0

Full Content is available to subscribers

Subscribe/Learn More  >

Comparison of Four Different Two-Equation Models of Turbulence in Predicting Film Cooling Performance

[+] Author Affiliations
Jawad S. Hassan, Savas Yavuzkurt

Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA

Paper No. GT2006-90860, pp. 701-710; 10 pages
doi:10.1115/GT2006-90860
From:
  • ASME Turbo Expo 2006: Power for Land, Sea, and Air
  • Volume 3: Heat Transfer, Parts A and B
  • Barcelona, Spain, May 8–11, 2006
  • Conference Sponsors: International Gas Turbine Institute
  • ISBN: 0-7918-4238-X | eISBN: 0-7918-3774-2
  • Copyright © 2006 by ASME

abstract

The capabilities of four two-equation turbulence models in predicting film cooling effectiveness were investigated and their limitations as well as relative performance are presented. The four turbulence models are the standard, RNG, and realizable k-ε models as well as the standard k-ω model all found in the FLUENT CFD code. In all four models, the enhanced wall treatment has been used to resolve the flow near solid boundaries. A systematic approach has been followed in the computational setup to insure grid-independence and accurate solution that reflects the true capabilities of the turbulence models. Exact geometrical and flow-field replicas of an experimental study on discrete-jet film cooling were generated and used in FLUENT. A pitch-to-diameter ratio of 3.04, injection length-to-diameter ratio of 4.6 and density ratios of 0.92 and 0.97 were some of the parameters used in the film cooling analysis. Furthermore, the study covered two levels of blowing ratio (M = 0.5 and 1.5) at an environment of low free-stream turbulence intensity (Tu = 0.1%). The standard k-ε model had the most consistent performance among all considered turbulence models and the best centerline film cooling effectiveness predictions with the results deviating from experimental data by only ±10% and about 20–60% for the low (M = 0.5) and high (M = 1.5) blowing ratio cases, respectively. However, centerline side-view and surface top-view contours of non-dimensional temperature for the standard k-ε cases revealed that the good results for film cooling effectiveness η compared to the experimental data were due to a combination of an over-prediction of jet penetration in the normal direction with an under-prediction of jet spread in the lateral direction. The standard k-ω model completely failed to produce any results that were meaningful with under-predictions of η that ranged between 80 and 85% for the low blowing ratio case and over-predictions of about 200% for the high blowing ratio case. Even though the RNG and realizable models showed to have better predicted the jet spread in the lateral direction compared to the standard k-ε model, there were some aspects of the flow, such as levels of turbulence generated by cross-flow and jet interaction, that were not realistic resulting in errors in the η prediction that ranged from −10% to +80% for the M = 0.5 case and from −80% to +70% for the M = 1.5 case. As a result of this study at this point it was concluded that the standard k-ε model have the most promising potential among the two-equation models considered. It was chosen as the best candidate for further improvement for the simulation of film cooling flows.

Copyright © 2006 by ASME

Figures

Tables

Interactive Graphics

Video

Country-Specific Mortality and Growth Failure in Infancy and Yound Children and Association With Material Stature

Use interactive graphics and maps to view and sort country-specific infant and early dhildhood mortality and growth failure data and their association with maternal

NOTE:
Citing articles are presented as examples only. In non-demo SCM6 implementation, integration with CrossRef’s "Cited By" API will populate this tab (http://www.crossref.org/citedby.html).

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In