Proceedings of ASME Turbo Expo 2017: Turbomachinery Technical Conference and Exposition

GT2017
June 26-30, 2017, Charlotte, NC, USA

GT2017-63126

A SENSITIVITY STUDY OF GAS TURBINE EXHAUST DIFFUSER-COLLECTOR

PERFORMANCE AT VARIOUS INLET SWIRL ANGLES AND STRUT STAGGER ANGLES

Michal P. Siorek Stephen Guillot, Song Xue* , Wing F. NG**

Solar Turbines Incorporated Techsburg Inc.
San Diego, CA, USA Christiansburg, VA, USA
Siorek_Michal_P@solarturbines.com sguillot@techsburg.com, wng@techsburg.com,

ABSTRACT PIV Particle image velocimetry

Ps Static pressure
This paper describes studies completed using a quarter-scaled rig Ps
¯ Mass-average static pressure
to assess the impact of turbine exit swirl angle and strut stagger on a Pt Total Pressure
turbine exhaust system consisting of an integral diffuser-collector. Pt
¯ Mass-average total pressure
Advanced testing methods were applied to ascertain exhaust QPS Quadratic Pressure Strain
performance for a range of inlet conditions aerodynamically matched to SST Shear Stress Transport
flow exiting an industrial gas turbine. Flow visualization techniques TDC Top-dead-center
along with complementary Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) TRIT Turbine Rotor Inlet Temperature
predictions were used to study flow behavior along the diffuser x Axial Distance
endwalls. Complimentary CFD analysis was also completed with the
aim to ascertain the performance prediction capability of modern day
analytical tools for design phase and off-design analysis. The K-Epsilon 1. INTRODUCTION
model adequately captured the relevant flow features within both the
diffuser and collector, and the model accurately predicted the recovery Part of the life cycle of many industrial gas turbines often includes
at design conditions. At off-design conditions, the recovery predictions one or more performance uprates, typically defined by an increase in
were found to be pessimistic. The integral diffuser-collector exhaust pressure ratio, flow, and/or firing temperature. For example, the Solar
accommodated a significant amount of inlet swirl without a degradation Turbines TitanTM 130 two-shaft engine was initially introduced in 1998
in performance, so long as the inlet flow direction did not significantly at an ISO power rating of 13.3 MW (17,800-hp), a thermal efficiency of
deviate from the strut stagger angle. Strut incidence at the hub was 34.5% and a compressor pressure ratio of 16:1 [1]. The engine has
directly correlated with reduction in overall performance, whereas the evolved to a power rating of 16.7 MW (22,490 hp), an increase in
diffuser-collector performance was not significantly impacted by strut turbine rotor inlet temperature (TRIT) of 100ºF, and a compressor
incidence at the shroud. pressure ratio of 19:1. Similarly, the Solar Turbines Mars 90 was
initially introduced in 1980 at an ISO power rating of 8.3 MW (11,150-
hp), a thermal efficiency of 32.8%, and a compressor pressure ratio of
NOMENCLATURE 16:1 [2,3]. The product has evolved to power rating of 11.8 MW
(15,900hp), a thermal efficiency of 34.4%, an increase of TRIT by over
BDC Bottom-dead-center 200ºF, and a compressor pressure ratio of 17:1. Depending on scope,
DEHS Di-Ethyl-Hexyl_Sebacat modifications to the external airfoil geometry may not be needed to meet
DOE Design of experiments uprate performance targets. As a result, the turbine section may operate
Cp Exhaust recovery at off-design with the last stage being most impacted. The exhaust
Cpi Local recovery coefficient system is thereby subjected to variations in inlet flow conditions
Cpo Total pressure coefficient specifically the velocity and the flow angle, which adversely affect
∆Cp Difference in recovery, Cp- Cp, ref pressure recovery and affect overall engine performance. The change
DES Detached Eddy Simulation in swirl could impact exhaust diffuser performance and must be
EB Elliptical blending accounted for when conducting overall turbine performance
ISO International Organization for Standardization assessments in the engine growth design phase. Changes to diffuser
L Diffuser length inlet flow conditions, specifically variations in swirl angle, will occur
LPS Linear Pressure Strain for industrial two-shaft engines with power turbines operating at a wide

