# Turbo Question

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 January 5, 2001, 17:13 Turbo Question #1 Erich F. Guest   Posts: n/a Sponsored Links Any thoughts on why the predicted slope of flow rate vs. pressure rise is shallower than experimental, yet crosses at or near the design operational point? The Cfd model is 250,000 nodes, multiple frame of reference, total pressure specified inlet and static pressure outlet. The model is a single blade passage with tip clearance. The solutions are 'converged' and show balance across values... Basically at higher flows I am overpredicting pressure rise and at low flows underpredicting pressure gain. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks.

 January 5, 2001, 18:00 Re: Turbo Question #2 John C. Chien Guest   Posts: n/a (1). It is hard to know what you are doing. But one thing I can say is, the design condition flow field is normally smoother than the off-design conditions. (2). In other words, it is more difficult to predict the off-design condition flow field. (3). Because of the errors involved in prediction, the slope and the optimum design value will be different from the experimental values.

 January 7, 2001, 21:08 Re: Turbo Question #3 Joern Beilke Guest   Posts: n/a You are using multiple frames of reference. So what are you expecting?

 January 8, 2001, 14:00 Re: Turbo Question #4 Erich F Guest   Posts: n/a Thanks for your input. I was hoping to see the pressure/flow slope similar to experiment, yet the curve offset either over or under... Have seen several papers where this has been the case with this particular software and model approximation. What I am getting is a shallower slope intersecting the experimental at or near design.

 January 8, 2001, 14:29 Re: Turbo Question #5 Joern Beilke Guest   Posts: n/a Mfr is a more or less strong simplification. Thats why it will work good in some cases and will completely fail in other cases. There are 2 articles about mfr on www.adapco-online.com ... For turbomachinery calculations I always use mfr only to get an initial flow field for a sliding mesh calculation.

 January 8, 2001, 15:17 Re: Turbo Question #6 George Guest   Posts: n/a What are you using for a turbulence model? Many models don't work well for flows with streamline curvature, maybe this is causing you trouble. George

 January 9, 2001, 12:33 Re: Turbo Question #7 Erich F. Guest   Posts: n/a Standard K epsilon turbulence model. Any suggestions?

 January 9, 2001, 13:20 Re: Turbo Question #8 George Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Erich, Check out this paper, it offers a fairly simple correction. Launder, Pridden, Sharma. "The Calculation of Turbulent Boundary Layers on Spinning and Curved Surfaces". Journal of Fluids Engineering March 1977. pg 231-239 The reason that k-epsilon may be at fault here is that it assumes isotropic turbulence, while the turbulence in your problem is likely anisotropic. The correction suggested here will not make k-epsilon anisotropic, but it is a 'fudge' that has worked well on previous problems. As a bonus it is also relatively simple to code. Good luck, George

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post niklas OpenFOAM 2 July 31, 2013 16:03 sujan.dasmahapatra FLUENT 0 December 20, 2009 06:21 spacewatcer FLUENT 0 May 29, 2009 17:03 Carlos Main CFD Forum 4 August 23, 2002 05:55 K.L.Huang Siemens 1 March 29, 2000 04:57