Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.

122–135 (2009)

ANALYSIS OF THE IMPROVEMENT

IN PERFORMANCE CHARACTERISTICS OF
S-SHAPED RECTANGULAR DIFFUSER BY MOMENTUM
INJECTION USING COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS
S. N. Singh*, V. Seshadri, Sunil Chandel and Mahendra Gaikwad

Department of Applied Mechanics, IIT Delhi, Hauz Khas, New Delhi – 110016, India
* E-Mail: sidhnathsingh@hotmail.com (Corresponding Author)

ABSTRACT: The present study reports the effect of momentum injection at the inlet on the performance of
an S-shaped rectangular diffuser having an aspect ratio of 6 at inlet. A cylinder of diameter 3 cm was placed at the
inflexion plane across the width of the diffuser and rotated at different speeds to inject momentum to the
decelerating flow as a result of boundary layer separation. It was found that pressure recovery and flow distribution
improved significantly. Improvement in coefficient of pressure recovery was about 24% for duct having an area ratio
of 2 and nearly 22% for duct with an area ratio of 3. Simultaneously the values of the coefficient of total pressure
loss decreased by 32% and 51% for ducts with area ratio of 2 and 3 respectively.
Keywords: S-shaped rectangular diffuser, rotating cylinder, momentum injection, boundary layer, CFD, pressure
recovery coefficient

1. INTRODUCTION the separation region reduced and the diffuser

A diffuser is a fluid mechanical device which
recovers the pressure energy from the flowing
fluid. Diffusers are of many types namely axial,
radial and curved depending on the geometry and
find very common use in turbo-machinery. In
aircraft applications, curved diffusers are used due
to space constraints and design compatibility.
Study of flow characteristics within these ducts
has been of fundamental interest to researchers in
the area of fluid mechanics for the last few
decades. S-shaped diffuser is one of the important
types of curved diffuser. The flow in these ducts
is prone to separation at the inflexion plane due to
high flow divergence as a result of steep curvature
in the flow direction, resulting in degradation of
its performance. Different methods like suction,
blowing and vortex generators have been
proposed by researchers to control the boundary
layer separation and thereby improve the
performance of the diffuser.
Yoshimasa et al. (1970) achieved remarkable
improvement in the performance of rectangular
cross-sectional diffuser (AR = 4) having higher
diffusion angle by using suction to control the
boundary layer separation. Chen and He (1991)
have reported the experimental results in terms of
flow characteristics for a high aspect ratio and
highly curved S-shaped subsonic diffuser with
and without the separation control in the form of
submerged vortex generator. They concluded that
performance improved on proper selection of
location and geometrical parameters of the vortex
generator. Modi, Fernando and Yokomizo (1991)
assessed the effectiveness of the concept of
injection of momentum through moving surfaces
and concluded that the flow separation was
delayed considerably. Nishi et al. (1997) have
shown the applicability of vortex generator jets
(VGT) for the control of flow separation in a
conical diffuser. They positioned the vortex
generator jets at different orientations in a 2.56
area ratio conical diffuser and concluded that the
separation was almost suppressed and the
pressure recovery coefficient increased from 0.63
to 0.68 for a velocity ratio of 1.9. Sullery and
Pradeep (2004) experimentally investigated the
effectiveness of vortex generator jets in
controlling secondary flows in two dimensional
S-shaped diffusers for both uniform and distorted
inlet conditions. They concluded that for uniform
flow, the use of vortex generator jets results in
reduction by 30% in total pressure loss and flow
distortion coefficient whereas for distorted flow at
inlet, a reduction of 25% in total pressure loss and
flow distortion coefficient was achieved. Anand,
Rai and Singh (2003) have studied the effect of
turning angle on the flow and performance
characteristics of long S-shaped circular diffusers.
They found that the overall static pressure
recovery increases for swirl flow at inlet