* Song Xue is currently affiliated with Concepts NREC

** Wing Ng is the Chris C. Kraft Endowed Professor at Virginia Tech

1 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

range of speeds and exhaust flow rates. The ability for a design engineer
to accurately account for changes in exhaust flow swirl angle is
evaluated in this study.
The classic work of Sovran and Klomp [4] did not consider effects
of inlet swirl angle in their detailed characterization work, however, the
influence of inlet swirl on diffuser performance was recognized as
important during that era. Japikse and Baines [5] compiled performance
information from several swirl angle studies completed on annular
diffuser geometries without struts. In most cases, peak diffuser
performance was observed at an inlet swirl angle of 10º to 20º.
McDonald et al. [6] conducted inlet swirl angle sensitivity studies for a
number of conical diffusers at incompressible flow conditions and
Kumar and Kumar [7] completed similar work for annular diffusers.
Both authors measured an improvement in diffuser recovery with
introduction of swirl and Kumar observed an optimum swirl angle of
17º for diffuser area ratios of three and below. Both authors observed a
performance benefit with the introduction of inlet swirl to be greater for
diffusers with aggressive area ratios with established regions of
separation when operating without swirl. Kumar attributed the increase
in pressure recovery to radial pressure gradients that enhance
momentum exchange between the boundary layer and mainstream flow.
McDonald indicated that the optimum length ratio (L/R1) may be
reduced for diffusers operating with inlet swirl and this should be
considered in the design process.
Senoo et al. [8] completed similar swirl angle studies for diffusers
with struts and concluded that the debit in performance due to the
increase in drag can be offset by strut design considerations including
airfoil shape and stagger angle. For axial flows, setting a strut at a small
incidence angle to induce swirl was shown to yield a performance
benefit. For large inlet swirl angles, utilizing the strut to reduce swirl
was found to reduce the performance loss associated with diffuser
operation at high swirl angles. Vassiliev et al. [9] studied the impact of
inlet swirl angle and inlet Mach number on pressure recovery for an
annular diffuser geometry representative of an industrial gas turbine
engine operating at full and part-load conditions. An adjustable inlet
guide vane was used in the experimental work with the baseline inlet
swirl angle linearly varying from -30º at the inner casing to 0º at the
shroud. The authors provided swirl angle sensitivities for both exhaust
pressure loss and pressure recovery, and concluded that in the range of
interest, the pressure recovery is practically independent from Mach
number. A reduction in pressure recovery was measured when the inlet
swirl angle at the hub exceeded -30º, leading to the formation of
separation zones along the strut. Complimentary CFD predictions of
diffuser recovery were accurate to 4% as compared to test data. In a
separate report, the authors found that the realizable K-Epsilon
turbulence model with two-zone near wall treatment was best suited for
predicting relative differences in diffuser recovery for a wide range of
diffuser geometries [10].
Japikse and Pampreen [11] completed scale-model rig testing to
study the effect of inlet swirl angle on the recovery of a double discharge
exhaust collector designed for an automotive gas turbine. The addition
of a collector to a straight-walled annular diffuser operating with axial
inlet flow adversely impacted the diffuser recovery by five to eleven
points and the deficit was Mach number dependent. The swirl angle
dependency was greatly reduced with the presence of the collector and
a recovery of 0.45 was reported at a high swirl angle of 45°. In contrast,
annular diffuser performance diminished by more than 0.25 points when
operating at inlet flow angles above 45°, and the measured recovery was
found to be below 0.35. Xue et al. [12] reported a similar drop in
2 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated
recovery when integrating a collector with an industrial gas turbine
exhaust diffuser with profiled struts set at a 7o stagger. In this study, the
addition of inlet swirl up to 21o improved recovery, and a portion of the
loss introduced by the collector was reclaimed.
Several numerical investigations were completed to study the
influence of inlet flow conditions on both the flow behavior and the
performance of exhaust hoods used in large steam turbine [13, 14, 15,
and 16] and gas turbine [17] applications. These studies mainly reported
on the necessity of including realistic inlet flow angles in numerical
analysis and discussed predictions of complex flow structures within the
collector. These numerical studies along with particle image
velocimetry (PIV) data [18, 19], probe data [12, 16], and flow
visualization data [10, 12] all document the formation of two counter-
rotating vortices. Several authors [14, 16, 17] observed variations in
vortex size, shape and strength with changes in inlet swirl angles.
Despite differences in geometries studied, the authors reported regions
of backflow at the collector exit plane. Diffuser inlet swirl was found
to influence both the size and location of backflow regions. In general,
the reports use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis to
complement test data and highlight the ability of CFD analysis in
capturing the main flow structures and general trends of pressure loss.
Good agreement between CFD and experimental data has been found
when optimizing geometry with flow at the design point [19]. However,
limited studies were found that discuss recovery prediction capabilities
of current state-of-the art CFD codes for diffuser-collector exhausts with
integral struts that are operating at a wide range of incidence angles. A
number of these studies such as Sultanian et al. [17] were completed
when mesh sizes were limited to within a couple of million elements by
computational resources available at the time. Computational
advancements have enabled greater model resolution including
increased mesh densities and the capacity to solve unsteady flow fields
with models such as Detached Eddy Simulation (DES). The accuracy
of CFD predictions with these higher resolution models is of particular
interest.
This study focusses on operation of a diffuser-collector gas turbine
exhaust at off-design conditions. Experimental measurements were
gathered on a quarter-scale test rig with inlet flow conditions matched
using aerodynamic similarity parameters. Rig data was gathered for
both axial swirl and three angles that were similar in distribution to
engine outlet conditions. A design of experiments (DOE) was
completed for a range of strut stagger angles. Detailed measurements,
flow visualization within the diffuser section, as well as complementary
CFD analysis were completed. The effect of swirl on diffuser-collector
performance was reported on. The accuracy of CFD analysis as an
analytical tool used for assessing exhaust diffuser-collector performance
at design and off-design inlet flow conditions was evaluated.
2. TEST FACILITIES
2.1 Wind Tunnel
The impact of inlet swirl distribution on the performance of a
diffuser-collector and the associated role of strut design were
investigated in a cold-flow blowdown wind tunnel facility shown in
Figure 1. The facility consisted of a Kaeser 100 hp axial screw
compressor attached to a downstream Airtec dryer that was connected
to receivers. An 8-inch globe valve regulated the flow through the rig,
and the valve was adjusted with a pneumatic actuator connected to a
Siemens controller. Typical steady-state test durations were 10 to 12

