0 views

Uploaded by Santosa Edy Wibowo

ijem

- Convective Mass Transfer
- Experiment 2 - Classification of Fluid Flow using Osborne Reynolds Apparatus.pdf
- Reynolds number
- Discharge Coefficient Performance of Venturi, Standard Concentric Orifice Plate Vcone and Wedge Flow Meters at Low Reynolds Numbers
- Visualisation of Relaminar flows
- flowmaster
- OpenFoam Tutorials
- Turbulence in the Atmosphere
- 2D Turbulent Flow Past a Cylinder in Star
- The mixing transition in turbulent flows.pdf
- 1970-Petukhov- Heat Transfer and Friction in Turbulent Pipe Flow With Variable Physical Properties
- 5965_48_40_a Study of Turbulence Induced Forces Acting on the Blobe Valve_2005
- Statement of Qualifications-CFD
- 1157699768799-nutts2003
- grid turbulence
- Laminar convective heat transfer with twisted tape inserts in a tube
- 35.02_18
- Assignment01_MECH5304_BendFlow
- 50201381
- Da Schiel 2013

You are on page 1of 18

net/publication/245532991

Performance Evaluation of Divided Intake Ducts: Effect of Area Ratio and Inlet

Reynolds Number

DOI: 10.1615/InterJFluidMechRes.v30.i5.60

CITATIONS READS

7 106

4 authors, including:

Thomas & Betts, A Member of ABB Group Guru Jambheshwar University of Science & Technology

23 PUBLICATIONS 92 CITATIONS 488 PUBLICATIONS 8,808 CITATIONS

V. Seshadri

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

147 PUBLICATIONS 1,249 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Transportation characteristics of High concentration fly ash slurries through pipelines View project

All content following this page was uploaded by S. Bharani on 06 February 2016.

International Journal of Fluid Mechanics Research, Vol. 30, No. 5, 2003

Effect of Area Ratio and Inlet Reynolds Number†

Sanjeev Bharani

Department of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace Engineering

University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

S. N. Singh,

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, India

E-mail: sidhnathsingh@hotmail.com

Department of Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016, India

Investigations carried out on divided intake ducts with 22.5◦ /22.5◦ angle-of-

turn to establish the effect of Reynolds number (Re = 6.27 · 104 to 1.88 · 105 )

and area ratios (2.0 to 4.0) using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) code

are reported. The core flow remains close to the convex wall at the duct

outlet with magnitudes lower in the central region of the cross-section. It is

found that static pressure recovery is around 65% and is independent of in-

let Reynolds number for area ratio 2 duct (AR = 2). With increase in

area ratio the static pressure recovery increases to 74% for AR = 2.5, 78%

for AR = 3 and 80 % for AR = 4. The cross-velocity magnitudes at

the exit for all the cases are found to be less than 5 % of the mean flow.

* * *

NOTATION

AR area ratio;

A aspect ratio;

Cpr static pressure recovery coefficient, 2(Pex − Pin )/ρu2 ;

C1ε , C2ε , Cµ , σk , σε constants of the turbulence model;

Gk generation term (kinetic energy);

k turbulent kinetic energy;

M number of dependent variables;

† Received 01.11.2003

525

ISSN 1064-2277

°c

2003 Begell House, Inc.

Ls duct length;

L0 distance between two inlet ducts;

P static pressure;

Pdyn(in) inlet dynamic pressure;

Pwall wall pressure;

Ri sum residuals for a dependent variable;

Sm mass added to continuous phase;

SN φ normalizing factor;

Uavi mass averaged inlet velocity;

u mean velocity;

u0 velocity perturbation;

ub bulk velocity;

V cell volume;

Vf mass flux (velocity) through the faces;

x longitudinal coordinate;

α under relaxation factor;

ε turbulence dissipation rate;

θ angle-of-turn;

ρ density of fluid;

µ dynamic viscosity;

µt eddy/turbulence viscosity;

ν kinematic viscosity.

Subscripts

ex diffuser exit;

in diffuser inlet.

Introduction

The intake of a fighter aircraft must meet the engine mass flow demand in a steady and symmet-

ric manner over a wide range of aircraft speed and altitudes [1] with higher static pressure recovery

and low distortion. Divided intake ducts are widely used for ingestion of atmospheric air to the

single-engined fighter aircraft. These facilitate the diffusion of the incoming air over a short duct

length with minimal pressure loss. The intakes are normally side-mounted and the two limbs of the

duct merge inside the fuselage into one and are expected to feed air at the compressor inlet at Mach

number in the range of 0.3 to 0.5 with minimum turbulence. Due to offset positioning of the in-

takes with respect to the engine it poses a difficult design problem to tailor the S-shaped ducts while

satisfying constraints imposed by other aspects of the aircraft design. Martin and Holzhauser [2]

observed that as the intake mean flow ratio is reduced by some form of exit control, a critical point

is reached below which unequal flows develop in the two limbs of Y intake. With incompressible

flow analysis, they have shown that static pressure recovery characteristics at the junction of the two

ducts govern the flow instability and the flow reversal. They have also indicated that in a steady state

of equal flow in the two limbs even a small disturbance grows to a larger magnitude at the junction.