Received: 31 May 2008; Revised: 19 Aug. 2008; Accepted: 22 Sep. 2008

122
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

irrespective of direction of swirl (clockwise or These equations are of the same general form as
anti-clockwise) and the increase was around 40%. the original equations except for some additional
The loss coefficient also increases for flows with terms. The additional terms are the Reynolds
swirl. stresses and these need to be modeled for closure
The concept of boundary layer control by moving solution. To compute the Reynolds stresses with
surfaces has been proposed by many researchers. the k-ε model, an extended Boussinesq
Singh et al. (2002) have shown through their relationship is used as follows:
experimental investigation of the NACA 8420
⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞ 2⎛ ⎞
aerofoil using a rotating cylinder at the leading − ρu i' u 'j = μ t ⎜ i + ⎟ − ⎜ ρk + μ t ∂u i ⎟⎟δ ij (3)
⎜ ∂x ⎟ 3⎜
edge that a significant increase in the coefficient ⎝ j ∂xi ⎠ ⎝ ∂xi ⎠
of lift can be obtained. Singh et al. (2005) have
also investigated the effect on aerodynamic drag where k is the turbulent kinetic energy, δij is the
for a model truck by using moving wall concept. Kronecker delta and μ t is the eddy viscosity.
The results show that the coefficient of drag In the present investigation, the two-equation
reduces by approximately 32% for the model standard k-ε turbulence model (Launder and
truck for a cylinder with a radius of 1 cm and a Spalding, 1974) has been used in which two
rotational speed of 4000 rpm. Singhal et al. (2006) additional transport equations, one for the
investigated the effect of injecting momentum turbulent kinetic energy (k) and the other for the
through a moving surface to control the boundary turbulence dissipation rate (ε) are solved to
layer separation for a two dimensional rectangular evaluate μ t , which is computed as
diffuser and found an overall improvement in
pressure recovery of 28% along with μ t = ρC μ k 2 ε (4)
improvement in flow distortion in the core region.
The study also concluded that an increase in where Cμ is a constant.
moving surface speed improves the pressure The additional equations for k and ε for steady
recovery only marginally. incompressible flow in simplified form are
The available literature on boundary layer flow ∂k ∂ ⎡⎛ μt ⎞ ∂k ⎤
separation control using moving walls only ρu i = ⎢⎜⎜ μ + ⎟⎟ ⎥ + G k − ρε + YM (5)
∂x i ∂ x i ⎣⎝ σk ⎠ ∂x i ⎦
includes straight diffusers, aerofoils, automobiles,
etc. In the present study, investigation of the
∂ε ∂ ⎡⎛ μt ⎞ ∂ε ⎤
effect of momentum injection by a moving wall ρu i = ⎢⎜⎜ μ + ⎟⎟ ⎥
on S-shaped rectangular diffusers with area ratios ∂xi ∂xi ⎣⎝ σε ⎠ ∂xi ⎦
of 2 and 3 has been carried out to assess the ε ε2
improvement in the diffuser performance. The + C1ε G k − C 2ε ρ (6)
k K
speed of the moving wall was varied by changing
the rotational speed of the cylinder. Gk represents the production of turbulent kinetic
energy and is evaluated as
2. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
Gk = μ t S 2 (7)
A commercially available CFD code where S is the modules of mean rate of strain
“FLUENT 6.1” (Fluent Inc., 2003) has been used tensor defined as
for the analysis of turbulent flows. Details of the
mathematical model are given in the manual of S = 2S ij S ij (8)
the code. Only a brief discussion of the model is
given here. The governing equations for mean with mean strain rate Sij given by
flow in reduced form for steady incompressible
flows are: 1 ⎡ ∂u i ∂u j ⎤ (9)
S ij = ⎢ + ⎥
2 ⎣⎢ ∂x j ∂xi ⎥⎦
∂
(ρui ) = S m (1)
∂xi The dilatation dissipation term (YM) for
incompressible flow has been neglected.
∂ui ⎡ ⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞ 2 ⎤
ρu j =−
∂p
+
∂
⎢μ ⎜ i + ⎟ − μδ ij ∂ui ⎥ The value of the empirical constants used are
∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣ ⎜⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎟ 3
⎠ ∂xi ⎥⎦ C1ε = 1.44, C2ε = 1.92, Cμ = 0.09, σk = 1.0 and
σε = 1.3. These values have been found to work
+
∂
∂x j
(
− ρui' u 'j ) (2) fairly well for a wide range of wall bounded and
free shear flows.

