0
TECHNICAL PAPERS: Gas Turbines: CFD Modeling and Simulation

# LES and RANS Investigations Into Buoyancy-Affected Convection in a Rotating Cavity With a Central Axial Throughflow

[+] Author and Article Information
Zixiang Sun

Fluids Research Centre, School of Engineering,  University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UKZixiang.Sun@surrey.ac.uk

Volvo Aero Corporation, Dept 7161, SE-461 81 Trollhättan, SwedenKlas.Lindblad@volvo.com

John W. Chew

Fluids Research Centre, School of Engineering,  University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UKJ.Chew@surrey.ac.uk

Colin Young

Rolls-Royce plc, PO Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, UKcolin.young@rolls-royce.com

J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 129(2), 318-325 (Feb 01, 2006) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2364192 History: Received October 01, 2005; Revised February 01, 2006

## Abstract

The buoyancy-affected flow in rotating disk cavities, such as occurs in compressor disk stacks, is known to be complex and difficult to predict. In the present work, large eddy simulation (LES) and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) solutions are compared to other workers’ measurements from an engine representative test rig. The Smagorinsky-Lilly model was employed in the LES simulations, and the RNG k-$ε$ turbulence model was used in the RANS modeling. Three test cases were investigated in a range of Grashof number $Gr=1.87$ to $7.41×108$ and buoyancy number $Bo=1.65$ to 11.5. Consistent with experimental observation, strong unsteadiness was clearly observed in the results of both models; however, the LES results exhibited a finer flow structure than the RANS solution. The LES model also achieved significantly better agreement with velocity and heat transfer measurements than the RANS model. Also, temperature contours obtained from the LES results have a finer structure than the tangential velocity contours. Based on the results obtained in this work, further application of LES to flows of industrial complexity is recommended.

<>

## Figures

Figure 1

Schematic illustration of the rotating cavity

Figure 2

Sectional view of the 120deg mesh

Figure 3

Time history of shroud Nusselt number, LES, test 34, 120deg model, Gr=7.41×108, Bo=1.65

Figure 4

Shroud mean Nusselt number for test 33 with sector and full annulus models, Gr=2.32×108, Bo=3.0

Figure 5

Comparison of shroud mean Nusselt number between CFD and experiment, Nu versus Gr

Figure 6

Comparison of shroud mean heat transfer between CFD and experiment, Nu versus Bo

Figure 7

Comparison of mean relative tangential velocity profiles on the midaxial plane

Figure 8

Time history of temperature at the central point, LES, test 34, 120deg model, Gr=7.41×108, Bo=1.65

Figure 9

Time history of relative tangential velocity at the domain central point, LES, test 34, 120deg model, Gr=7.41×108, Bo=1.65

Figure 10

Temperature fluctuation spectrum at the domain central point, LES, test 34, 120deg model, Gr=7.41×108, Bo=1.65

Figure 11

Relative tangential velocity spectrum at the domain central point, LES, test 34, 120deg model, Gr=7.41×108, Bo=1.65

Figure 12

Instantaneous temperature contours on the midaxial plane

Figure 13

Instantaneous relative tangential velocity contours on the midaxial plane

Figure 14

Instantaneous radial velocity contours on the midaxial plane

Figure 15

Comparison of flow and heat transfer between LES, RANS, and measurement

Figure 16

Comparison of RANS and LES velocity predictions, test 50

Figure 17

Instantaneous temperature and velocity contours on the midaxial plane, test 50, RANS calculation

## Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections