Prediction of Transitional Flows in the Low Pressure Turbine
Current turbulence models tend to give too early and too short a length of flow transition to turbulence, and hence fail to predict flow separation induced by the adverse pressure gradients and streamline flow curvatures. Our discussion will focus on the development and validation of transition models. The baseline data for model comparisons are the T3 series, which include a range of free-stream turbulence intensity and cover zero-pressure gradient to aft-loaded turbine pressure gradient flows. The method will be based on the conditioned N-S equations and a transport equation for the intermittency factor. First, several of the most popular 2-equation models in predicting flow transition are examined: k-e [Launder-Sharina], k-w [Wilcox], Lien-Leschiziner and SST [Menter] models. All models fail to predict the onset and the length of transition, even for the simplest flat plate with zero-pressure gradient(T3A). Although the predicted onset position of transition can be varied by providing different inlet turbulent energy dissipation rates, the appropriate inlet conditions for turbulence quantities should be adjusted to match the decay of the free-stream turbulence. Arguably, one may adjust the low-Reynolds-number part of the model to predict transition. This approach has so far not been very successful. However, we have found that the low-Reynolds-number model of Launder and Sharma [1974], which is an improved version of Jones and Launder [1972] gave the best overall performance. The Launder and Sharma model was designed to capture flow re-laminarization (a reverse of flow transition), but tends to give rise to a too early and too fast transition in comparison with the physical transition. The three test cases were for flows with zero pressure gradient but with different free-stream turbulent intensities. The same can be said about the model when considering flows subject to pressure gradient(T3C1). To capture the effects of transition using existing turbulence models, one approach is to make use of the concept of the intermittency to predict the flow transition. It was originally based on the intermittency distribution of Narasimha [1957], and then gradually evolved into a transport equation for the intermittency factor. Gostelow and associates [1994,1995] have made some improvements to Narasimha's method in an attempt to account for both favorable and adverse pressure gradients. Their approach is based on a linear, explicit combination of laminar and turbulent solutions. This approach fails to predict the overshoot of the skin friction on a flat plate near the end of transition zone, even though the length of transition is well predicted. The major flaw of Gostelow's approach is that it assumes the non-turbulent part being the laminar solution and the turbulent part being the turbulent solution and they do not interact across the transitional region. The technique in condition averaging the flow equations in intermittent flows was first introduced by Libby [1975] and Dopazo [1977] and further refined by Dick and associates [1988, 1996]. This approach employs two sets of transport equations for the non-turbulent part and the other for the turbulent part. The advantage of this approach is that it allows the interaction of non-turbulent and turbulent velocities through the introduction of additional source terms in the continuity and momentum equations for the non-turbulent and turbulent velocities. However, the strong coupling of the two sets of equations has caused some numerical difficulties, which requires special attention. The prediction of the skin friction can be improved by this approach via the implicit coupling of non-turbulent and turbulent velocity flelds. Another improvement of the interrmittency model can be further made by allowing the intermittency to vary in the cross-stream direction. This is one step prior to testing any proposal for the transport equation for the intermittency factor. Instead of solving the transport equation for the intermittency factor, the distribution for the intermittency factor is prescribed by Klebanoff's empirical formula [1955]. The skin friction is very well predicted by this new modification, including the overshoot of the profile near the end of the transition zone. The outcome of this study is very encouraging since it indicates that the proper description of the intermittency distribution is the key to the success of the model prediction. This study will be used to guide us on the modelling of the intermittency transport equation.