123
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)
3. DESCRIPTION OF GEOMETRY AND
RANGE OF PARAMETERS
INVESTIGATED
3.1 Geometrical parameters
The geometric details of the S-shaped diffuser,
used in the present study, are shown in Fig. 1(a)
and it has a turn of 90°/90°. The radius of
curvature at the centerline for both upper and
lower limbs is 191 mm and the area ratio of the
diffuser is 2. Straight ducts of 100 mm long were
provided at both the inlet and outlet. For the S-
shaped diffuser with an area ratio of 3.0, these
lengths were 100 mm for the inlet and 500 mm
for the outlet. (Fig. 1(b)). For controlling the
separation of boundary layer a single cylinder
having 3 cm diameter is placed at a distance of
x = 0.5L (inflexion plane) and rotated at different
speeds in the range of 4,000–10,000 rad/s for S
duct with an area ratio of 2 whereas for S duct
with an area ratio of 3, the cylinder is placed at a
distance of x = 0.333L and rotated at different
speeds in the range of 4,000–12,000 rad/s.
Approximately, 115° sector of cylinder surface is
in touch with the flow inside the duct.
30°
W1 CC
100
60°
CV
90°/30°
CC
90°/60°
All dimensions are in mm
W1 = 50 mm, W2 = 100 mm L = 600 mm, breadth (b) = 300 mm
AR = W2 / W1 = 2 AS = b / W1 = 6.0, L / W1 = 12.0
Fig. 1(a) Geometry of S-diffuser having AR=2
showing rotating cylinder at the inflexion
plane (CC–Concave Plane, CV–Convex
Plane).
W1
CC
100
CV
CV
W2
CC
Moving wall 500
All dimensions are in mm
W1 = 50 mm, W2 = 150 mm L = 600 mm, breadth (b) = 300 mm
AR = W2 / W1 = 3 AS = b / W1 = 6.0, L / W1 = 12.0
Fig. 1(b) Geometry of S-diffuser having AR=3
showing rotating cylinder at the inflexion
plane.
3.2 Performance parameters
The important performance parameters evaluated
to compare the performance of the ducts with and
without the rotating cylinder are coefficient of
pressure recovery (CP) and coefficient of total
pressure loss (CL). They are defined as
(a) CP = (PSo – PSi) / (1/2 ρUavi2)
(b) CL = (PTi – PTo) / (1/2 ρUavi2)
where Pso and Psi are the average value of the
static pressure at the outlet and inlet respectively
and PTo and PTi are the average value of the total
pressure at the outlet and inlet respectively. Here
Uavi is mass average inlet velocity and ρ is the
density of fluid.
CV
3.3 Description of geometric model and
computational methodology used
W2 Geometric models of the diffusers were created
using “GAMBIT” modeling software with
100
dimensions shown in Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b).
After developing the model, the flow domain was
meshed into two parts. Near the walls, boundary
layer meshing was used to take care of steep
velocity gradients and the remaining portion was
meshed using hexahedral map meshing scheme.
Grid independency test was also performed by
carrying out flow simulations using three mesh
sizes (302,803, 569,664 and 1,071,712 cells). It
was found that increase in the mesh size beyond
569,664 did not change the solution by more than
1% and hence this value was chosen for further
parametric investigations.
Flow analysis was carried out using the CFD code
“FLUENT 6.1” which uses finite volume
approach. The Reynolds number was fixed as
124
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

2.34 × 105 with uniform velocity of 40 m/s at inlet
and air as working fluid (μ = 1.789 × 10-5 Kg/m-s).
Outlet boundary condition was specified as
pressure outlet with zero gauge pressure.
Roughness height of 0.2 mm and roughness
constant of 0.5 were specified at the walls of the
diffuser to account for the wall finish of the
diffuser model used for validation purpose.
Further, predictions done with rough walls
showed that a roughness height of 0.2 mm
showed improved matching with the experimental
results. Turbulence intensity of around 4% and
hydraulic diameter of 85.7 mm were also
specified at the inlet to initialize the values of k−ε
for the turbulence model used for closure solution.
Steady flow solutions are performed using
implicit scheme with segregated solver. Second
order upwinding method was used for getting
more accurate results. Pressure-velocity coupling
has been carried out using SIMPLE algorithm.
Scarborough condition was satisfied using under
relaxation factors for all equations. The residuals
of all parameters were kept in the order of 10-6 in
the converged solution.

(a) plane-30 degree ( b) plane-60 degree

50 40

40
30

30
U(m/s)

U(m/s)
20
20

10
10

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r* r*

(c) plane-90 degree (d) plane-90/30 degree

40 40

30 30
U(m/s)
U(m/s)

20 20

10 10

0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r* r*

(e) plane-90/60 degree (f) plane-90/90 degree

40
40

30 30
U(m/s)

U(m/s)

20 20

10
10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
r*
r*

Fig. 2 Comparison between calculated and experimental velocity profiles at mid-plane of the S-shaped diffuser
without cylinder at different measuring locations.

