ASME-JSME 2007

Thermal Engineering and Summer Heat Transfer Conference

July, 08-12, 2007 - Vancouver, Canada

AJ-1266

DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION OF A C++ OBJECT ORIENTED CFD CODE FOR

HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS

L. Mangani, C. Bianchini, A. Andreini, B. Facchini

Department of Energy Engineering ”Sergio Stecco”
University of Florence - Italy
Via Santa Marta, 3 - 50139 Florence - Italy
luca.mangani@htc.de.unifi.it

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the development and validation steps of
computational sub-models for gas turbine heat transfer applica-
tions, within an open source CFD code based on the Field Opera-
tion and Manipulation C++ class library for continuum mechan-
ics (OpenFOAM, http://www.opencfd.co.uk). Open
FOAM is based on a polyhedral finite-volume approach with a
co-located variables arrangement. In order to set up OpenFOAM
toolbox to analyze heat transfer problems with RANS approach,
it was necessary to add and implement some additional sub-
models. First of all a SIMPLE like algorithm was specifically
developed to solve the fully three dimensional, steady state form
of compressible Navier Stokes equations. Moreover several eddy
viscosity models such as the standard, the Two Layer version and
the realizable k − ε model and the k − ω SST model have been
implemented. The accuracy of the implementations was vali-
dated comparing results with experimental data available both
from standard literature test cases and from in house performed
experiments. The geometries considered as validation tests cover
the typical heat transfer problems in gas turbine design . On the
whole, during the tests, OpenFOAM code has shown a good ac-
curacy and robustness. The purpose of this work is to show the
ability of an innovative CFD tool as support for gas turbine de-
signers and to verify its role as an effective substitute for standard
commercial CFD packages.
INTRODUCTION
One of the most demanding problem in gas turbine design
is the proper evaluation of heat transfer phenomena which in-
volve all hot components of the engine. Furthermore, all topical
design criteria make heat transfer problems more and more diffi-
cult. An improvement in gas turbine performance, for example,
can be produced by increasing turbine inlet temperature, which
is usually well above the metal critical temperature. In addition,
new design concepts adopted for combustors, based on lean pre-
mixed flames, reduce the amount of air available for wall cooling.
These are only two typical examples that justify the increasing
interest in developing more and more advanced cooling systems.
The complexity of geometries usually adopted in such designs
and the high costs required for accurate heat transfer measure-
ments justify the increasing use of CFD analysis in each phase
of the design process. Nevertheless, CFD simulations for eval-
uation of thermal loads and effectiveness of the cooling devices
in gas turbine engines are demanding both in terms of physical
modeling and geometrical mesh handling. Actual cooling ge-
ometries are characterized, for example, by intricate shapes, with
non aerodynamic turbulators such as pins and ribs that must be
properly discretized, or they involve complex flows such as im-
pinging jets that make turbulence modelling a key point. Such
issues usually require CFD codes to satisfy some essential fea-
tures: a quite large set of turbulence models, in order to have
accurate predictions with all possible flows and the capability
in handling hybrid unstructured meshes. The consequence of
such strict requirements is that a very reduced set of CFD codes
is available worldwide, and the choice is usually limited to few

1 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
well known commercial codes. Commercial software have dom- cases were analyzed with single and multi-hole configurations.
inated, in the last decade, CFD analysis of heat transfer problems In particular the well known Sinha experiment was considered
for turbomachinery applications both in industrial and academic for single hole film cooling test [6], while for multi-hole case an
field. Besides their numerous advantages, such as the simplic- experiment performed in our Department was chosen [7]. Film
ity of use via practical graphical interfaces, they present some cooling geometries here considered belong to full-coverage film
common drawbacks: for example the waste of system resources cooling case also known as effusion cooling, a promising tech-
with a large part of packages not used in standard simulations, nique used in combustor wall and turbine end-wall cooling. For
which is one of the source of their poor performances in terms single hole impingement tests, we referred to the classical ER-
of calculation times. However, according to experts, we think COFTAC C.25 test [8] while for multi-hole case again an exper-
that the main drawback of commercial CFD codes is their nature iment performed in our Department was considered [9]. Com-
of “black box solution maker”. Advanced users in heat trans- parison with experimental data are reported in terms of adiabatic
fer applications need to understand the physics and sometimes effectiveness for film cooling tests and wall heat transfer coeffi-
the use of “ad hoc” models or modifications suitable for specific cient for impingement runs. Furthermore, in order to verify the
cases. User subroutine features provided by commercial pack- accurate implementation of selected turbulence models, a simple
ages become quickly inadequate as the complexity of modifica- flat plate tests was considered, while to show the robustness of
tions grows. Furthermore R&D department of big companies the steady state solver developed results of classical validation
usually need to tune built-in models in order to feed calculations tests are briefly commented.
tools with their design practice frequently based on detailed and
expensive experimental tests.
NOMENCLATURE
The objective of the work presented in this paper is to U Vector velocity [m s−1 ]
show the capabilities of a new open-source software environment D Hole diameter [m]
h Heat transfer coefficient [W m−2 K −1 ]
where it is possible to implement new models, renew the exist- k Turbulent kinetic energy [m2 s−2 ]
ing ones and experiment with model combinations. The Open- L Height of the jet [m]
p Pressure [N m−2 ]
FOAM package (Field Operation And Manipulation) [1, 2] is an p 0
Pressure corrector [N m−2 ]
object-oriented numerical simulation toolkit written in C++ lan- q̇ Heat flux [W m−2 ]
guage [3, 4, 5]. Besides its advanced basic native CFD features, Re Reynolds number
T Temperature [K]
which will be described in the next parts, its essential charac- Ts Turbulent time scale [s]
teristic is the opportunity to build new models and solvers with Pk Turbulence
“ production term
∂Ui ∂Uj ∂U
”
∂U ∂U
= µt + − 2 δij ∂x k ∂x i − 23 ρk ∂x j [kg m−1 s−3 ]
high simplicity and in less time than with standard Fortran based ∂xj ∂xi
“ 3 k
∂Uj
”j j
∂Ui
codes. Object-oriented programming of C++ drastically reduces S Tensor strain = 0.5 ∂x + ∂x [s−1 ]
j i
X Streamwise direction [m]
the probability of bugs introduction with a consequent saving in Y Spanwise direction [m]
debugging time. This paper describes the attempt to build a CFD Cρ Compressibility term RT 1
[kg J −1 ]
package suitable for typical steady state heat transfer analysis H Diffusive discretization term [kg −1 s m3 ]
Greeks
which could be able to assist gas turbine design process. As will α Angle between hole and crossflow
be described later, to reach such goal it was necessary to intro- η
(T −T
Adiabatic effectiveness (T∞ −Taw)
∞ c
)
P (T∞ −Taw )
duce specific modules to the standard release in order to over- <η> Spanwise averaged effectiveness n (T∞ −Tc )
ω Turbulence frequency [s−1 ]
come the limitations of built-in approaches: first of all a com-
ε Turbulence dissipation [m2 s−3 ]
pressible steady state solver capable at handling transonic flows, µt,ef f Eddy viscosity [kg m−1 s−1 ]
then a set of turbulence two-equations closures with particular ρ Density [kg m−3 ]
Subscripts
reference to a detailed near wall treatment. Additional features 0 Uncooled plate
such as temperature dependent thermo-physical properties and aw Adiabatic wall
∞ Crossflow
generic grid interfacing have also been developed. It’s impor- c Coolant
tant t remark that such features are not available in the released w Wall
version of the toolkit, as built models are mainly focused on un-
steady weakly compressible flows. As a consequence it’s not
possible to draw out specific comparisons between default and OpenFOAM
developed models. The OpenFOAM (Field Operation And Manipulation) code
As confirmation of the work done a set of validation test- [10, 11, 12] is an object-oriented numerical simulation toolkit
cases were performed. In particular, in this paper, we will fo- written in C++ language. The toolkit implements operator-based
cus our attention on the validation of the code with some com- implicit and explicit second and fourth-order Finite Volume (FV)
plex configurations typical of heat transfer problems such as film discretization in three dimensional space. Efficiency of execution
cooling and impingement cooling. Both film and impingement is achieved by the use of preconditioned Conjugate Gradient [13]