In [3] a simple model is used to explain the phenomenon that causes transition from symmetric to

asymmetric operation of these ducts in supersonic flights. Investigations on other aspects of such

526

intakes are not available in open literature, whereas several studies pertaining to single S-shaped

diffusing ducts are available [4–17].

Investigations have been carried out for S-shaped diffusing ducts to establish the effect of cur-

vature (turn angle), area ratio, shape of cross section of the duct and center line shape for laminar

and turbulent flow at the inlet. The following important features are observed.

(i) The development of secondary motion is similar to the case of constant area curved ducts [18,

19] with the magnitude of cross flow velocity reducing towards the exit [4]. The velocity

distribution is skewed towards the convex surface [14, 15].

(ii) The flow uniformity at the outlet reduces with increase in curvature where as it improves with

increase in aspect ratio [13].

(iii) A pair of contra rotating vortices exists through out the diffuser. The size of the vortices is

dependent on the area ratio and angle of turn [17].

(iv) The pressure recovery in these diffusers is low. It reduces with increase in curvature [4, 12,

13, 16].

(v) The pressure recovery coefficient and total pressure loss coefficient are relatively independent

of Reynolds number and the overall performance is comparatively much lower than straight

diffuser of similar specifications [14].

Over the last decade, computational fluid dynamics is being used extensively as a tool for analyzing

the flow in complex geometries and has also been used in diffusers [13, 14, 16, 17, 20, 21].

Studies on S-shaped ducts are not directly applicable to the divided intake ducts because of

basic difference in geometry and complexities of the flows, but have provided a good understanding

of the flow mechanism in these ducts. In the present study, an attempt has been made to establish the

effects of inlet Reynolds number and area ratio (2 to 4) on the performance of circular cross-section

22.5◦ /22.5◦ divided intake ducts.

Mathematical Model

The governing equations in the reduced form for steady and incompressible turbulent mean

flows are:

∂

(ρui ) = Sm , (1)

∂xi

· µ ¶¸

∂ui ∂P ∂ ∂ui ∂uj 2 ∂ul ∂ ³ ´

ρuj =− + µ + − δij + −ρu0i u0j , (2)

∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj ∂xi 3 ∂xl ∂xj

where i, j = 1, 2, 3.

Additional terms −ρu0i u0j , in the momentum equations are modeled using the Renormalization

Group Theory (RNG) k-ε turbulence model for the closed form solution. The model improves the

predictions for wall bounded flows having curved geometries [22]. The Boussinesq hypothesis is

used to relate the Reynolds stresses to the mean velocity gradient as given below:

µ ¶ µ ¶

0 0 ∂ui ∂uj 2 ∂ui

−ρui uj = µt + − ρk + µt δij , (3)

∂xj ∂xi 3 ∂xi

where µt is the eddy viscosity and k is the turbulence kinetic energy and δij is the Kronecker delta.

527

Two additional transport equations, one for turbulent kinetic energy (k) and the other for the

turbulence dissipation rate (ε) are solved to evaluate µt , which is computed as,

where Cµ is a constant.

The additional equations for k and ε for steady incompressible flow in simplified form in the

absence of the thermal gradients are:

· ¸

∂k ∂ ∂k

ρui = αk µeff + Gk − ρε, (5)

∂xi ∂xi ∂xi

· ¸

∂ε ∂ ∂ε ε ρε2

ρui = αε µeff + C1ε (Gk ) − C2ε − R, (6)

∂xi ∂xi ∂xi k k

where, Gk is the generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradient, calculated

as Gk = µt S 2 . Here, S is the modulus of the mean rate of shear stress tensor, defined as,

1/2

S = (2Sij Sij ) , (7)

µ ¶

1 ∂ui ∂uj

Sij = + , (8)

2 ∂xj ∂xi

C1ε and C2ε are constants. αk and αε are the inverse effective turbulent Prandtl numbers for k

and ε, respectively. The effective viscosity is modelled in the RNG theory using scale elimination

procedure resulting in a differential equation for turbulent viscosity as

ρ2 k ν̂dν̂

d √ = 1.72 √ 3 , (9)

εµ ν̂ − 1 + cν̂

In the high-Reynolds-number limit Eq. (9) gives

k2

µt = ρcµ , (10)

ε

with Cµ = 0.0845, the effective viscosity is calculated using Eq. (10).

The additional source term (R) in the ε-equation is,

" µ ¶2 #µ ¶

3 η ±¡ 3

¢ ε2

R = Cµ ρη 1 − o 1 + βη k , (11)

η k

where, η = Sk/ε; η o = 4.38; β = 0.012. The value of constants in the turbulence model used in the

present study are the standard values reported in literature (C2ε = 1.42, C1ε = 1.68, Cµ = 0.0845,

σk = σε = 0.72). The RNG k-ε model has been used as the additional term “R” in ε equation

improves the accuracy of the solution significantly besides being more responsive to the effects of

rapid strain and streamline curvature.