125
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

3.4 Validation of CFD code uncertainty in the experimental values may be

large as only 3 hole probe which can only
The CFD code used in this study has been
measure 2-dimensional plane velocity has been
validated with the experimental results obtained
by Majumdar (1994). Geometry details of the S- used. The second reason could be that the k−ε
shaped diffuser used for validation purpose is turbulence model has its limitation in resolving
shown in Fig. 1(a) (without cylinder). Velocity the flow in the region of steep velocity gradient.
The mean velocity distribution at the exit plane
profiles obtained computationally at 30°, 60°, 90°,
also shows good matching between both
90°/30°, 90°/60° and 90°/90° planes match fairly
computational and experimental results (Fig. 3).
well with experimental data (Fig. 2). The
Fig. 4 shows the comparison of pressure recovery
comparison shown for midplane velocities shows
coefficient. The matching as far as trends are
that the agreement for the first four planes is very
concerned is quite good. The overall pressure
good except close to the walls. The deviations at
recovery predicted shows a deviation of around
the last two planes increase significantly not only
9% with experimental pressure recovery. The
close to the wall but also in the core region.
deviations in the region at the inflexion plane are
Attempt to reduce these deviations was made by
slightly large and can be attributed to the same
increasing the meshing intensity close to the walls
reasons as stated above. Based on these
to resolve the lower y+ values and also by doing
comparisons, it can be concluded that the CFD
grid independency tests in the core regions where
code is validated and can be used for carrying out
velocity gradients were large. The deviations
further investigations.
could not be resolved, which can be attributed to
the fact that the flow is highly 3D and the
CC CV

0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1
U/Uavi

Fig. 3 Comparison between calculated and experimental mean velocity distribution at the exit cross sectional
plane of S-diffuser for validation purpose.

experimental computational
60

50.2
50 47.23
46

40 37.1 35.38
36 38.96
Cp (%)

30
19.1 26.57 27.71
25.92

20

14.0217
10
Fig. 4 Comparison between computed and
0 0 experimental mass averaged pressure
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 recovery coefficients.
x/L

126
Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

5 0.55 0.65
0 .6 0.75 0.75
0.85 0.85
0.85 0.90
0.9 0 0.9 0
0.95
0.9 5 0.95
0.95

0 .7 5 0.90 0.60 0.90 0.60 0.95 0 .8 0

0.55 0.40 0.45 0.45 0.45

0.60 0.55
0 0.650
0.7 0.75
.75
0.8
5

0.80 0
0 .7

0.80
0.85
0 .8 0

0.85 .80
0.65 0.650
0.45 0.70 0.05 0.40
0.05

0 .7 0
0 .7 0.65 0.65
0.70 0 .8 0
0.75
0.80

0.80 0.80
0
0.80 0 .8
0.80
0 .7 0
0 .7 0 0.65
0.4 0 0.75 0 .4 0
0.1 0 0.65 0.15
0.45
0 .6 0 0.10 0.25 0.10
0 .4
5

0.70 0.70 0.85

0 .8 5 0 .8

0.85
0.85 0.85
0.85 0.80
0

5
0.75 5 0 .7
0 0.80 0 .7 0.
0 .6 3 5 0 65
0 . 20 0 .7

0 .5
0. 0.65 0.1 5

0 .2 5
0
0 .1 0

0 . 6

0
0.50
0.40 0.35
0.10 0.20 0.10
0.05 0.10 0.10 0 .0 5

0.60 0.50 0.50 0 .5 0

0.70 0.75
0 .7 5 0.7 5
0.70 0.75 0.70
0.60
0.75 0.50
0.50
0 .4 0 0.4 0
0.70
0 .3 0
0.60 0 0.30
0.40 0 .5
0.30 0.40 0. 0.40
0 .40 0.25 0.25
0 .3 0 2
0.20 0.15 0.250

0 .2 0 0.50 0.15 0 .2 0
0.25 0.30
0 .5 5 0.40 0.50
55 0 .5 0 0.60
0.
0 .6
60

0.4 5
0.

0
50

0.65
0.

0.40 0 .4
0
0 .4 5
5
0 .4

0 .4

0.60
5

0.55
0
0 .4

0.50
5 0 .4 0
0 .5 0
0

0 .3
5
0 .4
0 .4

0.45 0.40 0.45 0.35

0.30 0.25

Fig. 5 Longitudinal velocity contours for diffuser (AR=2) without cylinder.

127
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

CC 0.6 0.75

30° 0.9
0.95

CV 0.95

CC 0.60 0.50

0 .6
0.60

0
0.75
75

0.
0.