Figure 1: Subsonic wind tunnel facility for the testing of 1/4 scale
diffuser collector
Figure 2: The diffuser-collector test rig hardware
Figure 3: Section view of the diffuser-collector rig.
3 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated
seconds and a 15-minute recharge period was required between tests.
Twelve consecutive tests were required to gather data for each test case.
2.2 Diffuser Collector Geometry
The test rig, as shown in Figure 2, consisted of a quarter-scale
diffuser-collector geometry representative of an industrial gas turbine
exhaust system. A cross section of the rig was provided in Figure 3.
The upstream flow conditioning section consisted of a bellmouth, a
turbulence grid, turning vanes, and a contraction used for controlling the
boundary-layer thickness. This upstream section was specifically
designed to simulate turbine exit flow conditions. The contraction
design was shaped to size the boundary layer thickness. Swirl
distributions were controlled with interchangeable swirl vanes, and
three custom turning vanes were designed to simulate the engine exit
flow angle at design and off-design conditions. Operation without swirl
was also made possible by removing the swirl vanes and inserting at
both endwalls custom rings machined to allow for minimal change in
endwall profile tolerance. Tip leakage flow was not included in this
study. The turbulence grid was designed according to Roach et al. [20]
for an intensity level of 4% at the inlet plane to the diffuser. Hotwire
measurements validated these conditions.
A constant area duct was placed between the flow conditioning
section and the annular diffuser. Inlet measurements were gathered with
this constant area section. The test section consisted of an annular
diffuser of outlet-to-inlet cross-sectional area ratio of 2.45 and a
collector. The diffuser has eight integral struts that were defined by a
constant cross-section profile shown in Figure 4. The strut stagger angle
was adjusted along the center of the leading edge ellipse, and three
stagger angles of -12°, 0°, and +12° were investigated. The diffuser
struts were leaned in the rig as shown in Figure 5. Lean is incorporated
Figure 4: Diffuser strut profiles and stagger angles
Figure 5: Forward looking aft view of the exhaust diffuser showing
strut lean
in gas turbine exhaust diffusers to reduce thermal stresses during relative to the maximum theoretical (ideal) pressure rise. The recovery
transient operation. A collector was used to turn the annular flow was calculated as shown below.
radially and exhaust the flow out of a vertical stack. A ramp just
downstream of the diffuser was positioned along the inner-wall to guide
the flow. The collector consisted of a flat-plate back wall, an angled
front wall, and round sidewalls. A top view portraying diffuser-collector
interface features was provided in Figure 8 and an isometric view Diffuser Pressure Measurements – Both the hub and shroud were
featuring the collector annular cross-section was provided in Figure 9. instrumented with axial rows of pressure taps at the 0o and 180o
locations, 0o being aligned with the collector exit and referred to as top-
dead-center. The axial locations of each tap were measured from the
2.3 Inlet Flow Conditions and Distributions start of the annular expansion at the inlet of the diffuser and normalized
by the axial length of the shroud as shown by the diagram in Figure 8.
The inlet flow conditions were aerodynamically scaled to match Additional taps measuring the circumferential variation of the pressure
turbine exit Mach number and Reynolds number of 0.42 and 950,000 distribution were located on the shroud at 55.1% and 96.5% of diffuser
respectively. The Reynolds number was based on diffuser inlet length and at 96.5% of the diffuser length on the hub.
hydraulic diameter. Diffuser inlet blockage of 5% was generated with
the custom-built contraction. A Pitot probe of 1/32 inch in diameter was
designed for boundary layer measurements and used to evaluate the inlet
blockage. The circumferential average diffuser inlet profile of total
pressure coefficient, Cpo, is shown in Figure 6 and calculated based on
the equation provide below. Similarly, distribution of diffuser inlet
Mach number were provided in Figure 7. Diffuser inlet distribution of
total pressure and Mach number were nearly uniform. Data from both
measurements and predictions were provided.

