate Grades in Various Grading SchemesUploaded byRamoneYoungyachtDavis
- Setting of CementUploaded byShivang Raghuvanshi