2 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
and Algebraic Multigrid solvers and the use of massively parallel
computers in the domain decomposition mode.
Being primarily a C++ library ready to create executables,
OpenFOAM uses object based programming language. It means
programmers can use OpenFOAM native classes both to define
their own classes or to build new applications, such as solvers
or utilities, with ease of development. Object oriented program-
ming allows data abstraction, object orientation, operator over-
loading and generic programming. It means that it enables the
construction of new types of data specific for the problem to
be solved, the bundling of data and operations into hierarchi-
cal classes preventing accidental corruptions, a natural syntax
for user defined classes and it easily permits the code re-use for
equivalent operations on different types.
OpenFOAM native grid engine can handle meshes of arbi-
trary polyhedra bounded by arbitrary polygons, giving a large
flexibility in mesh generation, see Fig. 1. Switching to Open-
FOAM way of thinking, programmers must approach a field
based philosophy more than a cell or face based one, each phys-
ical quantity (no matter what dimension, rank or size) is repre-
sented by a single object and treated as a field.
(a) (b)
Figure 1. Polyhedral mesh example.
Differential operators can be treated like finite volume cal-
culus (fvc) or finite volume method (fvm) operators. The first
approach performs explicit derivatives returning a field, the sec-
ond one is an implicit derivation converting the expression into
matrix coefficients. The idea standing behind is to think about
partial differential equations in terms of a sum of single differ-
ential operators that can be discretized separately with different
discretization schemes. Differential operators such as gradient,
divergence, laplacian and curl have been overloaded for the dif-
ferent types of field, giving each of them the most suitable mean-
ing.
Implementing different types of equations is now only a mat-
3 c 2007 - by ASME
ter of combining in a different way the same set of basic differen-
tial operator. Just to give an example of the capability of such a
top-level code, let’s consider a standard equation like momentum
conservation:
∂ρU
+ ∇ · (ρU U ) − ∇ (µ∇U ) = −∇p . (1)
∂t
It can be implemented in an astonishingly almost natural lan-
guage which is ready to compile source C++ code:
solve
(
fvm::ddt(rho, U)
+ fvm::div(phi, U)
- fvm::laplacian(mu, U)
==
- fvc::grad(p)
);
letting programmers concentrate their efforts more on the physics
than on programming.
Another important feature allowed by object programming
is the dimensional check, physical quantities objects are in fact
constructed with a reference to their dimensions and so only
valid dimensional operations can be performed avoiding errors
and permitting once again an easier understanding.
Even if OpenFOAM can be used as a standard simulation
package, its tools are in general too rough to well predict cases
of industrial interests.
Its strength in fact is not really to be a ready-to-use code but
stands in being open not only in terms of source code but, what’s
more, in its inner structure and hierarchical design, giving the
user the opportunity to fully extend its capability.
The subject of this work is the preparation of a set of mod-
els capable of transforming OpenFOAM in a complete calcula-
tion suite for heat transfer turbomachinery simulations. In these
initial steps we have focused our efforts in standard steady state
RANS approach considering that it still represents the most com-
mon for CFD design process. Nevertheless, OpenFOAM code
is fully able to handle unsteady calculations and it is already
equipped with a LES module: the relevant computational and
post-processing costs followed by an inevitable simplification of
near wall treatment usually prevent the use of LES approach on
actual geometries. To extend LES to cover industrial flows at
high Reynolds numbers, new approaches (hybrid LES-RANS,
DES, URANS) must be used: they are all based on a mix of LES
and RANS and they require further development which will be
the matter of future work.
In the next part we are going to discuss the development of
the solver algorithm considered for our application and, nonethe-
Copyright °
less, the implementation of specific turbulence models for Low- smaller than a prescribed small number.
Reynolds and High-Reynolds simulations.