528

a) MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS:

100 1 - 0o section

1

2 2 - 30o section

50 3 - 90o section

191

30o 4 - 90o/60o section

INLET 5 - 90o/90o section

60o

3

60o 100

191

AREA RATIO 2.0

30o

ASPECT RATIO 2.0

100

RADIUS OF CURVATURE 191 mm

ANGLE OF TURN 90o 4

CENTERLINE LENGTH 600 mm

5

OUTLET

50 382 50

30 296.6 30

b)

15o

Rc 573.0

O 52.5

O 72.5

INLET

Rc 573.0

OUTLET

o AREA RATIO 1.9

15

ANGLE OF TURN 15o/15o

The geometry for validation of the FLUENT code [23] is the same as that used by [12] and [16]

as shown in Fig. 1a and b, respectively. The experimental results reported are compared with the

predictions using air as working fluid. The 90◦ /90◦ rectangular-square diffuser geometry of [12]

(Fig. 1a) was generated using the CFD code with boundary conditions, grid and meshing scheme

as given in the Table. The boundary conditions at inlet are specified by assigning known values of

the variables. At the outlet, the continuity has to be satisfied and hence the boundary condition is

specified in a manner so that velocity is directed outwards. Wall boundary conditions are specified

529

Table

Test cases for validation of CFD code.

Inlet velocity 40 m/sec 26.5 m/sec

Cross-section rectangular-square circular-circular

Inlet Reynolds number 8.21 · 105 0.95 · 105

Working fluid air air

Element shape hexahedral tetrahedral

Number of volume cells 23100 67136

at the walls as per the direction given in [23]. The mean velocity at the exit plane at three stations

is compared with the experimental data as shown in Fig. 2a. The wall static pressure distribution is

depicted in Fig. 2b. It is seen that predicted mean velocity compares reasonably well (±0.1u/Uavi ).

Similarly the pattern of static pressure along the walls is well predicted with minor differences at

few locations.

Validation of the code was further established by comparing (Fig. 3) the predicted static pres-

sure recovery and total pressure loss for the 15◦ /15◦ circular diffuser investigated by Singh et

al. [16]. The details of the number of cell volumes and type of mesh for the circular diffuser are

given in the Table. Fig. 3 shows that the experimental and predicted pressure recovery coefficient

closely matches up to ≈ 12◦ turn in the first bend after that the experimental pressure recovery

obtained is lower than the predicted values. At the exit of the diffuser, the predicted pressure re-

covery obtained is ≈ 46 % whereas the experimental value reported is ≈ 38 %. The predicted total

pressure loss also closely matches the experimental values in the initial portion but subsequently

the predicted values are lower than the experimental values. The higher values of pressure recovery

and lower values of total pressure loss by prediction can be attributed to the wall roughness present

in the experimental investigations. Incorporation of wall roughness factor (ε/D) of the order of

0.01 a provision which is provided in the CFD code FLUENT [23] into the predictions improved

the matching considerably. Comparison of velocity contours for 22.5◦ /22.5◦ for S-shaped diffuser

with work of Rojas et al. [4] has been shown elsewhere [17], depicts reasonably good matching.

On the basis of a reasonable matching of the predicted and the reported results on the similar type

of geometrical configurations, the CFD code FLUENT [23] can be considered to be suitable for

analyzing flow characteristics in divided intake ducts.

Flow predictions have been made for 22.5◦ /22.5◦ divided intake ducts having circular cross-

section to understand the effects of inlet Reynolds number and area ratio on their perfomance. The

schematic layout of these ducts created in x-y plane along with major dimensions is shown in Fig. 4.

The figure also depicts the planes selected for presentation of the results. The iso-velocity contours,

static pressure and total pressure distribution are analyzed at planes P1, P2, P3 (flow mixing plane),

P4 and P5. These planes are selected at the intersection of curvature of centerline and the angle-

of-turn. The cross-velocity plots are presented at S1, S2, S3, S4, S5 and exit plane, which are

perpendicular to the flow along the length of one limb of the divided entrance intake duct. Cross-

velocity plots only at the outlet planes are presented in this paper for the sake of brevity. The

diameter at the inlet for the limbs was selected as 48 mm. A constant area duct of 50 mm length

was provided at the upstream. The exit diameter was dependent on the area ratio selected. The

530

ST-9 ST-6 ST-3

a) 1 1 1

z/b

z/b

z/b

0.4 0.4 0.4

0 0 0

0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1 0 0.5 1

U / Uavi U / Uavi U / Uavi

b) 0.2

0

Pwall / Pdyn(in)

-0.2

-0.4

CVCC wall - experimental

CCCV wall - experimental

bottom wall - experimental

-0.6 CVCC wall - computional

CCCV wall - computional

bottom wall - computional

-0.8

0 30 60 90 90/30 90/60 90/90

Angle of turn (degrees)

Fig. 2. Comparison of experimental [12] and predicted values in 90◦ /90◦ rectangular S-diffusers

with AR = 2: a) longitudinal velocity magnitudes (solid – computed, markers – expeimental),

b) wall static pressure distribution (CVCC – Convex Concave Wall, CCCV – Concave Convex Wall).

diameters for the corresponding area ratios are given in Fig. 4. A constant area duct of 150 mm

length was provided downstream for uniform, smooth and continuous flow conditions [4, 24]. Both

the intake limbs were symmetrically designed about the axis of the downstream outlet duct with

radius of curvature for each as 382.0 mm with angle-of-turn (θ) = 22.5◦ /22.5◦ .