60°

75
0.80

0 .7 5 0.75
0.7 5
CV
CC 0.70
0.76
0.77

0.77
90°

0.76
0.70 0.70
0.76
CV
CV 0.75
0 .7 5

0.75

0.75
90°/30°
0 .65 0 .5

0.65
0.65

55
0.55
5

0.
0.45 33 0.45
0 .3 1 3 6 0.313633 0 .4 5
0.313633
CC 0.313633

CV 0.7
0 .7
0.
7 0 .7
0.7
0.65
0 .6 5
90°/60° 0.55 0.65
0 .5 5
0.45
0.55 0.
0.35 45
0.45
0.35 0.3 5
0.25
0.25 0.25
CC
CV 0 .3 5 0.35
0.50 0.55
0.60 0.60 0.60

90°/90° 0.55 0.55

0.60 0.45
0 .5 0
0 .3 5 0.55 0 .3 5

0.35 0.35
0.45
0.35
CC 0.26 0.10

CV 0.30
0 .5 0 0.40
0.50 0 .5 0
0.55 0.5 5
5
0 .5
Outlet 0.50
0
0 .5

0 .5 0.59 0.4 5
59

9
0.

0.50

0.45 0.55 0 .4 0

0.50

0.40 0.45 0.40

CC 0.40

Fig. 6 Normalized longitudinal velocity contours at different sections along the length of S-shaped rectangular
diffuser (AR=2) for single cylinder at 10000 rad/s.

128
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The validated CFD code is used to analyze flow
characteristics of S-shaped rectangular diffusers
(Fig. 1(a) and Fig. 1(b)) with a single rotating
cylinder. The work has been divided into two
parts. Firstly, an S-shaped rectangular diffuser
having an area ratio of 2 is analyzed, followed by
one having an area ratio of 3.
4.1 S-shaped diffuser with area ratio 2
A single cylinder of 3 cm diameter is placed at a
distance of x = 0.5L at the inflexion plane and
rotated at different speeds in the range of 4,000–
10,000 rad/s to control the boundary layer
separation by imparting momentum to the
retarding fluid close to the wall at the inflexion
plane. Approximately, 115° section of cylinder
surface is in contact with the flow inside the duct.
Longitudinal velocity distribution shows increase
in velocity near the convex wall at 30°, 60° and
90° planes due to momentum injection. This is
because of inward suction of the low velocity
fluid by the moving cylinder, thereby delaying
separation which otherwise takes place at
x = 0.45L close to the inflexion plane in normal
operation, i.e. without cylinder (Fig. 5). For the
highest cylinder speed, this point vanishes
CC
CV
30°
CC
CV
60°
CC
CV
90°
Fig. 7 Normalized cross flow velocity vector plots at different sections along the S-shaped rectangular diffuser with
cylinder rotating at the speed of 10000 rad/s.
129
completely. The flow development in the
S-shaped rectangular diffuser for the highest
cylinder speed is presented in Fig. 6. Further
increase in cylinder speed did not show any
significant changes. The flow distribution in the
second bend shows higher and lower velocities
near convex and concave walls respectively, at
both 60° and 90° planes. A uniform velocity
distribution is seen across the exit cross-section.
Secondary flow distribution shows the presence
of very weak vortices close to the inner corner of
parallel walls of the diffuser in the first bend of
the diffuser. The flow breaks into two pairs of
counter rotating vortices in the second bend of the
diffuser due to imposition of centrifugal forces
and flow diffusion. The magnitude of these
vortices increases further till exit, but one pair
remains smaller than the other. Secondary flow
distribution in vector form is presented in Fig. 7
for the extreme cylinder speed.
The vital parameter for evaluation of performance
of any diffuser is the coefficient of pressure
recovery and coefficient of total pressure loss.
Figs. 8 and 9 show comparative study of these
parameters for extreme cylinder speed. Figures
show 23.8% increase in pressure recovery
coefficient and 32% fall in total pressure loss due
to momentum injection by the rotating cylinder at
its extreme speed.
CV
CC
90°/30°
CV
CC
90°/60°
CV
CC
90°/90°
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

AR-2 with cylinder without cylinder AR-2 With cylinder without cylinder

70 18
16.9
61.9
16
60
53.72 14
14
47.45
50
50.2 12
38.1 47.23 10.3
38.29 11.48
40 10

CL(%)
Cp(%)

10.24
7.6
36 37.1 35.38 8.85
30 8
20.65 5.2
6
20 19.1 5.85
4 3
4
10 2.94
2

0 0 0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L x/L

Fig. 8 Comparison of coefficients of pressure Fig. 9 Comparison of coefficients of total pressure

recovery along the length of S-diffuser loss along the length of S-diffuser (AR=2)
(AR= 2) with and without cylinder rotation. with and without cylinder rotation.

