Assessment of Effect of Flux Scheme and Turbulence Model on Blade-to-blade Calculations

Bilgiç, M.; Baran, Ö. U.; Aksel, M. H.

doi:10.47176/jafm.17.7.2234

Assessment of Effect of Flux Scheme and Turbulence Model on Blade-to-blade Calculations

Document Type : Regular Article

Authors

¹ Department of Mechanical Engineering, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Çankaya, 06800, Turkey

² Department of Aeronautical Engineering, University of Turkish Aeronautical Association, Ankara, Etimesgut, 06790, Turkey

10.47176/jafm.17.7.2234

Abstract

Today, due to advances in computing power, Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solvers are widely preferred for quasi-three-dimensional (Q3D) blade-to-blade analysis. This study investigates the performance of different flux calculation methods and turbulence models with a density-based RANS solver (Numeca®) in blade-to-blade analysis. A block-structured mesh topology is used to create a solution grid around the airfoil. Spatial discretization is performed in the pitchwise direction to represent the quasi three-dimensional flow, while only one computational cell is used in the radial direction to simulate the flow through the Q3D cascade. The computational grid around the airfoil is created with the Autogrid® tool using the block mesh topology. For the convective flow calculations, both the central and upwind methods available in Numeca® are applied separately. The Baldwin Lomax (BL), Spalart Allmaras (SA), Shear Stress Transport (SST), Explicit Algebraic Reynolds Stress Model (EARSM) and k-ε (KEPS) turbulence models are used for the turbulent shear stress calculations. In order to evaluate the aerodynamic performance of the spatial discretization methods and turbulence models, the isentropic Mach distribution on the airfoil surface, the total pressure loss and the exit flow angle behind the blade are compared with the experimental data of six test cases. In the compressor cases, the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model with the Central scheme gives the best results in terms of average loss prediction, while no turbulence model is superior to the other in terms of exit angle prediction. On the turbine side, EARSM and KEPS give better performance in terms of loss prediction for the low Reynolds case compared to others, while the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model is better for the high Reynolds cases.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Turbomachinary

References

Arts, T., & De Rouvroit, M. L. (1990, June 11–14). Aero-thermal performance of a two dimensional highly loaded transonic turbine nozzle guide vane: a test case for inviscid and viscous flow computations. Proceedings of the ASME 1990 International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition. Volume 1: Turbomachinery. Brussels, Belgium, V001T01A106. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/90-GT-358

Braembussche, R. V. (2005). Blade to blade flow in turbomachines. Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, Course Note 172.

Childs, R. E., & Pulliam, T. H. (1984, January 9-12). A newton multigrid method for the euler equations. Presented at AIAA 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1984-430

Denton, J. D., Hodson, H. P., & Dominy, R. G. (1990, July). Tests cases for computation of internal flows in aero engine components test case E/CA-7 subsonic turbine cascade LA. In AGARD Report No. 275 (AGARD-AR-275).

Fontaneto, F. (2014). Aero-thermal performance of a film-cooled high pressure turbine blade/vane: a test case for numerical codes validation [PhD Thesis, Universita Degli Studi Di Bergamo].

Giles, M. B. (1985). Newton solution of steady two-dimensional transonic flow [PhD Thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics]. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Hodson, H. P. (1985). Boundary-layer transition and separation near the leading edge of a high-speed turbine blade. ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 107(1), 127–134. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3239672

Hodson, H. P., & Dominy, R. G. (1987). Three-dimensional flow in a low-pressure turbine cascade at its design condition. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 109(2), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3262083

Hoheisel, H., & Seyb, N. J. (1990). Tests cases for computation of internal flows in aero engine components test case E/CA-2 high subsonic compressor cascade DCA. AGARD-AR-275.

Kiock, R., Lehthaus, F., Baines, N. C., & Sieverding, C. H. (1986). The transonic flow through a plane turbine cascade as measured in four european wind tunnels. ASME Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power, 108(2), 277–284. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3239900

Mueller, J. D., Hueckelheim, J., & Mykhaskiv, O. (2018). STAMPS: A finite-volume solver framework for adjoint codes derived with source-transformation AD. 2018 Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://doi.org/doi:10.2514/6.2018-2928

Murman, E. M., & Cole, J. D. (1971). Calculation of plane steady transonic flow. AIAA Journal, 9, 114-121. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.6131

Starken. H., & Schreiber, H. A. (1990). Tests cases for computation of internal flows in aero engine components test case E/CA-4 low supersonic compressor cascade MCA. AGARD-AR-275.

Tweedt, D. L., Schreiber, H. A., & Starken, H. (1988). Experimental investigation of the performance of a supersonic compressor cascade. ASME Journal of Turbomachinery, 110(4), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3262219

Wu, C. H. (1952). A general theory of three-dimensional flow in subsonic and supersonic turbomachines of axial, radial, and Mixed-Flow types. Transactions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 74(8), 1363–1380. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4016114R.