SOLVER
In turbomachinery and heat transfer applications, involved
fluid flows may usually cover a wide range of Mach regimes. In
particular, it usually happens that different Mach conditions si-
multaneously arise in the same domain. Such situation makes the
accurate solution of viscous flows governing equations a com-
plex task.
Most widely used algorithms for compressible flows cal-
culation use density as one of the main independent variables
and pressure is determined via an equation of state. As there
is very little or no change in density for low subsonic or nearly
incompressible flows, these density-based methods fail in such
regimes. Their application in cases of incompressible or low
Mach number flows is questionable, since in that situation the
density changes are so small that the pressure-density coupling
becomes very weak.
To avoid this weakness another class of methods, proposed
originally for viscous incompressible flows [14, 15, 16, 17] and
later extended to compressible flows [18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24]
use pressure as the main independent variable also with the con-
cept of the ‘retarded density’ [25, 26, 27]. Such pressure-based
approach is founded on the SIMPLE algorithm (Semi-IMplicit
Pressure Linked Equations) [14]. In this method, continuity
equation is converted into an equation for pressure corrector
overturning the linkage between pressure and density to extend
applicability range up to zero Mach number. The SIMPLE algo-
rithm uses a segregated approach where the equations are solved
in sequential steps letting to the iterative process the care of the
non-linearity as well as the coupling between equations. To bet-
ter visualize the cycle of SIMPLE algorithm a flow-chart of the Figure 2. Flow chart of SIMPLE algorithm.
pseudo code is reported in Fig. 2.
For each transport equation, a system of linear algebraic
equations is obtained. These are solved cyclically applying the In this work we considered a pressure-based finite volume
preconditioned conjugate gradient. Keeping the coefficients in solver using a co-located variable approach suitable for calculat-
the algebraic equations fixed, generally one to ten iterations are ing steady-state flows at all speeds. The development of this class
performed in the inner cycle. Typically for velocity, temperature of methods in contrast with the standard SIMPLE technique lies
and pressure correction equation, iterations are stopped when the in a more precise derivation of the equation for the pressure cor-
sum of the absolute residuals over the whole solution domain has rector, allowing the possibility of treating at the same time low
fallen about three orders of magnitude, or the prescribed maxi- subsonic, almost incompressible, and high compressible flows.
mum number of inner iterations has been reached. The equation Such methods have been validated in many heat transfer prob-
of state is used to update density after new solutions for tempera- lem configurations.
ture and pressure are obtained. After one cycle of inner iterations The pressure correction equation, details can be found in
has been performed for each variable, the coefficients of the al- [28, 29, 30, 31], in the compressible form says:
gebraic equations are updated using the newest values of all vari-
ables, outer iterations. In this way the non-linearity and coupling 0 0
∇ · (Cρ U p ) − ∇ · (ρH(∇p )) = −∇ · (ρU ). (2)
of equations is accounted for. Outer iterations are stopped when
the sum of the absolute residuals for each variable decreases of
prescribed orders of magnitude or when the normalized sums are The role of Eq.(2) in the SIMPLE cycle is to enforce mass con-

4 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
servation, it is in fact derived from a combination of momentum
conservation and continuity equation. In order to solve Eq.(2),
attention should be posed on the fact that the pressure correc-
tion equation now assumes a convective-diffusive form instead of
a purely diffusive behavior like the original incompressible for-
mulation. While the other steady-state form transport equations
have to be relaxed in order to characterize the inertial physics
lost by the elimination of the time derivative, for the pressure
correction equation this cannot be done. Usage of usual implicit
relaxation techniques on pressure corrector, in fact, corrupt mass
conservation on single iteration steps breaking the concept stand-
ing behind SIMPLE algorithm. In subsonic cases, standard Neu-
mann conditions at inlet velocity boundary, like in incompress-
ible tests, determine ill-defined problems for Eq.(2). Care must
be taken in handling pressure correction boundary condition in
order to solve in a well-posed manner such an equation [32]. A
combination of Dirichlet and Neumann type condition for the in-
let has been tested.
TURBULENCE MODELS
The correct modeling of turbulent quantities is fundamental
in conducting heat transfer simulations, because of the simulta-
neous importance of well predicting both the near wall behavior
and the complex structures of the main flow [33, 34]. Correct
predictions of thermal quantities and gradients inside boundary
layers are necessary to establish whether or not the cooling sys-
tem is efficient. At the same time wall properties are very depen-
dent on the development of the free stream flow.
Usage of wall function approach has to be avoided because
of the unpredictability of boundary thermal gradient and the fail-
ure in predicting transitional, Low Reynolds as well as adverse
pressure gradient flows.
First step in modeling flows close to solid walls has been the
implementation of several so called Low Reynolds k − ε models
[35]. The idea standing behind such models is to damp turbulent
viscosity near the wall through a damping function fµ going to-
wards zero as the distance from the wall is reducing. Constants
multiplying source terms in the turbulent dissipation equation are
in some cases also damped. The basic structure of the models
is the same for all of them differing in the tuning of the damp-
ing functions and some extra sources in dissipation equation, as
shown below:
∂ρk
+ ∇ · (ρU k) − ∇ · (µef f ∇k) = Pk − ρε , (3)
∂t
∂ρε ε ε2
+ ∇ · (ρU ε) − ∇ · (µef f ∇ε) = f1 Pk − f2 ρ . (4)
∂t k k
Of the many Low Reynolds k − ε models proposed in litera-
ture in the course of years, the models by Lien and Leschziner
5 c 2007 - by ASME
[25], Lien [36], Abe et al [37], Chien [38], Chen et al [39],
Hwang and Lin [40] and Lam and Bremhorst [41] have been im-
plemented.
It is known from literature that in high strain rate regions
eddy viscosity models overpredict turbulent kinetic energy: this
problem is sometimes referred to as “stagnation point anomaly”
[42]. These higher values of k are due to an overestimate of
production term Pk . To avoid such overprediction linear depen-
dence between Pk and |S|2 should be bounded in regions where
|S| grows. This is achieved with a time scale bound, derived
from a “realizability” constraint for Reynolds stress tensor to be
definite positive:
à !
µt k α
Ts = = min ,√ (5)
Cµ ρk ε 6Cµ |S|
This limiter proposed by Durbin [43] has been inserted in
all Low Reynolds models above presented as an option to be
switched on or off by the user.
Then, in order to match good near wall predictions with suit-
able modeling of flow structures far from the wall, Two Layer
k − ε models have been implemented. Such methods consist in
patching together a one equation model in the near wall layer
and a two equation High Reynolds model in the outer layer
[44]. Both Wolfestein and Norris&Reynolds closure formulas
[36] have been tried without significant discrepancies in the re-
sults.
Last model to be mentioned is the k − ω SST: it includes the
modification of the standard k − ω to avoid sensitivity to quite
arbitrary freestream values of ω [45, 46]. The basic idea is sim-
ilar to Two Layer models: two different approaches are merged
together to model the two different flow regions. The sublayer
and logaritmic model is the standard k − ω, chosen because of
its robustness, the absence of damping function and Dirichlet
type boundary conditions. From the wake region and outside the
boundary layer the standard k −ε, written in terms of ω, has been
preferred due to its good compromise in predicting different kind
of flows.
RESULTS
Generalities
All the cases to be presented, apart from the flat plate one,
have been chosen because already tested and analyzed with com-
mercial solvers by the authors, with some results already pub-
lished, see for example [9, 47]. Grid sensitivity analysis have
been performed when those runs were set up and it’s not repeated
in this case, the various meshes however guarantee a first node
Copyright °
y + ≤ 1. All fluid domains are discretized via hexahedral ele- If this condition was satisfied for all scalar but pressure cor-
ments except Goldman test, total number of elements for each rector calculations were stopped. Due to its nature, pressure cor-
test is reported in Tab. 1. rection residual is of no interest and, moreover, its initial value
is set to zero at every iteration. To verify whether or not pres-
sure field is still varying, the maximum module of the pressure
Table 1. Grid sizes (thousands of elements) corrector, at convergence exactly null, is imposed to be less than
GAMM test 1 10.0
10 [P a], remember an averaged relaxation factor for the pressure
GAMM test 2 13.5
corrector is of the order of 10−2 .
Goldman test 7.2
Flat plate 17.6
ERCOFTAC C25 Axial-symmetric Impingement Jet 69
Solver Validation Tests
1-Hole Impingement Jet 387.0
5-Holes Impingement Jet 1705.0
GAMM tests
Sinha test 177.0
The developed calculation procedure has been used to solve
6-Holes Effusion 2000.0
a variety of problems in heat transfer applications. Here the em-
phasis is on the high compressible flows. The capability of the
present method is demonstrated by computing inviscid flow in a
Due to the great number of implemented turbulence models, channel with a bump on the lower wall named GAMM test. This
a shortcut has been used to name most of them: the acronyms test case has been used by various researchers to test their algo-
presented in Tab. 2 will be widely used in substitution of authors’ rithms [18, 48]. Application of the method to two different types
full name. of inviscid flow, transonic and supersonic, are presented below.
The width of the channel is equal to the length of the bump,
and the channel length is equal to three lengths of the jump. For
Table 2. Acronyms for the various turbulence models. transonic calculation, the thickness-to-chord ratio is 10% while
k − ε Low Reynolds by Abe et al. AKN for supersonic flow calculations it is 4%. In transonic and super-
k − ε Low Reynolds by Yoder and Georgiadis CH sonic regime at inlet is assumed that flow has uniform proper-
k − ε Low Reynolds by Lien et al. CLL ties and the upstream far field variable values (except pressure in
k − ε Low Reynolds by Hwang and Lin HW transonic case) are specified while at the outlet all variable (ex-
k − ε Low Reynolds by Lam and Bremhorst LB cept pressure in transonic case) are extrapolated. At the upper
k − ε Low Reynolds by Lien and Leschziner LW and the lower boundaries wall slip condition is prescribed.
k − ε Low Reynolds by Lien LNR First case with imposed inlet Mach number M ain = 0.675,
Realizability constraint correction Real gives the Mach number distributions along the walls and density
Two Layer TL gradient magnitude contour plot shown in Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 4(a).
k − ω SST SST In the supersonic case, M ain = 1.65, the flow results super-
sonic all along the bump: Mach number distributions and den-
sity gradient magnitude contour plots are shown in Fig. 3(b) and
Fig. 4(b). These results correspond to reference solutions from
The convective spatial discretization used is based on the literature [18, 48].
Normal Variable Approach (NVA), and named in literature as Fig. 3(c) and Fig. 4(c) show the Mach number distribution
Self Filtered Central Differencing (SFCD) scheme [10]. and density gradient magnitude contour plot under the same con-
To check convergence the arrest criterium has been defined dition of supersonic case but with two bumps. As can be seen by
as single scalar normalized residual lower than 10−6 . Normal- comparing Fig. 3(b), Fig. 3(c) and Fig. 4 the second bump does
ization factor, N orm, was not changed from the released version not influence the flow upstream indicating that the solution algo-
and is defined as: rithm correctly reproduces the hyperbolic behavior of the flow.