௉ ି௉
೟భ തതതത
೟భ
‫ ݋݌ܥ‬ൌ തതതത തതതത
௉೟భ ି௉ ೞభ

Uniform axial flow at a swirl angle of 0º and three non-uniform

swirl angle distributions with mass-averaged values of -14.6°, -6.6°, and
9.4° were considered. Swirl vanes were used to impose a radial gradient
in inlet angle. Both the -14.6° and -6.6° swirl vanes were designed with
greater turning at the hub. In contrast, the 9.4° swirl vane was designed
with greater turning at the shroud. The swirl angle distributions were
provided in Figure 14 located in Section 5.2.

Figure 6: Radial distribution of the inlet total pressure coefficient,

3. INSTRUMENTATION, DATA ACQUISITION, ANALYSIS Cpo - circumferentially averaged

Diffuser Inlet Measurements - A 3/16” United Sensor WAC-187 three-

hole wedge probe was used for measurement of total pressure (po1), and
static pressure (ps1) and this data was used to derive the inlet swirl angle.
These data were acquired at an axial location equivalent to 85% of the
annular height upstream of the inlet plane of the diffuser, as shown in
Figure 3. The measurements were taken using six radial traverses
equally spaced around the circumference. Data was gathered at span-
wise locations of 10%, 20%, 35%, 50%, 65%, 80% and 90% of the
annulus height. A smaller Pitot probe was used to acquire the boundary
layer profile on the hub and shroud at both the 0 and 180o locations.

Collector Exit Measurements - A row of 10 static pressure taps located

at the collector exit plane were used to record the exit pressure, Ps2. The
exit pressure taps shown in Figure 8 were located at a distance
equivalent to 1.05 diffuser exit diameters downstream of the rig
centerline. The back wall of the rig was not instrumented with pressure
taps since it was used for optical access for Particle Image Velocimetry
(PIV) measurements.

Performance Indices - The pressure recovery of the overall diffuser-

collector system was calculated based on mass averaged diffuser inlet Figure 7: Radial distribution of the inlet Mach number,
total and static pressures and average collector exit static pressure. The circumferentially averaged
definition of pressure recovery relates the actual static pressure rise

4 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

 Flow Visualization Technique – Surface streak lines were visualized
using a silicon oil mixed with fluorescent pigment. The rig was then
run several times to allow the oil to setup completely. The rig was then
disassembled and illuminated with an ultraviolet light to enhance the
visualization of the fluorescent pigment in the oil. The results were
photographed using a high-resolution DSLR camera.

Stereoscopic PIV System - A commercial stereoscopic Particle Image

Velocimetry (PIV) system from LaVision was used to obtain the three-
dimensional flowfield within the collector at a frequency of 30Hz. An
oil-based seeding particle, atomized Di-Ethyl-Hexyl-Sebacat (DEHS),
was used to produce nominally 1µm diameter particles providing flow
response to approximately 100 kHz. The pair of flow imaging cameras
were calibrated in situ using a stereoscopic calibration plate and image
registration software provided by LaVision. Cross-correlation post-
processing was performed using LaVision DaVIS software.