CC 0.45 0.45 0.45

0 .7 0
0.70 0.70

30° 0.79 0.79

0 .8
0.85 5
0.90

0.90 5
0.90 0 .8
CV 0.45 0.85 0.45 0.45

CC 0.35 0.35

0 .3 0 .5
0.35

5
0 .5

0.5
0.6 0.6

60° 0.
7
0.7
0.6

0.7 0.741492
6 0.741492 0.
0 . 0 .5 0.7
6
0.05 0.5
0.

CV 0.35 0.05
5

CC 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65

0.65
0.70 0.7 0

0.73
0 .7 0

0.73
90° 0 .7 0
0 .6 5
0.70
0 .4 5
0.

0.6 5
55

0
0 .3
0.

0.5 5
30

5 0.4 5
0 .0
0 .0 0 .0 5
0.30 0 .0 5 5
0.05 0.05
CV 0.05

Fig. 10 Normalized longitudinal velocity contours at different sections along the length of S-Diffuser (AR=3) without
cylinder rotation.

130
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

CV 0.80 0.70 0.75 0.80

0.80

0.
80
0.80 0.75

75
0.75
0.70

0.
0.7 0 0.7 0
0.55 0.75
0.
90°/30° 0.40 0.40 5
0.70 0. 5
0.25 55

40
0.1 5
0. 0 .1 5 0.55
0.
0.05 0.05 40
0.05 0.25 0 .0 5

0.15 0.15 0.05 0.15 0.1 5

CC
CV 0.45 0.45
0.65 0.70 0.7 0 0 .7 0

0 .7 0.70 0.65 0 .7 0
0 0.65 0 .7 0 0.7 0

0 0.45 0.4 5 0 .6
0 .6 0.
0
0.65 45
90°/60° 0.2 0 0 .2 0
45

0.65
0.

0.10 0.10
0.30
0.45
0
0 .3

0.10
0.10
0.45 0.
20
20
0.

0.3 0
05 0.15
0.10 0.05 0.15 0.
CC 0.05 0.05

CV 0 .1 0.10
0.1 0 0.10

30
0 .2 5 0 0 .1 0

0.
0.10 0 .4
0.4 5 0.16 0.1 6 5 0 .5
0 .5 5 0.30 0.5 5 5
0 .5 5
0.4 5

0 .5
0 .4 5

5
55 55
0. 0.60 0.
0 .3 0
90°/90°
0 .2 5

0.
1
0 .6

45
0 .4

5
0 .4

0.16
5

0 .2
5
0 .3
0 .6 0 0
0 .1 6

0.
16

0. 0.
10 10
0 .2 5

CC 0.10 0.30 0.10

CV 0.30 0.30
0.34 0.24
0.26 0 .3 2 0.34

0 .2 8

0 .3 4 0.34
0.3 0
0 .3 0
0 .3 0

Outlet 0.32
0.3 2
0 .3 2 0.32
0.32
0 .3 0 .3 4
4 0.34
0.36
0.38
0 .3 6 0 .3 6
0.40
0.42
0.
32 32
CC 0.3 6 0.42 0 .3 6 0.

Fig. 10 Normalized longitudinal velocity contours at different sections along the length of S-Diffuser (AR=3)
without cylinder rotation. (continued)

131
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

4.2 S-shaped rectangular diffuser with area takes place at x = 0.36L close to the inflexion
ratio 3 plane in normal operation, i.e. without cylinder
(Fig. 10). For extreme cylinder speed, this point
A single cylinder of 3 cm diameter is placed at a
vanishes completely in this case also. The flow
distance of x = 0.333L close to the inflexion plane
development in the S-shaped rectangular diffuser
and rotated at different speeds in the range of
for extreme cylinder speed is presented in Fig. 11.
4,000–12,000 rad/s to analyze the effect of
Flow behavior in the second bend and the
moving surface on the duct’s performance.
secondary flow distribution show similar trends as
Approximately, 115° section of cylinder is in
seen for the area ratio of 2 (Fig. 12).
touch with the flow inside the duct for this case as
For an area ratio of 3, Figs. 13 and 14 show
well. Longitudinal velocity distribution shows
comparative study of coefficient of pressure
increase in velocity near the convex wall at 30°, recovery and coefficient of total pressures loss for
60° and 90° planes due to momentum injection as extreme cylinder speed. Figures show 21.5%
noticed for the area ratio of 2. This is again due to increase in pressure recovery coefficient and 51%
the inward suction of retarding flow towards the fall in total pressure loss due to momentum
wall by the rotating cylinder at high velocity, injection for extreme speed of rotating cylinder.
thereby delaying separation which otherwise

