Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(ku
I
) =
0
0x
]
_
k
0k
0x
]
] +u
k
-Y
k
+S
k
and
(5)
0
0t
() +
0
0x
(u
I
) =
0
0x
]
_
k
0m
0x
]
] +u
m
-Y
m
+S
m
+B
m
.
(6)
In these equations u
k
represents the production of
turbulence kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients,
calculated as
u
k
= -u'
I
u'
j
0u
]
0x
and (7)
u
m
represents the generation of , calculated as
u
m
=
m
k
u
k
. (8)
In the high-Reynolds-number form of the k - model
=
= 1 . (9)
Further in equations (1), Y
k
and represent the dissipation of
k due to turbulence, calculated as
Y
k
=
-
f
- = 1. (11)
Thus,
k
= p[
-
k, where (12)
-
=
I
-
|1 +
-
F(N
t
)], where (13)
I
-
=
-
_
4
1S
+_
Re
t
R
_
4
1+_
Re
t
R
_
_ (14)
In the high-Reynolds-number flows
I
-
=
-
. (15)
In the equation (13), F(N
t
) represents compressibility
correction. This is important member as the supersonic flows
must include compressibility effects. Compressibility
correction is defined as
F(N
t
) = _
u N
t
N
t0
N
t
2
-N
t0
2
N
t
> N
t0
, where (16)
N
t
2
=
2k
xRT
(17)
This yields, that in low-turbulent-kinetic-energy regions the
compressibility correction is not applied. In supersonic flow
we expect N
t
> N
t0
.The -dissipation term Y
m
in equation
(6) is defined as
Y
m
= f
2
, where (17)
[
= 1. (18)
Thus,
Y
m
=
2
, where (19)
[
= F
1
[
,1
+(1 -F
1
)[
,2
, where (20)
F
1
= tonb(
1
4
), where (21)
1
= min _mox [
k
0.09o
,
500
2
o
,
4pk
c
n,2
n
+
2
_, where (22)
o
+
= _2p
1
c
n,2
1
o
k
x
]
o
x
]
, 1u
-10
_. (23)
The SST k - model is based on both the standard k -
model and standard k -e. To blend these models together, the
standard k -e model has been transformed into equations
based on k and . This leads to the introduction of cross-
diffusion term defined as
o
= 2(1 - F
1
)o
o,2
1
o
k
x
]
o
x
]
(24)
From the above analysis of k - SST model we can find
model constants and their likely values in supersonic flows
empirically established in past. These constants are
summarized in the Table 1 [11].
TABLE I
k - SSI MODEL CONSTANTS
Symbols Values Symbols Values
o
k,1
1.176 o
1
o
o,1
2.0 o
0
1/9
o
k,2
1.0 [
-
0.09
o
o,2
1.168 R
[
8
o
1
0.31 R
k
6
[
,1
0.075 R
o
2.95
[
,2
0.0828
-
1.5
o
-
1 H
t0
0.25
These constants are to be in a focus of sensitivity analysis in
future with the aim to clearly understand their influence on
supersonic simulations.
B. Boundary Conditions and Solver Settings
We used the commercial code FLUENT to solve 2D RANS
equations with the k - SST by Finite Volume Technique.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 57 2011
264
For all equations, convective terms are discretized using a
second-order upwind scheme; inviscid fluxes are derived
using a second order flux splitting achieving the necessary
upwinding and dissipation close to shocks. We choose the
density based solver with the implicit formulation. Diffusion
terms are always cast into a central difference form. The
criterion for assessing convergence was based on the root
mean square of the density residues expressed by
R() = _ [
{
t
2
M
=1
_
12
(25)
Where M is the number of grid points and is the variable
considered to check (mass, energy, momentum, etc.).
Generally, computations are stopped when residuals fall below
1x10
-6
and when the solution is was no longer changing. In
addition, at convergence, the mass imbalance is checked on
each inlet and outlet boundaries. All mentioned requirements
were successfully meet in about 50 000 iteration steps with
Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) number set to 1 [11].
Boundary conditions were set to pressure inlet/outlet with
non-reflecting boundary condition (outlet pressure at infinity).
Turbulent intensity was set to 8 % at the primary nozzle inlet
and to 2 % at the secondary nozzle intake. Both, gauge total
pressure p
01
and the outlet gauge pressure p
cxt
vary for every
regimes mentioned. Symmetric computational domain split by
the symmetry boundary condition consists of 4.5E
5
quadrilateral elements with original mesh size 0.2 mm. We
defined the grid-gradual boundary layer in ten levels from the
size of 5E
-3
mm in wall adjacent cells to the free stream value.
IV. RESULTS OF EXPERIMENT
There are color Schlieren pictures taken in various regimes
which differs in stagnation gauge pressure p
01
and stagnation
gauge pressure at the ejector outlet p
cxIt
. The first regime
shown in the Fig. 3 is normal-shock-free. Multiple interactions
and reflections of oblique shocks can be observed. Shear layer
develops all the way downstream the mixing chamber. Among
others, curved sonic line may be found near secondary throats.
Fig. 3 Schlieren picture of the supersonic ejector in operation. Design
regime. p
01
= 17S kPa,. p
cxt
= -77 kPo.
Fig. 4 Schlieren picture of the supersonic ejector in operation.
Regime with the strong shock. p
u1
= 111 kPa,. p
cxt
= -11 kPo
Fig. 5 Schlieren picture of the supersonic ejector in operation.
Regime with the strong shock. p
01
= 1u7 kPa,. p
cxt
= -12.S kPo
In the Fig. 3-5 we can observe a strong shock closing the
field of oblique shock waves. Because of it, the strong shock is
to be called closing chock. We can observe the upstream
movement of closing shock with p
01
decreasing and p
cxt
increasing. Closing shock is formed by separation of boundary
layer, which underlies in subsonic part to the adverse pressure
gradient. Even the weak oblique shock than can induce
increment of adverse pressure gradient, which cause the
boundary layer separation. Separated boundary layer is than
forming the shape of supersonic region. Compression waves
ordinate at the convex-shaped region. These waves further
interact into strong shock. See Fig. 6.
Fig. 6 Formation of closing shock
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 57 2011
265
V. RESULTS OF NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS
There is a brief introduction into results obtained by means
of numerical simulations in the Fig. 7. Contours of Mach
number do not conform to the physical principle of density
gradient
Fig. 7 Contours of density obtained by numerical simulation. Design
regime
From the Fig.7 we can clearly see well modeled shock
waves induced at the trailing edge. Nevertheless, modeled
secondary flow reaches higher velocity as can be recognized
from the inclination of shock waves. The inclination is defined
by the relation (2). The x-coordinate of the deflection point
than moves significantly downstream the chamber. The idea of
the over-predicted secondary velocity conforms to the Fig. 8,
where lower values of stagnation pressure are modeled all the
way in mixing chamber.
Fig. 8 Stagnation pressure at mixing chamber wall. Comparison of
the experiment and numerical simulation
The inclination of shock in the primary stream seems to be
conforming to the experiment. This leads to the conclusion of
the over-predicted shear stress by k - SST turbulence
model with its standard coefficients.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Experimental measurement by mean of the Schlieren color
pictures and pneumatic transducers were carried out on the
supersonic air-to-air-ejector. Several pictures of flow field in
various operating regimes are proposed. Brief theory-based
analysis of closing shock is included. Thanks to that, we are
able to predict expected problems for numerical simulations of
the ejector. The theoretical analysis of the most promising
turbulence viscosity model k - SST is proposed and its
model coefficients are reviewed. Complete setting of
numerical simulation is presented. We have found good
agreement of shock waves prediction and boundary layer
separation, but shear stress between two streams is over-
predicted. Consequently, the secondary air velocity reaches
higher velocity then real. Recently, we work on sensitivity
analysis of model constants to improve accuracy. Afterwards,
test of modified constants is planned in remaining regimes
with the closing shock in mixing chamber.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors would like to thanks to the Czech Science
Foundation which supported this work by grant no.
P101/10/1709. This work was also supported by research plan
MSN 4674788501 and SGS 2823.
REFERENCES
[1] Breitkopf, P. and Coelho, R. F. Multidisciplinary design optimization in
computational mechanics: Wiley-ISTE, 2010. ISBN-10 1848211384.
[2] Hynek, J. Genetic algorithms and genetic programing (in Czech).
Prague : Grada Publishing ,a. s., 2008. ISBN 978-80-247-2695-3.
[3] Dvok, V. and Kol, J. Shape optimization of supersonic ejectors with
several primary nozzles. Lisboa, Portugal : In the 2nd International
Conference on Engineering Optimization, 6.-9. september 2010. ISBN
978-989-96264-3-0.
[4] Dvok, V. Shape optimization of supersonic ejector for supersonic
wind tunnel. s.l. : In.: Applied and Computational Mechanics, 2010. pp.
15-24. ISSN 1802-680X.
[5] Kol, J. and afak, P. Interaction of oblique shock wave with shear
layer. Plze : In Proceedings of the International Conference XXVII:
Meeting of Departments of Fluid Mechanics and Thermomechanics,
2008. pp. 163-170. ISBN 978-80-7043-666-0.
[6] Moeckel, W. E. Interaction of oblique shock waves with regions of
variable pressure, entropy and energy. Washington : NACA, 1952. TN
2725.
[7] Shapiro, A. H. The dynamics and thermodynamics of compressible
fluid flow. New York : The Ronald Press Company, 1953. ISBN
0826080758.
8] Versteeg, H. K. and Malalasekera, W. An Introduction to
Computational fluid dynamics, The Finite Volume Method: Pearson
Education Limited 2007, ISBN 978-0-13-127498-3.
[9] Wilcox, D. Reassessment of the scale determining equation for
advanced turbulent models. 1988. AIAA J. 26 (11),1299-1310.
[10] Menter, F. R. Two-equations Eddy-viscosity turbulence models for
engineering applications. 1994. AIAA J. 32(8), 1598-1605.
[11] Inc., Fluent. Fluent user documentation. Lebanon : s.n., 2006.
from the biography.
World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology 57 2011
266