Goldman test
Φref = Φ , As example of highly compressible subsonic, we have re-
S = A·Φ, ported the simulation of a test based on the work of Goldman
et al.[49]. It is a 2-D turbulent analysis of a stator blade at the
Sref = A · Φref ,
X mid-span; the details of the geometry and the mesh are shown in
Norm = (|S − Sref | + |Q − Sref |) . Fig. 5(a). The Reynolds number, based on the chord length of the

6 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
 2.25

2 Lower-Wall
Upper-Wall

1.75

1.5
Mach Number

1.25

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0
x
0.5 1 1.5 (a) Transonic flow.
(a) Mach profile in transonic flow.
2.5

Lower-Wall
2.25 Upper-Wall

1.75
Mach Number

1.5

1.25

0.75

0.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0
x
0.5 1 1.5
(b) Supersonic flow.
(b) Mach profile in supersonic flow.
2.5

Lower-Wall
2.25 Upper-Wall

1.75
Mach Number

1.5

1.25

0.75

0.5 (c) Supersonic flow with two-bump geometry.

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
x

(c) Mach profile in supersonic flow with two-

bump geometry. Figure 4. Density gradient contour plots.

Figure 3. Profile Mach number in upper and lower wall. that reported by Wieghardt [50] and later included in the 1968
AFOSR-IFP Stanford Conference [51]. Details about flow con-
blade and the free-stream velocity, is 500000 and the inlet Mach ditions are listed in Tab. 3.
number is approximately 0.2.
A comparison of the predictions for blade loading (defined Table 3. Flow conditions for flat plate test
as the ratio of static pressure to the inlet total pressure) with the Inlet temperature 294.4 K
experimental data is shown in Fig. 5(b). Inlet Mach number 0.2
Pressure 101400 Pa
Turbulence kinetic energy - k 23.6 m2 s−2
Turbulence Models Validation Test Dissipation - ε 3365 m2 s−3
Comparison axial loc. - x 4.6870 m
Flat Plate
A simple test of a flow over a flat plate has been consid-
ered the best choice to start the validation and selection process
of the turbulence models. Because of the large amount of ac- Results are reported in terms of non dimensional k and ε
cessible data, the ease and velocity of the test, corrections and plotted versus non dimensional wall distance at an axial location
tuning could be carried out quickly and accurately. It has been where flow is fully developed, Fig. 6.
properly checked the near wall behavior of both turbulent kinetic Apart from CH [38] and HW [40], all models result to be
energy and turbulent kinetic energy dissipation. Due to the rela- in good agreement with turbulent kinetic energy experimental
tive simplicity of the case, runs have been performed with a very data for y + ≥ 40. The tendency, excluded the above mentioned
fine grid: first node y + ≈ 0.1. The flow field being modeled is and the LB [41] model, is to totally miss the peak registered for

7 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
 8

7 exp Patel AKN

CH CLL

HW LB

6 LW LNR

k+
3

2
(a) Geometry mesh.
1
1.05

1 FOAM
exp 0
0.95
0 20 40 60 80 100
+
0.9 y

0.85
Padim

0.8

0.75
(a) k+ profile
0.7

0.65
0,30

0.6

0.55
0 0.005 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0,25 1/xy+ exp Patel
x(m)
AKN CH

CLL HW

(b) Pressure ratio over experimental data. LB LW

LNR
0,20

Figure 5. Stator Blade analysis. 0,15

+

y + ' 10. LB estimation viceversa is higher than experimen-

0,10

tal registration. Level of approximation results in being quite

0,05

uniform for the different models with CLL[39] and AKN [37]
slightly better in overlapping free stream values for k + . 0,00

