4.5 Article

Numerical Investigation of Turbulent Junction Flows

期刊

AIAA JOURNAL
卷 59, 期 11, 页码 4642-4659

出版社

AMER INST AERONAUTICS ASTRONAUTICS
DOI: 10.2514/1.J059468

关键词

Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes; Freestream Velocity; Boundary Layer Thickness; Horseshoe Vortex; Incompressible Flow; Turbulence Kinetic Energy; Skin Friction Coefficient; Particle Image Velocimetry; Heat Transfer Coefficients; High Pressure Turbine

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Turbulent junction flows exhibit a bimodal behavior of the horseshoe vortex, possibly triggered by the turbulent boundary layer. Simulations show that different shapes of circular endwall fillets can suppress the bimodal behavior as suggested by previous studies.
Turbulent junction flows are known to exhibit a bimodal behavior of the horseshoe vortex that can be described by a random switching between a zero-flow and a backflow mode. The physical mechanism that causes the bimodal behavior is not well understood. Large-eddy simulations of a canonical junction flow geometry, the Rood wing, were carried out for a Reynolds number based on approach flow velocity and maximum thickness of 7000, and the junction flow physics were analyzed. The approach boundary-layer profile, mean flow data, and turbulent statistics obtained from the simulation are in good agreement with measurements at Penn State University. The present results for Re=7000 clearly exhibit a bimodal behavior that is characterized by a forward and backward motion and intermittent loss of coherence of the horseshoe vortex. Instantaneous flow visualizations reveal that the interaction of pockets of elevated upstream boundary-layer turbulence with the horseshoe vortex can both strengthen and weaken the horseshoe vortex. This suggests that the bimodal behavior may be triggered by the turbulent boundary layer. In addition, simulations with two different circular endwall fillets were carried out. In accordance with the literature, the fillets were found to suppress the bimodal behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据