CC 0.35
0.55 0.70
0.7 0 0.70
5 0 .7
0 .7 0.75 5
30°
0.80 0.80 0.80
0.85 0 .8 5
0 .8 5
CV 0 .7 5 0.80 0.80 0 .7 5
CC 0.40 0.40 0.4 0
0.50 0.40
0.50
0.62 0.62
60°
0.67
0.67
0.62 0.62
0.40 0.50
0.62 0 .4 0
CV
CC 0.5 5 0.50 0.55
0 .6 0 0.60
0.60

0.6 0 0.6 0
0.55

0.60
0.50
90°
0.50 0.55 0.55
0.55
50
0.

0.45 0.5 0 0.50 0.50

0.
0.45 0.45 0.45 40
0 .3 0 0.40 0.3 0
0.35
0 .2 5 0.35 0.25
0.40
CV 0.1 0 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.1 0

CV 0.60
0 .6 0

0.65
60
0.60 0.
0.60
0 .5 5 0.5 5
0.5 0
0 .5 0
90°/30° 0.50
0.45 0 .4 0 0.40
0.40 0 .3 0
0 .3 0 0.40 0.40 0 .2
0.15 0.35 0 .3 0 0
0.30 0.30 0.30
0 .1 0 0 .1 0
0.25
0.25
0.05 0.30 0.25 0 .3 0 0.05
CC

Fig. 11 Normalized longitudinal velocity contours at different sections along the length of S-diffuser (AR=3) with
cylinder rotating at 12000 rad/s rotation.

132
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

CV 0.50 0.50 0.55 0.50 0.50

0 .5 0 0.55 0.5 0
0.45 0 .4 5
0.50 0.40
0.35
90°/60° 0.45 0 .3
0
0.25 0.40 0.25
0.20 0.
0.35 20
0 .1 5
5 0.30 0 .1
0.25
0.

0.20 0.10
10

0.05 0.20 0.2 0

05
CC 0.15 0.

CV 0.2 5 0.15 0.15 0.2 5

0.30 0.30
0 .4 0 0.35
0.40
0. 0 .4 0
45
0 .4 5 0.45
0.45

0 .4 0 0 .4 0
90°/90° 0 .3 5 0.45
0 .3 5
0.30
0.25
0 .2 5 0.25
0.40
0 .2 0 0.2 0
0.35

0.30
0 .1 5

0.25

0.2 0
0.20 0.15
0.15
CC 0.10 0 .1 0
CV 0.20 0.22
0.28 0 .2 6

0.32 0.26
0.28

30
0.3 0

0.
0.32

0 .2 4
0.34
0 .2

0.36
8

0 .3

0.38
0

0.32

0 .2 6
0.3 4

Outlet
0.

0.40
0 .3 6

28
0 .3 8

0.41
0 .3 6

0.40
0 .3
4

0 .3

0.38
2

0.30
0.28

0.36
0 .2 0.34 4
CC 4 0.30 0 .2

Fig. 11 Normalized longitudinal velocity contours at different sections along the length of S-diffuser (AR=3) with
cylinder rotating at 12000 rad/s rotation. (continued)

133
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)

CV
CC

CV
CC

30° 90°/30°
CV
CC

CV
CC

60° 90°/60°
CV
CC

CV
CC

90° 90°/90°
CV

CC

Outlet

Fig. 12 Normalized secondary flow velocity vector plots at different sections along the length of the S-diffuser
(AR= 3) with cylinder rotating at the speed of 12000 rad/s.

AR-3 Without cylinder with cylinder without cylinder with cylinder

AR-3
77.88
80
72.23 20

67.04 67.49
16.82

58.3
60 13.21
64.04 15
55.49
55.62
51.77 10.35
Cp (%)

CL (%)

40 44.87 10
37.42
7.13

8.27
4.41 7.36
20 5 2.85 6.45
5.32

3.67
2.27

0 0
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x/L
x/L

Fig. 13 Comparison of coefficient of pressure Fig. 14 Comparison of coefficient of total pressure

recovery along the length of S-diffuser loss along the length of S-diffuser (AR=3)
(AR= 3) with and without cylinder rotation. with and without cylinder rotation.