Also for turbulent dissipation, models well predict outer 0 20 40 60 80 100

layer behavior: all models apart from LNR [36] basically coin- +
y

cide for y + ≥ 40. The major disagreements are registered inside

the viscous layer. There is no agreement in fact in predicting the
peak both in terms of positioning and values. Due to the dif-
ferent boundary conditions imposed to the dissipation, near wall
behavior is quite different for each model: LB fails in predicting
the peak, AKN and HW results in having pretty high wall values
for ε. The models that best suit experimental data reported by
Patel [35] are LNR and CLL.
Of all the tested Low Reynolds models the CLL has been
chosen as the most reliable one and used as the example for Low
Reynolds models in the following cases.
Heat Transfer tests
Impingement Cooling
Among various possible techniques to enhance heat transfer
rate, impingement cooling certainly presents very high cooling
efficency, thus it’s commonly found both in typical blade and
(b) ε+ profile
Figure 6. Turbulence quantities profiles.
combustor cooling systems, operating in a wide range of design
conditions. From a numerical point of view, impinging jet flows
present several interesting aspects allowing deep evaluation of
turbulence models.
The problem of a 2-D normal impinging jet of air has been
performed following a test case by ERCOFTAC. Then, the first
row of an array of holes was simulated, with a comparison of
the experimental results obtained during the European project
LOPOCOTEP, with different turbulence models. Further simula-
tions of the complete array were done with the selected models.
To obtain the desired heat transfer results, runs simulation with
an imposed heat flux on the impact wall has been performed.

8 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
 ERCOFTAC C25 Axial-symmetric Impingement
An incompressible flow of a turbulent air jet impinging onto a
flat plate was modeled [8]. The impact surface is heated and kept
at constant heat flux. From the experiment, the Nusselt number
distribution for various jet Reynolds numbers is known. Fig. 7
shows the geometry of the test case. The diameter of the pipe
is D = 0.004 m. The inflow velocity and turbulence conditions
were obtained from the development of a 50 D upstream extruded
inlet hole. For validation purpose, a Reynolds number of 23.000
and a distance of L/D = 2 were chosen. The heated surface was
modeled as a wall at constant heat flux q̇ = 200 W/m2 . All
other walls were treated as adiabatic walls. The far-field bound-
aries are modeled as mixed inflow/outflow pressure boundaries.
Fig. 8 compares the predicted Nusselt number distributions
of 5 turbulence models, namely AKN, SST, CLL, CLLReal and
Two Layer , with the experimental profile.
The predictions of all two-equation models used in this val-
idation case are in good agreement with the experimental data
far from the stagnation point. As known in literature [42] in the
area around the stagnation point Low Reynolds models without
realizability constraint fail and dramatically overpredict the peak
in the heat transfer coefficient (error of almost 200%).
At the same time Two Layer SST and realizable mod-
els show about the same peak value. The local maximum at
r/D ≈ 2 is not seen by the Two Layer and is slightly predicted
by the SST. On the contrary, the CLLReal is well predicting such
peak only shifting a bit towards higher values of the radius.

1-Hole Impingement cooling Both this and the fol-

lowing case, simulating typical design conditions for impinge-
ment cooling of a gas turbine, has been performed on the set up of
an experiment done at the Energy Engineering Department of the
University of Florence for the European project LOPOCOTEP
(LOw POllutant COmbustor TEchnical Programme). Coolant is
injected from a plenum through a perforated plate and impacts
over a flat plate at uniform heat flux. The holes on the plenum
(a) total (b) particular compose an array of 10 − 11 spanwise rows per 9 streamwise
holes. This test is simulating the behavior of the first row while
in the following one 3 − 2 rows (the array of holes is staggered)
Figure 7. Entire geometry and particular of the grid around the stagna-
for a total of 5 jets are impinging. For further details refer to [52].
tion point.
Main flow parameters and grid are reported in Tab. 4 and
Fig. 9.

Table 4. Flow conditions for 1-hole impingement test

Inlet Temperature 308.2 K
Outlet Pressure 85101 Pa
450
Inlet Turbulence level - Tu ≤ 0.5% %
400 Rej 7600
Exp CLL

AKN CLLReal
350 SST TL
Inlet Velocity 0.28956 m/s
Wall Heat flux 3000 W/m2
300

250
NuD

200

150 Simulations have been validated in terms of heat transfer co-

100
efficient calculated with respect to inlet static temperature almost
coincident for such low Mach number with inlet total tempera-
50
ture. Adiabatic simulations have been done too, in order to check
0 whether this approximation could be done or not.
0 1 2 3 4 5
r/D
First thing to notice from Fig. 10 is that, contrarily to ER-
COFTAC test, CLLReal model fails in well predicting heat trans-
fer coefficient around the stagnation point. Moreover, due to the
potential core that is not extinguished at the wall, two unphysical
Figure 8. Nusselt number distribution along radius. spurious peaks are predicted at X/D ≈ 1.

9 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
 experimental

TL path1

500 TL path2

SST path1

SST path2

400

HTC [Wm K ]
-1
300

-2
200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40
X / D

Figure 9. Impingement single hole grid.

Figure 11. Heat transfer coefficient along center lines.

700
Exp

TL
600
kOmega SST

ChenLienReal

500
HTC [Wm K ]
-1

400
-2

300

(a) Experimental
200

100

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5

X / D

(b) Two Layer

Figure 10. Heat transfer coefficient on impinged wall along symmetry

line.

Two Layer and SST result in being almost equivalent both (c) k-ω SST
for the peak level and the far from the stagnation point values,
with the Two Layer predictions slightly lower everywhere on the Figure 12. Heat transfer coefficient [W m−2 K −1 ] distribution on im-
impinged surface. pinged wall.

5-Holes Impingement cooling This case refer to the

same set of experiments of the previous test. For this multi-hole
simulation the plenum as been schematized with a big plenum
where the inlet mass flow is imposed. Computational boundary
conditions follow exactly the previous 1-hole test.
For this geometry only the Two Layer and k−ω SST models
have been tested against experimental results in terms of heat
transfer coefficient, see Fig. 11 and Fig. 12.
Both experimental and numerical data are sampled onto the
two different lines connecting symmetry planes and then merged
together in the zone where a relative minimum is localized.
Even if obtained results are in good agreement with exper-
imental data far from the stagnation point, it should be noticed
that predictions for the peak value are quite different from mea-
sured data. Higher discrepancies on the even peaks are probably
due to errors in the experimental measurements [52]. Comparing
the two models, Two Layer predicts peak values a 10% better of
the SST giving basically identical results outside the stagnation
points area. In any case, it should be considered that tempera-
ture gradients are quite small. A better agreement is expected for
higher values of wall heat flux.