Three-dimensional diffuser geometries were developed using the GAMBIT package of the CFD

code and were meshed with 53192 tetrahedral cell volumes for AR = 2.0, 53487 for AR = 2.5,

58450 for AR = 3.0 and 64567 for AR = 4.0 ducts. These cell volumes were arrived by doing a

531

50

pressure recovery - computational

total pressure loss - computational

40 pressure recovery - experimental

Coefficient (%)

total pressure loss - experimental

30

20

10

0

0 7.5 15 15/7.5 15/15

Angle of turn (degrees)

Fig. 3. Comparison of experimental (Singh et al., [16]) and predicted pressure recovery coefficient

static pressure recovery along the length of 15◦ /15◦ S-diffuser with AR = 1.9 (smooth wall).

50 Ls 150

P1 P2 P3

/2

Od S1 S2

S3 EXIT PLANE

OD

L0

INLET PLANE

S4 S5

Od Rc

/2 P4 P5

grid independence check with respect to the pressure recovery coefficient prediction. Fig. 5 shows

the grid independence check for the AR = 2.5, as a representative case. Air as the working fluid

is fed at the inlet planes with uniform velocity of 40 m/sec. It is seen that increasing the number

of cells from 53487 to 82663 does not change the predicted pressure recovery trend and the final

values.

532

80

Coefficient (%)

60

40

0

0 11.25 22.5 22.5/11.25 22.5/22.5

Angle of turn (degrees)

Fig. 5. Mesh independence check for divided intake duct with AR = 2.5.

Flow analysis is carried out for AR = 2 duct at Re = 6.27 · 104 (20 m/sec), Re = 1.25 · 105

(40 m/sec) and Re = 1.88 · 105 (60 m/sec) to establish the effect of Reynolds number. There after

further investigations are carried out with Re = 1.25 · 105 (40 m/sec) for ducts with area ratios of

2.5, 3.0 and 4.0. Longitudinal and cross-velocity contours along with the static pressure recovery

and total pressure loss coefficients are presented for each case.

The results are presented and analyzed to clearly bring out the effect of parameters mentioned

in the previous section.

Static Pressure Recovery and Pressure Loss in AR = 2 Intake Ducts. The static pres-

sure recovery trends at Reynolds number, Re = 6.27 · 104 , Re = 1.25 · 105 and Re = 1.88 · 105

corresponding to the flow velocities of 20 m/sec, 40 m/sec and 60 m/sec showed that the effect of

Reynolds number is negligible. Hence, only single curve is given for pressure recovery (Fig. 6) as

the maximum deviation was only around 2 % in the range of Reynolds numbers covered.

At all the Reynolds numbers it is seen that the pressure recovery increases linearly almost up to

the end of first turn, with values close to 64 %. Thereafter it reduces by around 4 %, in the second

bend up to 11.25◦ and recovers back to a value of approximately 65 ± 1 % at the outlet plane. The

static pressure recovery obtained with these ducts is approximately 10 % less than the ideal pressure

recovery. In the initial length of the duct, increase in pressure recovery is due to the increase in the

flow passage area. The growth of boundary layer in this length of passage is negligible because of

which rapid pressure recovery takes place. The fall in pressure recovery in the second bend could be

due to the growth of boundary layer as a result of separation and mixing losses at the inflexion plane

(plane P3). Further increase in area of cross-section does not lead to diffusion as the effective area

533

70

60

Coefficient (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0

0 11.25 22.5 22.5/11.25 22.5/22.5

Angle of turn (degrees)

Fig. 6. Pressure recovery (solid) and total pressure loss coefficient (dashed)

at all inlet Reynolds numbers in the velocity range 20 – 60 m/sec.

of flow does not increase due to the growth of boundary layer. The total pressure loss registered

for the three inlet flows increases almost linearly along the length of duct at a much slower rate

compared to pressure recovery and is nearly identical for all the three Reynolds numbers and hence

only single curve is given for total pressure loss (Fig. 6). The values for each case remained almost

same at around 8 ± 1 %.

Velocity Distribution in AR = 2 Intake Ducts. Longitudinal velocity distribution at differ-

ent cross-sectional planes of the 22.5◦ /22.5◦ intake duct for the three Reynolds numbers are shown

in Fig. 7 as iso-velocity contours.

For Re = 6.27 · 104 , the longitudinal velocity distribution is uniform at the inlet plane. As

expected, at plane P1 the core velocity shifts towards the convex wall having a higher velocity

(20.24 m/sec). At plane P2, close to the inflexion plane, core flow shifts back to the center as a result

of the centrifugal force. The velocity magnitude also reduces which shows that diffusion is taking

place. Similar pattern of flow has also been reported by Dey et al. [17] in S-shaped circular cross-

section diffusers. The reduction in the velocity magnitude is due to the diffusion of the flow with

increase in the area of cross-section of the duct. At the mixing region (plane P3), the flow from both

the limbs mix but retain their identity. The core flow shifts towards the convex walls of the second

bend as a result of change in the direction of centrifugal force. Similar velocity distribution remained

till plane P5 with size of the core flow covering a major area of cross-section (11.45 to 11.04 m/sec).