134
 Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 3, No. 1 (2009)
5. CONCLUSIONS
The present study presents the effect of
momentum injection by rotating cylinder to
control the boundary layer separation in S-shaped
rectangular diffusers with different area ratios (2
& 3). The following conclusions have been drawn
from the study:
i. Momentum injection by rotating cylinder
surface delays separation, which is
completely eliminated for extreme cylinder
speed for both cases.
ii. Delay in separation results in improved
pressure recovery and the total pressure loss
coefficient reduces. Increase in coefficient of
pressure recovery are 23.8% and 21.5% for
the ducts with area ratios of 2 and 3
respectively for extreme cylinder speeds and
the corresponding fall in coefficient of total
pressure loss are 32% and 51% respectively.
iii. Effect of increase in rotating cylinder speeds
beyond the value studied is only marginal for
both cases. The flow distribution also
improves significantly at the exit for both
diffusers investigated.
NOMENCLATURE
C1ε , C2ε , Turbulence model constants
Cμ , σk , σε
Gk Generation term (kinetic energy)
k Turbulent kinetic energy
M Number of dependent variable
I Turbulence intensity
L Centre line length of diffuser
P Static pressure
Sm Mass added to the continuous phase
τij Stress tensor
Uavi Mass average inlet velocity, m/sec
u Mean velocity, m/sec
u∞ Local centerline velocity, m/sec
u′ Velocity perturbation
X Longitudinal coordinate
ε Turbulence dissipation rate
ρ Density of fluid
μ Dynamic viscosity
υt Turbulence viscosity (eddy viscosity)
ν Kinematic viscosity
Cp Coefficient of pressure recovery
CL Coefficient total pressure loss
rps Rotational speed (rad/sec)
AR Area Ratio
AS Aspect ratio
135
Subscripts
i, j Indices of tensorial notation as 1, 2 , 3
REFERENCES
1. Anand RB, Rai L, Singh SN (2003). Effect of
turning angle on the flow and performance
characteristics of long S-shaped circular
diffusers. Proc. IMechE. Part G: J.
Aerospace Engineering 217:29–41.
2. Chen X, He W (1991). Flow characteristics
and flow control for high aspect ratio and
highly curved S-bend diffuser. J. Prop. Tech.
60:17–22.
3. Fluent Inc. (2003). FLUENT 6.1 User Guide,
Vol. 1–4.
4. Launder BE, Spalding DB (1974). The
numerical computation of turbulent flow.
Comp. Methods App. Mech. Engineering
3:269–289.
5. Majumdar B (1994). Flow Investigations in
Curved Diffusers. Ph.D. Thesis, IIT Delhi.
6. Modi VJ, Fernando MSUK, Yokomizo T
(1991). Moving surface boundary-layer
control as applied to two-dimensional and
three-dimensional bluff bodies. J. Wind Engg.
& Industrial Aerodynamics 38:83–92.
7. Nishi M, Shibata Y, Okamoto M, Nakamura
M (1997). Separation control in a conical
diffuser by vortex generator jets. JSME
63:82–87.
8. Singhal T, Singh SN, Mathur S, Singh RK
(2006). Performance optimization for 2-
dimensional rectangular diffuser by
momentum injection using CFD. Proc.
IMechE Vol. 220, Part C: J. Mechanical
Engineering Science 1775–1783.
9. Singh SN, Veeravalli SV, Bhatnagar A,
Puneesh P (2002). Effect of boundary layer
control using momentum injection on the lift
characteristics of a NACA airfoil. Proc. 2nd
International and 29th National Conference
on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power, IIT
Roorkee, 252–259.
10. Singh SN, Rai L, Puri P, Bhatnagar A (2005).
Effect of moving surface on the aerodynamic
drag of road vehicles. Proc. IMechE, Part D:
J. Automobile Engineering 219:127–134.
11. Sullerey RK, Pradeep AM (2004). Secondary
flow control using vortex generator jet. J.
Fluids Engg. 126:650–665.
12. Yoshimasa F, Tesuo F, Eisho Y, Tsuzuki I,
Ichiro N (1970). Performance of the two-
dimensional diffuser with suction at the
entrance. Bulletin of JSME 13:264–271.