10 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
 Table 5. Flow conditions for Sinha test
Film and effusion cooling
Cross flow temperature 300 K
Among the different techniques used in the cooling of hot
Coolant temperature 153 K
parts in a gas turbine engine, the injection of cooling air in the
Pressure 105 Pa
main flow, producing a thin film of air that isolates the walls from
Density ratio - DR 2.0
the hot gases, is one of the most used. Because of the complex
Blowing-rate - M 0.5
interaction between air and hot gases during mixing, many dif-
Momentum ratio - I 0.125
ferent injection hole shapes and distribution have been studied
Turbulence level - Tu ≤ 0.2 %
and a great amount of research work is still on going [7]. In
Cross flow velocity 20 m/s
particular, most recent developments in drilling capabilities al-
Rec 15700
low the manufacturing of wide arrays of micro-holes (diameters
below 1 mm), currently referred to as effusion cooling. Even if
this technique does not produce a film wall protection as in stan-
dard film cooling, its most important feature is the heat removed
by the passage of coolant inside the holes (heat sink effect): the
great number of holes and their high length/diameter ratio (with
angles below 30◦ ) allows to heavily increase the overall cooling
effectiveness [53]. Effusion cooling represents the base in the
thermal design of modern aero-engine combustors and its use in
the cooling of turbine endwalls is also investigated [7].
Even if film wall protection may not represent the main cool-
ing effect in effusion technique, the prediction of mixing between
coolant and cross flow and the corresponding assessment of adi-
abatic effectiveness, still represent some of the most difficult task
in CFD analysis [47]. Despite the well known deficiency of stan-
dard eddy viscosity turbulence models in the accurate prediction
of jet mixing in cross flow, essentially due to the isotropy as-
Figure 13. Calculation domain and boundary conditions (Sinha et
sumption for turbulent stresses [54, 55, 56], both k − ε and k − ω
al.[6]).
models are still widely used in industrial CFD computations.
Therefore we will analyze in this part the accuracy of Open-
FOAM code in the prediction of adiabatic effectiveness in ef- lence models and calculation meshes. The performances of the
fusion cooling geometries, using the set of turbulence models same five turbulence models as single hole impingement case
selected for heat transfer analysis of this work. As introduced were analyzed, namely AKN, CLL, CLLReal, SST, TL. The grid
above, two test-cases will be studied: the well known single hole used is a structured grid, see Fig. 14 in which it is also reported
experiment by Sinha [6] and an experimental multi-hole geome- a magnification of the zone around the hole.
try aimed at turbine endwalls cooling [7].

Sinha test Experimental data and geometries are based

on tests made by Sinha et al.[6]; local and spanwise averaged
effectiveness is compared with calculated values. The geometry
is a flat plate with a single row of holes, while flow conditions
are listed in table 5.
In the chosen geometry, hot gas flows over a flat plate, while
coolant is injected through one row of holes; upstream of the
injection channel there is a plenum. Fig. 13 shows the fluid do-
main and the different boundary conditions imposed; in partic-
ular, symmetry planes pass through hole axis and half spanwise Figure 14. Mesh details near walls.
pitch. On all inlet surfaces mass flow rate and static tempera-
ture are imposed, symmetry conditions ensure zero gradient over
boundaries in span direction. In Fig. 16, laterally averaged effectiveness downstream of
Single row configuration was mainly considered in order to the hole is shown. Local lateral effectiveness at 1, 10 and 15
have a reference geometry to compare results for different turbu- diameters downstream, is also shown in Fig. 15. A map of wall

11 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
 between numerical and experimental results for all models used.
1,0

0,9

0,8
exp

CLL
0,7
AKN Exp

0,6 TL 0,50 CLL

SST AKN
0,5 0,45 TL
CLLReal
SST
0,4 0,40
CLLReal

0,3 0,35

0,2 0,30

0,25
0,1

0,20
0,0

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

0,15

Y / D
0,10

0,05

(a) 1D 0,00

0 5 10 15 20 25

X / D

1,0

0,9

exp (a) Laterally averaged

0,8
CLL

AKN
0,7
TL

0,6 SST 1,0

Exp
CLLReal
CLL
0,5 0,9
AKN

0,4 0,8 TL

SST
0,3 0,7
CLLReal

0,2 0,6

0,5
0,1

0,4
0,0

0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4

0,3

Y / D
0,2

0,1

(b) 10D 0,0

0 5 10 15 20 25

X / D

1,0

0,9
(b) Center line
0,8
exp

0,7 CLL

0,6
AKN
Figure 16. Comparison between laterally averaged and local center line
TL

0,5
SST film cooling effectiveness.
CLLReal

0,4

0,3

0,2
Attention must be paid on the results at one diameter test
0,1
section for the CLLReal model. The baffle underlined at the end
0,0
of the spanwise direction is a consequence of a poor develop-
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 1,2 1,4
ing of the boundary layer predicted by the model. Low values
Y / D

of turbulent viscosity do not dissipate the horse-shoe vortex up-

(c) 15D
Figure 15. Spanwise distribution of film cooling effectiveness at various
sections.
effectiveness as well as distribution over the symmetry plane is
reported in Fig. 17 and Fig. 18. There is a fairly good agreement
stream of the hole. A low pressure zone drives coolant gas com-
ing from the plenum around the jet. As a consequence there is
more spreading of the film in spanwise direction and the evidence
is a local maximum for the effectiveness at X/D ≈ 1.2. On the
other hand, centreline values show that SST model has a deeper
penetration of the jet, see also Fig. 18, showing a local minimum
in the effectiveness profile just downstream the hole.
It’s clear that numerical simulations predict a coherent jet
Fig. 17, thus severally underestimating coolant lateral diffusion.

12 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
 Table 6. Flow conditions for 6-holes effusion test
Cross flow temperature 323 K
Coolant temperature 298 K
(a) CLLReal
Pressure 7.0 · 104 Pa
Density ratio - DR 1.103
Blowing-rate - M 0.2
(b) CLL

(c) SST

(d) Two Layer

Figure 19. 6-holr effusion cooling case mesh.