The velocity distribution from plane P3 to P5 also shows that the longitudinal velocity magnitude

at the center of the duct cross-section remains lower. This may be due to the streamlines coming

from the two limbs forming concave streamline surfaces parallel to the concave walls. With the

increase in the Reynolds number values, the pattern of velocity distribution does not change. It

is similar to the previous case with higher velocities at each plane. The core velocity magnitudes

at plane P4 increases to 25.33 m/sec and 37.99 m/sec for Re = 1.25 · 105 and Re = 1.88 · 105 ,

534

Fig. 7. Longitudinal velocity contours for 22.5◦ /22.5◦ duct with AR = 2 at Re = 6.27 · 104 .

Fig. 8. Cross-velocity plots for 22.5◦ /22.5◦ duct with AR = 2 at Re = 6.27 · 104 .

535

Fig. 9. Longitudinal velocity contours for 22.5◦ /22.5◦ duct for AR = 2.5 at Re = 1.25 · 105 .

respectively. The core velocities at plane P5 are 22.87 m/sec and 34.31 m/sec, respectively. The

velocity magnitudes in the center are about 8 – 9 % lower compared to the core velocities. It was

also seen that with the increase in the Reynolds number the flow pattern at the exit does not change.

There is only a corresponding increase in the outlet velocity magnitudes. The cross-flow velocities

observed at planes S1 to S5 for Re = 6.27 · 104 showed the presence of pair of contra-rotating

vortices up to plane S3, which is also observed in S-diffusers. At plane S4, which is the mixing

plane for the flow from the two limbs, formation of two pairs of contra-rotating vortices is observed,

which continues to exist even at plane S5, with reduced magnitude. It was also observed that the

flow pattern for cross-flow velocities does not change with Reynolds number, the change being only

in relative magnitudes of cross-flow velocities. For sake of brevity, cross-flow velocities in form of

vector plots are shown for planes S4 and S5 only for the Reynolds number = 6.27 · 104 in Fig. 8.

Effects of Area Ratio on Velocity Distribution. The studies on divided intake duct of AR =

2 at different Reynolds numbers has shown that the performance is not significantly affected by

Reynolds number in the range over which investigations are carried out. Hence studies on higher

area ratio ducts is performed only at one Reynolds number corresponding to an inlet velocity of

40 m/sec. The longitudinal velocity pattern through out the duct for different area ratio ducts is

similar to the pattern observed for the AR = 2 (Fig. 7). Similar to the previous case (AR = 2)

lower velocity magnitudes are present in the central region at plane P5 compared to the core flow

velocity magnitudes towards the top and bottom side. The velocity magnitudes at the central region

are lower by approximately 9 % for AR = 2, 12.8 % for AR = 2.5, 21 % for AR = 3, 32.5 % for

AR = 4. This shows that flow uniformity at the exit plane reduces with increase in area ratio. For

sake of brevity only longitudinal velocity distribution obtained at different cross-sectional planes

for AR = 2.5 divided intake duct is depicted in Fig. 9.

536

a) b)

537

c) d)

Fig. 10. Longitudinal and cross-velocity contours at the exit plane for Re = 1.25 · 105 :

a) AR = 2, b) AR = 2.5, c) AR = 3, d) AR = 4.

80

Coefficient (%)

60

pres. recovery (AR=2.0)

pres. recovery (AR=2.5)

40 pres. recovery (AR=3.0)

pres. recovery (AR=4.0)

total pres. loss (AR=2.0)

total pres. loss (AR=2.5)

20 total pres. loss (AR=3.0)

total pres. loss (AR=4.0)

0

0 11.25 22.5 22.5/11.25 22.5/22.5

Angle of turn (degrees)

Fig. 11. Pressure recovery coefficient and total pressure loss coefficient

for 22.5◦ /22.5◦ duct function of area ratio (Re = 1.2 · 105 ).

For better understanding of the flow in these ducts, the longitudinal and cross-velocity plots at

the exit plane are shown in Fig. 10. It is seen that the core flow is always located close to the top

and bottom walls of the duct with lower values in the central region as observed for the planes P3

to P5. Compared to plane P5, it is seen that the fall in central region flow velocity has reduced from

9 % to 3.8 % for AR = 2; 12.8 % to 7 % for AR = 2.5, 21 % to 13.1 % for AR = 3 and 32.5 %

to 30 % for AR = 4. This implies that the flow continues to develop beyond plane P5 and achieves

higher flow uniformity up to the exit plane, the development being more pronounced up to AR = 3

duct.

The cross-velocity vectors at the exit plane indicate four vortices symmetrically placed in each

quadrant. These vortices are formed due to secondary flow induced by pressure gradients resulting

from the streamline curvature. The pressure gradient and the deflection of transverse vorticity com-

ponent of the boundary layer causes secondary flows in the form of two pairs of counter-rotating

vortices [26]. For AR = 2, the vortices have magnitudes approximately 0.07 m/sec at the center

and 0.28 m/sec in the outer region. The velocity magnitudes in the wall region are higher (1.3

to 0.72 m/sec). With the increase in the area ratio, the variation between the core velocity of the

vortices to the outer region is reduced and is in the range of 0.14 to 0.29 m/sec for AR = 2.5

duct and 0.13 to 0.27 m/sec for AR = 3 duct. For AR = 4 duct, the cross-flow velocity distri-

bution shows a tendency of reducing to one pair of contra-rotating vortices from two pairs. This

reformation may be attributed to the increase in the flow diffusion with increase in the area ratio. A

relook at the velocity magnitudes shows that the percentage of cross-velocity magnitudes relative

to the longitudinal velocity magnitudes are 1.3 % for AR = 2.0 duct 1.7 % for AR = 2.5 duct,

1.75 % for AR = 3 duct and 1.72 % for AR = 4 duct. The secondary flow velocity magnitudes are

always less than 5 % of the longitudinal velocity, which suggests that the flow is moving into the

compressor without much distortion [25].