(e) Color
map
Results are reported in terms of spanwise averaged adiabatic
effectiveness, see Fig. 20. Together with experimental data, cor-
Figure 17. Effectiveness distribution over the wall. relative approach predictions using L’Ecuyer and Soechting cor-
relation with Sellers superposition criterion have been reported
[7]. First of all it can be noticed that Two Layer model strongly

(a) CLLReal (b) CLL

0.50

(c) SST (d) TL Experimental

0.45

OF-TL
0.40
OF-SST

Ecuyer-Soechting
0.35

0.30

0.25

Figure 18. Sinha - Temperature distribution on symmetry plane [K]. 0.20

0.15

0.10

This is not evident at 1 D downstream, but the effect grows pro- 0.05

ceeding in cross flow direction. This behavior is mostly due to 0.00

an isotropic modeling of turbulence near the wall, see Simon, 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Jubran, Azzi and Lakehal [57, 54, 55, 56]. Similar results can be X / D

found also in Andreini et al. [47] with commercial solvers.

6-Holes effusion cooling The geometry of this case is
a six holes flat plate interposed in between a plenum and a chan-
nel at lower pressure. To enhance numerical stability, the plenum
has been gridded as six different smaller plena each one with the
same inlet mass flow imposed to respect total experimental cool-
ing air mass flow Fig. 19. A summary of flow conditions can be
found in Tab. 6.
Figure 20. Spanwise averaged adiabatic effectiveness.
improves matching of both experimental and correlative data in
comparison to k − ω SST. Two Layer is still in slightly over pre-
diction for the peak values especially for even peaks, for the odd
ones in fact peak values result in being on the same level of the

13 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
previous hole, meaning that rows interaction is very weak. This
lack is due to the assumption of isotropic behavior of the turbu-
lent viscosity. Such effect is even stronger for the k − ω SST.
This can be seen also on the map of adiabatic effectiveness in
Fig. 21.
(a) Two Layer
(b) SST
(c) experimental
Figure 21. Comparison between laterally averaged and local center line
film cooling effectiveness.
Both models qualitative well predict the correlative decay
of the spanwise effectiveness downstream the holes. By looking
at the two-dimensional effectiveness map in Fig. 21 it’s evident
the reason why SST turbulence model over predict previously
plotted data. In fact the jet predicted by SST model presents a
different shape a significant lateral diffusion as well as a more
coherent structure along the flow. Both phenomena could be at-
tributed to a higher turbulent viscosity. Moreover, the SST model
predicts a thinner and larger film which is able to keep its cool-
ing potential being less affected by the interaction with the main
flow in the shear layer.
CONCLUSIONS
A numerical investigation was set up to validate an open
source CFD code based on object oriented programming lan-
guage. Many different tests were performed representing the
state of the art for the cooling systems in turbomachinery appli-
cations. Validation of a pressure correction algorithm and various
turbulence models have been made by comparison with experi-
mental data on typical heat transfer geometries. Massive parallel
calculation have also been tested for the multirow configuration
simulations both for impingement and effusion cases by the use
of LAM/MPI library http://www.lam-mpi.org.
14
The combination of the new built-in OpenFOAM libraries is
able to reproduce the flow conditions with good accuracy for all
the geometries studied. Good agreement with experimental data
and with the common commercial software has been reached for
impingement and effusion cooling configurations.
Further investigations have to be made especially for ef-
fusion cooling simulations. First of all, implementation of
anisotropic turbulence models is needed in order to correct the
lack of spanwise diffusion.
The used object oriented language give us a very flexible
way for implementing new turbulence models, solver algorithms,
boundary condition types and physical models.
Future work will be concentrated on expanding the capabil-
ity of the code to simulate fluid-structure interaction, with main
focus in conjugate heat transfer analysis.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Many thanks to Dr. Hrvoje Jasak of Assistant professor (do-
cent), Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architec-
ture (FSB), University of Zagreb, Croatia.and to OpenCFD Lim-
ited 2004-2007, Reading UK
References
[1] Openfoam user guide. Technical report, OpenCFD Lim-
ited.
[2] Openfoam programmers guide. Technical report,
OpenCFD Limited.
[3] Stephen R. Davis. C++ for Dummies. 5th Edition.
[4] Bjarne Stourstroup. The C++ programming language. Ad-
dison Wesley, 1997.
[5] Stanley and Lippmann. C++ Primer. Addison Wesley 3rd
ed.
[6] A. K. Sinha, D. G. Bogard, and M. E. Crawford. Film-
cooling effectiveness downstream of a single row of holes
with variable density ratio. ASME Journal of Turbomachin-
ery, 113:442–449, 1991.
[7] L. Arcangeli, M. Surace, L. Tarchi, D. Coutandin, and
S. Zecchi. Correlative analysis of effusion cooling systems.
ASME Turbo Expo, (GT2006-90405), 2006.
[8] D. Cooper, D. C. Jackson, B. E. Launder, and G. X. Liao.
Impinging jet studies for turbulence model assessment. part
i: Flow-field experiments. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, (36):
2675–2684, 1993.
[9] A. Andreini, E. Di Carmine, B. Facchini, and M. Surace.
Combustor liner cooling: numerical analysis of imping-
ment geometries. 2005.
[10] H. Jasak. Error Analysis and Estimation for the Finite Vol-
ume Method with Applications to Fluid Flows. PhD the-
sis, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine,
1996.
c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
[11] H. Jasak, H.G. Weller, and N. Nordin. In cylinder cfd sim-
ulation using a c++ object-oriented toolkit. SAE Technical
papers, (2004-01-0110).
[12] F. Juretic. Error Analysis in Finite Volume. PhD thesis, Im-
perial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, 2004.
[13] J. R. Shewchuk. An introduction to the conjugate gradi-
ent method without the agonizing pain. Technical report,
School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University -
Pittsburgh, PA 15213, 1994.
[14] S. V. Patankar. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow.
Taylor & Francis, USA, 1980.
[15] W. Malasakera and H. K. Versteeg. Computational Fluid
Dynamics. Longman Scientific, England, 1995.
[16] M. Peric. Numerical methods for computing turbulent
flows. Technical Report VKI LS 2004-06.
[17] J. H. Ferziger and M. Peric. Computational Methods for
Fluid Dynamics. Springer, Germany, 2002.
[18] M. Peric, Z. Lilek, and L. Demirdzic. A collocated finite
volume method for predicting flows at all speed. Journal of
Numerical Methods in Fluids, 16:1029–1050, 1993.
[19] M. Darbandi and G. E. Schneider. Application of an all-
speed flow algorithm to heat transfer problems. Numerical
heat transfer, 35:695–715, 1999.
[20] C. M. Rhie. Pressure based navier-stokes solver using the
multigrid method. AIAA Journal, 27(8):1017–1018, 1989.
[21] W. Shyy and M. E. Braaten. Applications of a general-
ized pressure correction algorith for flows in complicated
geometries. Advances and Applications in Computational
Fluid Dynamics - ASME Winter Annual Meeting, pages
109–119, 1988.
[22] W. Shyy and M. E. Braaten. Adaptive grid computation
for inviscid compressible flows using a pressure correction
method. AIAA, ASME, SIAM, and APS, National Fluid Dy-
namics Congress, pages 112–120, 1988.
[23] K. C. Karki and S. V. Patankar. Pressure based calculation
procedure for viscous flows at all speeds in arbitrary con-
figurations. AIAA Journal, 27(9).
[24] J. Rincon and R. Elder. A high resolution pressure based
method for compressible flow. Journal of Computation and
Physics, 3:217–231, 1997.
[25] F. S. Lien and M. A. Leschziner. A pressure-velocity so-
lution strategy for compressible flow and its application
to shock/boundary-layer interaction using second-moment
turbulence closure. Journal of fluids engineering, 115:717–
725, 1993.
[26] E. S. Politis and K. C. Giannakoglou. A pressure-based
algorithm for high speed turbomachinery flows. Interna-
tional journal for numerical methods in fluids, 25:63–80,
1996.
[27] J. J. McGuirk and G. Page. Shock capturing using a
pressure-correction method. AIAA Journal, 28(10):1751–
1757, 1990.
15
[28] F. Moukalled and M. Darwish. Tvd schemes for unstruc-
tured grids. International Journal of heat and mass trans-
fer, 46:599–611, 2003.
[29] F. Moukalled and M. Darwish. Normalized variable
and space formulation methodology for high-resolution
schemes. Numerical heat transfer. Part B, fundamentals,
26:79–96, 1994.
[30] F. Moukalled and M. Darwish. A unified formulation of the
segregated class of algorithms for fluid flow at all speeds.
Numerical heat transfer. Part B, fundamentals, 37:103–
139, 2000.
[31] F. Moukalled and M. Darwish. A robust pressure based
algorithm for multiphase flow. International journal for
numerical methods in fluids, 41:1221–1251, 2003.
[32] I. Senocak and W. Shyy. A pressure based method fot turbu-
lent cavitating flow computations. Journal of Computation
and Physics, 176:363–383, 2001.
[33] L. Davidson. An introduction to turbulence models. Tech-
nical Report Publication 97/2, Chalmers University of
Technology, 2003.
[34] J. Bredberg. On two equation eddy-viscosity models. Tech-
nical Report Internal report 01/8, Chalmers University of
Technology, 2001.
[35] V. C. Patel, W. Rodi, and G. Sheuerer. Turbulence mod-
els for near wall and low reynolds number flows: a review.
AIAA Journal, 26:1308–1319, 1993.
[36] F. S. Lien. Computational modeling of 3-D flow in complex
ducts and passages. PhD thesis, University of Manchester,
Institute of science and technology, 1992.
[37] K. Abe, T. Kondoh, and Y. Nagano. A new turbulence mod-
els for predicting fluid flow and heat transfer in separating
and reattaching flows-i. flow field calculations. Interna-
tional Journal of Heat Mass Transfer, 37:139–151, 1994.
[38] D. A. Yoder and N. J. Georgiadis. Implementation and
validation of the chien k − ε turbulence model in the
wind navier-stokes code. Technical Report 209080, NASA,
Glenn Research Center, Cleveland Ohio, 1999.
[39] F. S. Lien, W. L. Chen, and M. A. Leshziner. Low-
reynolds-number eddy-viscosity modelling based on non-
linear stress-strain/vorticity relations. Engineering turbu-
lence modelling and experiments, 3:91–100, 1996.
[40] C. B. Hwang and C. A. Lin. Improved low-reynolds-
number k − ε model based on direct numerical simulation
data. AIAA Journal, 36(1):38–43, 1998.
[41] C. K. G. Lam and K. Bremhorst. A modified form of the
k −ε model for predicting wall turbulence. Journal of fluids
engineering, 103:456–460, 1981.
[42] P. A. Durbin. On the k − ε stagnation point anomaly. Inter-
national journal of heat and fluid flow, 17(1):89–90, 1996.
[43] G. Medic and P. A. Durbin. Towards improved prediction of
heat transfer on turbine blades. Journal of turbomachinery,
124:187–192, 2002.
c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °
[44] D. Lakehal, G. S. Theodoris, and W. Rodi. Three-
dimensional flow and heat tranfer calculations of film cool-
ing at the leading edge of a symmetrical turbine blade
model. International journal of heat and fluid flow, 22:
113–122, 2001.
[45] F. R. Menter. Two equation eddy viscosity turbulence
model for engineering applications. AIAA Journal, 32:
1598–1604, 1994.
[46] F. R. Menter. Zonal two equation k − ω turbulence models
for aerodynamic flows. AIAA Paper, (93-2906), 1993.
[47] A. Andreini, C. Carcasci, S. Gori, and M. Surace. Film
cooling system numerical design: adiabatic and conjugate
analysis. ASME paper, (HT2005-72042), 2005.
[48] K.C. Karki. A calculation procedure for viscous flows at
all speeds in complex geometries. PhD thesis, University
of Minnesota, 1986.
[49] L. G. Goldman, , and K. L. McLallin. Cold-air annu-
lar cascade investigation of aerodynamic performance of
core-engine-cooled turbine vanes: I solid vane performance
and facility description. Technical report, NASA Technical
Memorandum, 1977.
[50] K. Wieghardt and W. Tillman. On the turbulent fric-
tion layer for rising pressure. Technical Report TM-1314,
NACA, 1951.
[51] D. E. Coles and E. A. Hirst. Computation of turbulent
boundary layers. In AFOSRIFP Stanford Conference, vol-
ume 2. Stanford University, 1969.
[52] B. Facchini and M. Surace. Impingement cooling for mod-
ern combustors: experimental analysis of heat transfer and
effectiveness. Experiments in Fluids, (40):601–611, 2006.
[53] K. M. B. Gustafsson. Experimental studies of effusion cool-
ing. PhD thesis, Chalmers University of technology, De-
partment of Thermo and Fluid Dynamics, 2001.
[54] A. Azzi and D. Lakehal. Perspectives in modeling film
cooling of turbine blades by transcending conventional
two-equation turbulence models. Journal of turbomachin-
ery, (124):472–484, 2002.
[55] A. Azzi and B. A. Jubran. Numerical modeling of film
cooling from short length steam-wise injection holes. Heat
and mass transfer, (39):345–353, 2003.
[56] D. Lakehal. Near-wall modeling of turbulent convective
heat transport in film cooling of turbine blades with the aid
of direct numerical simulation data. Journal of turboma-
chinery, (124):485–498, 2002.
[57] T. Simon. Film-cooling lateral diffusion and hole entry ef-
fects. NASA Lewis, (1996 Coolant flow management work-
shop), 1996.

16 c 2007 - by ASME
Copyright °