538

Effect of Area Ratio on Static Pressure Recovery. Static pressure recovery plot along the

length of the divided intake duct as a function of area ratio is plotted in Fig. 11 for a Reynolds

number 1.2 · 105 . The figure also depicts the total loss coefficient in these ducts. It is observed that

pressure recovery increases almost linearly up to 22.5◦ turn with magnitudes being relatively higher

for higher area ratio. The rate of increase in pressure recovery reduces in the second bend due to the

development of boundary layer and mixing losses. The effective area of diffusion reduces due to

growth of boundary layer, reduction being maximum for AR = 2 duct and minimum for AR = 4

duct. One even observes a fall in pressure recovery for AR = 2 and 2.5 duct indicating reduction

in flow area. For AR = 2 intake duct the pressure recovery coefficient is always the lowest with

maximum recovery of 65 %. The maximum values for other area ratios are 74 % for AR = 2.5 duct

78 % for AR = 3 duct and 80 % for AR = 4 duct. On comparing with the ideal pressure recovery,

the predicted values are 10 % lower for AR = 2 duct and 2.5 duct which increases to 13.75 % for

AR = 4 duct. The total pressure loss coefficient varies almost linearly along the length of intake

ducts. Highest total pressure loss (about 10 %) is obtained for AR = 4 duct, whereas for other ducts

it is observed to be lower.

Conclusions

Based on the investigations carried out on divided intake ducts at three Reynolds numbers and

four area ratios, the following conclusions are drawn.

Reynolds number. The total pressure loss coefficient is also observed to be independent of

Reynolds number.

2. For all Reynolds numbers, pressure recovery increases with increase in area ratio for divided

intake geometries. For increase in the area ratio from 2 to 4, the static pressure recovery

increases from 65 % to 80 %. The pressure loss coefficient also increases with increase in

area ratio but the increase is very marginal.

3. The core flow remains close to the convex wall in each limb of the intake duct. Even after

merger of the flow from the two limbs, the individual core flows remain distinct and positioned

towards the top and the bottom wall of the duct till the exit plane.

4. The cross-velocity plots show two pairs of contra-rotating vortices within the limbs with

higher values of velocity along the duct walls. From the plane of merging of two limbs,

three vortices are seen up to the exit plane. The central region in the duct has the lowest

cross-velocity magnitudes.

5. The magnitudes of the cross-velocity are higher for the AR = 4 intake duct, whereas for

the other area ratio ducts the values for cross-velocity are almost comparable. These ducts

showed less than 5 % distortion at the exit plane.

REFERENCES

1. Whitford, R., Design for Air Combat, Jane’s Publishing Co., London, 1987.

2. Martin, N. J. and Holzhauser, C. A., Analysis of Factors Influencing the Stability Characteristics

of Symmetrical Intake Air-Induction Systems NACA Tech. Rept, 1950.

539

3. Sudhakar, K. and Ananthkishanan, N., Jump Phenomena in Y-Shaped Intake Ducts, J. Aircraft,

1995, 33, No. 2, pp. 438–439.

4. Rojas, J., Whitelaw, J. H., and Yianneskis, M., Flow in Sigmoid Diffusers of Moderate Cur-

vature, Rept No. FS83/21, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College of Science,

Technology and Medicine, London, UK, 1983.

5. Guo,R. W. and Seddon, J., Swirl Characteristics of an S-Shaped Air Intake with both Horizontal

and Vertical Offsets, Aeronaut. Quart., 1983, 34, pp. 130–146.

6. Guo, R. W. and Seddon, J., The Swirl S-Duct of Typical Air Intake Proportions, Aeronaut.

Quart., 1983, 34, pp. 99–129.

7. Seddon, J., Understanding and Countering the Swirl in S-Ducts: Tests on the Sensitivity of

Swirl to Fences, Aeronaut. J., 1984, 88, pp. 117–127.

8. Shimizu, Y., Nagafusa, M., Sugino, K., and Kubota, T., Studies on Performance and Internal

Flow of U-Shaped and Snake-Shaped Bend Diffusers: 2-nd Report, Trans. ASME, J. Fluids

Engng, 1986, 108, pp. 297–303.

9. Shimizu, Y., Nagafusa, M., Sugino, K., and Nakamura, F., Studies on Performance and Internal

Flow of Twisted S-Shaped Bend Diffuser.– The So-Called Coiled Bend Diffuser: 1-st Report,

Trans. ASME, J. Fluids Engng, 1986, 108, pp. 289–296.

10. Whitelaw, J. H. and Yu, S. C. M., Turbulent Flow Characteristics of S-Shaped Diffusing Ducts,

Flow Measurement and Instrumentation, 1993, 4, No. 3, pp. 171–179.

11. Lien, F. S. and Leschziner, M. A., Computational Modeling of 3-D Turbulent Flow in S-Diffuser

and Transition Ducts, In: Engineering Turbulence Modeling and Experiments, Rodi, W. and

Martelli, F., Eds., Elsevier Science Publishers, Oxford, 1993.

12. Majumdar, B., Singh, S. N., and Agrawal, D. P., Flow Characteristics in S-Shaped Diffusing

Duct, Int. J. Turbo and Jet-Engines, 1997, 14, pp. 45–57.

13. Vinit Gupta, Rajneesh Devpura, Singh, S. N., and Seshadri, V., Effect of Aspect Ratio and Cur-

vature on Characteristics of S-Shaped Diffusers, Indian J. Eng. Mater. Sci., 2001, 8, pp. 141–

148.

14. Anand, R. B., Lajpat Rai, and Singh, S. N., Flow and Performance Characteristics of a

22.5◦ /22.5◦ S-Shaped Circular Diffuser, In: Proc. 28-th Nat. Conf. Fluid Mechanics and Fluid

Power, Chandigarh, India, December, 13–15, 2001, pp. 364–371.

15. Anand, R. B., Lajpat Rai, Singh, S. N., and Sharma, O. P., Flow Characteristics of a Low Aspect

Ratio 90◦ /90◦ S-Shaped Diffuser, J. Aero. Soc. India, 2000, 53 No. 4, pp. 239–252.

16. Singh, S. N., Seshadri, V., and Anand, R. B., Flow Characteristics of S-Shaped Diffusing Ducts,

Closure Rept, AERO/RD-134/100/98-99/1035, Dept Applied Mechanics, Indian Institute of

Technology Delhi, March 2002.

17. Dey, R., Bharani, S., Singh, S. N., and Seshadri, V., Flow Analysis in S-Shaped Diffusers with

Circular Cross-Section, Arab. J. Sci. Eng., December 2002, 27, No. 2c, pp. 197–206.

18. Taylor, A. M. P. K., Whitelaw, J. H., and Yianneskis, M. Developing Flows in S-Shaped Ducts.

Part 1 – Square Cross-Section, Rept No. FS/81/22, Mechanical Engineering Department, Im-

perial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK, 1981.

19. Taylor, A. M. P. K., Whitelaw, J. H., and Yianneslis, M. Developing Flows in S-Shaped Ducts.

Part 2 – Circular Cross-Section NASA Contract Rept 3759, USA, 1984.

20. Mayer, D. W. and Kneeling, W. D. Evaluation of Two Flow Analyses for Subsonic Diffuser

Design, In: 30-th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. (AIAA), Pap. No. AIAA 92 0273,

Reno, NV, 6–9 January 1992.

21. Bruns, J. E. and Smith, C. F. Full Navier – Stokes Calculations on the Installed F/A-

18 Inlet at a High Angle of Attack, 28-th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.

(AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE), Pap. No. AIAA 92 3175, July 6–9, 1992.

540

View publication stats

22. Pope, S. B., Turbulent Flows, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2000.

23. FLUENT-5, Fluent Incorporation, USA, 1998.

24. McMillan, O. J. Mean-Flow Measurements of the Flow Field Diffusing Bend, NASA Contract

Rept 3634, 1982.

25. Yung, C. N., Keith, T. G., and De Witt, K. J., Computational Three-Dimensional Turbulent Flow

in S-Shaped Ducts, In: Proc. Sixth Int. Conf. Numerical Methods in Laminar and Turbulent

Flows, Swansea, 11–15 July, 1989, pp. 1377–1387.

26. Harloff, G. J., Reichert, B. A., Sirbaugh, J. R., and Welborn, S. R. Navier – Stokes Analysis

and Experimental Data Comparison of Compressible Flow in Ducts NASA, TM-105796, July

1992.

541

- Convective Mass TransferUploaded bySandra Enn Bahinting
- Experiment 2 - Classification of Fluid Flow using Osborne Reynolds Apparatus.pdfUploaded byMariel Palisoc
- Reynolds numberUploaded byBolarinwa
- Discharge Coefficient Performance of Venturi, Standard Concentric Orifice Plate Vcone and Wedge Flow Meters at Low Reynolds NumbersUploaded bymaylabinoti
- Visualisation of Relaminar flowsUploaded byPradeep Kumar Srinivasan
- flowmasterUploaded byaureliacamelia4361
- OpenFoam TutorialsUploaded bykushvverma2003
- Turbulence in the AtmosphereUploaded bygozamen
- 2D Turbulent Flow Past a Cylinder in StarUploaded bySubhashini Ramamoorthy
- The mixing transition in turbulent flows.pdfUploaded byJoonhong Kim
- 1970-Petukhov- Heat Transfer and Friction in Turbulent Pipe Flow With Variable Physical PropertiesUploaded bytomekzawistowski
- 5965_48_40_a Study of Turbulence Induced Forces Acting on the Blobe Valve_2005Uploaded byChinmay Tiwari
- Statement of Qualifications-CFDUploaded byTran Bich Son
- 1157699768799-nutts2003Uploaded byChristopher Rodriguez
- grid turbulenceUploaded byabhi71127112
- Laminar convective heat transfer with twisted tape inserts in a tubeUploaded byJhon Castillo
- 35.02_18Uploaded byTarek Tarek
- Assignment01_MECH5304_BendFlowUploaded byPraveen P Jose
- 50201381Uploaded byspbhavna
- Da Schiel 2013Uploaded bySAM
- Wetted_Wall_Column_Experiment_4.docxUploaded byRaza Mutahir
- 139-177Uploaded byNghĩa Ngu Ngất Ngưỡng
- BDA30203 Lecture#2Uploaded byChurreya Chai Lom
- A Review of One-dimensional Unsteady Friction Models for Transient Pipe FlowUploaded byBhuvana
- Flow simulation over cylinderUploaded byJayesh Mahajan
- Characteristic of FlowUploaded byBrilliand Tegar Verlambang
- problema2Uploaded byAldo Alexander
- Reynolds Number TheoryUploaded byRonald Tyson
- Tachi e 2004Uploaded byAhsan Habib Tanim
- 2 Transition Modelling for General Purpose CFD Codes.pdfUploaded byshantanu

- FlammabilityUploaded bySoroiu Cristian
- 20mm-x-102-PGU-USAFUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 20.pdfUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- VariabilityinBallisticImpactPerformanceDuetoProjectilePhysicalPropertiesandDimensionsUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- rutgers-lib-26254_PDF-1 (1)Uploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 20mm-PGU-28-A-B-F-16Uploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- woodrowEx_20HUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 11x.pdfUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 11yUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- KDB_HVPUploaded bySinto Gendeng
- 13Uploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- Investigation of turbine flammability within aircraft fuel tank 669001.pdfUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- EvaporationUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- AbrateICCMkyotoUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- A_thermal_theory_for_estimating_the_flam.pdfUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 29th International Symposium on Ballistics EdinburUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 8_Joint_Combat_Assessment_Team_JCAT.pdfUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- energies-11-01677.pdfUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 1-s2.0-S100093611830164X-mainUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 1Uploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- M88-2_ang-2Uploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- Turbojet and Turbofan Engine Performance.pdfUploaded byh
- CEAS2015_074Uploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- 06w-FligContUploaded bySakthi Ganesh
- Pompa Hydraulic ct_195715.pdfUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- Flow DemandUploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo
- IJEMS 20(2) 125-131Uploaded bySantosa Edy Wibowo

- CONVECTION_HEAT_TRANSFER_IN_CONCENTRIC_A.pdfUploaded byjudeekene_403330720
- ASHRAE Journal - Primary-only vs Primary-Secondary Variable Flow Systems-Taylor.pdfUploaded byYazan Ak
- bluf body wake(r)Uploaded byapi-19969042
- S.E. Civil EngineeringUploaded by94738183
- CCHE2D 3.0 Users' ManualUploaded byRodolfo Falcão Gadanha
- Experimental Investigation on Heat Transfer of finned tubeUploaded byendoparasite
- Factor Influenching Solar Drying Red AlgaeUploaded byEko Putra Bayu
- Power Consumption Mixing TimeUploaded bygambitfluent
- Hanjalic Resume Short Sept2005Uploaded byŠetkić Semir
- Investigation of 2D Airfoils Equipped With a Trailing Edge Flaps MSc in Wind EnergyUploaded byMason925
- Removal of Copper Ions by Cementation Onto Zinc Powder in an Air Sparged VesselUploaded byYehia El Shazly
- Violeau Boom SPH SubmissionUploaded byAnonymous HijNGQtN
- Telemac-2d User Manual en v6p2Uploaded byMinh Tuan Vu
- Kolmetz Handbook of Process Equipment DesignUploaded byachyutde
- Fluids heat and mass transferUploaded byAnonymous 5ZrExM
- Fluid Machines and MachineryUploaded bynagurvali65
- Liquid Mixing and Oxygen SupplyUploaded byArjun Prasad
- Chapter_11.pptUploaded bySunmoon Al-Haddabi
- DNV-RP-F203 Riser Interference April 2009Uploaded byTroy
- Lecture 3 MeasurementUploaded byNtakirutimana Manassé
- JYIUploaded byHaider Ali
- PumpsUploaded byqusroo
- 1-s2.0-S0017931016301995-main_R39Uploaded byAnonymous 7BQxlt8c
- 2134-2discussion (1)Uploaded bymeowy
- chapter 7 y 8Uploaded byClaudia Magaly Diaz
- Unified Model for Gas_Liquid Pipe Flow via Slug Dynamics_Part 1_Model DevelopmentUploaded byleofrazao
- Multi Phase Flow Dynamics. Theory and NumericsUploaded byDavid Gette
- CFD Calculation of Turbulent Flow With Arbitrary Wall RoughnessUploaded bygorot1
- THERMAL ANALYSIS OF INDOOR SUBSTATIONUploaded byEnriqueGD
- 36834970 Fluid Mechanics Objective Type QuestionsUploaded bypavankumar001