The flow exiting the collector was captured at twelve two-

dimensional measurement planes oriented parallel to the back wall of
the collector. The data was re-created at a collector exit plane that was
normal to the flow and this data was used for comparison with the CFD
Figure 8: Location of the diffuser endwall and collector exit pressure results. A diagram of the PIV measurement volume was shown in
taps Figure 9.

DAQ and Instrumentation - Data were acquired using high-speed 16-

bit National Instruments PCI6259 M-Series A/D systems running
LabVIEW. Scanivalve ZOC17 analog pressure transducers were used
for all pressure measurements. Transducers with a +/- 5 psid range and
a +/- 0.08% full scale accuracy were used for data used to derive the
pressure recovery and a combination of +/- 5 and +/- 15 psid
transducers were used for measuring the diffuser pressure distributions.
Data reported at each of the 42-inlet measurement points were averaged
from 2,400 pressure measurements acquired over a three second period.
Due to the short test duration of the blow down facility, 12 separate tests
were needed to acquire all 42-measurement points. A reference inlet
total pressure probe and inlet wall static pressure taps were used to
monitor and account for any minor run-to-run variation in inlet
conditions that occurred.

Primary Uncertainties - All individual mean-square uncertainties were

combined to establish instrumentation uncertainty of a single
performance variable. Overall uncertainty was representative of
instrumentation and testing uncertainties. An account of experimental Figure 9: Locations of PIV measurement planes
uncertainties was evaluated and provided in Table 1. Uncertainty
analysis was completed in accordance with Boehm [21].

4. NUMERICAL APPROACH
Table 1: Table of Uncertainties of Performance Variables
Numerical analysis of the scaled rig geometry was completed for
all the combinations of inlet swirl flow distributions as well as strut
angles and geometries. CD-adapco STAR-CCM+ 10.06.009 was used
for all mesh generation and numerical computations. CFD predictions
made with an earlier version of this code (v5.04) were previously made
by Bernier et al. [22] for diffuser-collector geometries operating with
uniform and axial inlet flow conditions and with incompressible flow.
The authors made comparisons between test data and predictions made
with the realizable two-layer K-Epsilon turbulence model and reported
CFD under-predicted pressure losses by 5%. In the present study, the
computational domain included the full test rig as shown in Figure 3.
All numerical models included the bellmouth, the swirl vanes, the
contraction, and the scaled diffuser-collector. The swirl distribution at

5 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

 Table 2: Mesh Sizing Summary
K - Epsilon K - Epsilon EB SST (Menter)
Mesh Size (Millions) 62.1 71.0 71.9
Area Avg Y+ Hub 13.6 2.2 0.2
Area Avg Y+ Shroud 14.1 2.1 0.3
Area Avg Y+ Strut 9.8 2.6 0.5
Endwall Prism Sizing
Count 12 14 20
First Element Height [in] 0.0050 0.00070 0.00010
Overall Thickness [in] 0.10 0.10 0.10
Strut Prism Sizing
Count 10 12 15
First Element Height [in] 0.0090 0.00050 0.00010
Overall Thickness [in] 0.020 0.020 0.020
the inlet of the diffuser was determined by the solution and depended on
the swirl vane geometry that was modeled. The domain was extended
downstream by three hydraulic diameters to reduce the impact of
imposed exit boundary conditions and to add length for flow mixing.
This additional length also enhanced the simulation numerical stability.
Region based meshing technique was used and the mesh was sized in
an iterative manner, with mesh generation followed by a review of the
solution’s mesh to capture the gradients in pressure and velocity fields.
This iterative approach ensured gradients within the growing diffuser
boundary layer were captured and gradual increase in mesh volume ratio
was incorporated between the boundary layer refinement and the
mainstream flow. This mesh sizing was completed for the K-Epsilon
model and the boundary layer thickness, distribution, and near wall
mesh sizing were adjusted to match the Y+ requirements of other
models as per Table 2. The grids used in DES analyses were further
refined to a mesh size below the estimated large eddy size that was
calculated from the mean values of dissipation rate, η, velocity, U, and
viscosity, ν as predicted with the K-Epsilon model. For all cases, the
total pressure inlet boundary condition of 16.89 psia was applied
upstream of the bellmouth with flow direction specified as normal,
turbulence intensity of 4% and viscosity ratio at 10%. An exit static
pressure boundary condition was set to 15.87 psia with allowance to
modulate and match an exit mass flow of 15.08 lb/s.
A turbulence model sensitivity study was completed for the
diffuser-collector geometry with an axial strut and an inlet swirl angle
of -6.6°. Turbulence models evaluated with the steady-state numerical
scheme included two-layer K-Epsilon, K-Epsilon Elliptical Blending
(EB), Shear-Stress Transport (SST) - Menter, and Reynolds-Stress
Models (RSM) with the linear pressure strain (LPS) and quadratic
pressure strain (QPS) formulations. Implicit unsteady analysis with
time advancement was also completed using the Delayed Detached
Eddy Simulation model with Elliptical Blending (DES–EB) as well as
Improved Delayed Detached Eddy Simulation (DES – SST) model.
Details of the model are provided in the software release notes [23] and
the default model settings were used. These models use RANS
equations with advanced modification of the turbulent dissipation rate
that attempt to capture LES-like flow. Details of DES-SST model is
summarized by Shur et al. [24]. The coupled solver was used
exclusively with the noted exception of the RSM models that were
found to be numerically unstable, and the segregated solver was used to
solve the RSM models. The DES models used second order
discretization and were solved at a time-step of 2.5E-6s. The convective
Courant number was below unity throughout the mesh. Each time-step
was solved to ten inner iterations and the solution was deemed
converged when four repeatable oscillations of the inlet and outlet mass
flow and mass-flow averaged static pressure were calculated.
Ensemble-averaged flow velocities and pressures were gathered during
two additional periodic oscillations. The steady-state simulations were
deemed converged when the exhaust recovery, Cp, was converged
RSM (LPS & QPS) DES within ±0.0002.
68.6 87.8
23.4 0.4
24.9 0.4
9.8 0.7 5. RESULTS
12 20 5.1 Turbulence Model Study
0.0080 0.00015
0.10 0.10
Values of diffuser-collector recovery, as predicted with the
considered turbulence models were summarized in Figure 10. These
10 16 predictions were provided in relative form with respect to the recovery
0.010 0.00010
0.020 0.020 derived from measurements. The case studied involved an inlet swirl
angle of -6.6º and an axial strut geometry. The K-Epsilon two-layer
model was found to be most accurate steady-state turbulence model, and
diffuser recovery predictions were within 4 points (Cp of 0.04) of
measured data. The diffuser-collector recovery as predicted with the
implicitly-unsteady models provided similar level of prediction
capability with significantly higher computational requirements. The
SST, K-Epsilon EB, and RSM-QPS models significantly under-
predicted the performance of this exhaust system.
Local pressure recovery, Cpi, was calculated by substituting
endwall static pressure measurements for Ps ¯ 2 in the overall recovery
equation. Local pressure recovery as a function of axial distance along
the inner and outer wall was provided in Figure 11. The predictions
were plotted against measured data and all plots were shown relative to
the exhaust system inlet to outlet recovery derived from measurements.
The K-Epsilon model offered a good compromise between accuracy and
computational requirements. The increase in static pressure along the
hub was initially delayed until flow passed the strut maximum thickness
location at mid chord. Good prediction accuracy was achieved along
the top-dead-center (circumferential location of 0º) of the hub and
shroud. Recovery predictions along the bottom-dead-center
(circumferential location of 180º) were lower than measurements.
Recovery predictions just downstream of the strut (at normalized length
of 40%) were lower than those derived from measurements indicating
that flow separation was over-predicted.
Along with the predictions made with the K-Epsilon model,
included in Figure 11 are predictions of endwall Cpi made with the SST,
DES-EB and DES-SST models. Predictions with other models provided
less accurate results and were therefore not included. The rate of static
pressure rise along the endwalls was different for all turbulence models
considered. The difference was especially notable within the strut
region. The static pressure rise within the strut was significantly lower
for models that under-predict the overall performance (i.e. K-Epsilon
EB, SST, and RSM –QPS), and in general, the rate of pressure recovery
along the length of the diffuser was lower than measurements.
Predictions within the struts were comparable with the RSM – LP and
K-Epsilon models, but the RSM – LP model predicted lower recovery
in the downstream portion of the diffuser. Endwall recovery predictions
made with the DES models were similar to those predicted with the
steady-state K-Epsilon model. Recovery predictions along the BDC
were more pessimistic than the K-Epsilon model. Along the TDC, the
rate of static pressure rise was higher and a better match was offered at
the diffuser exit. Prediction capability of the DES-SST model was
comparatively worse within the strut region but static pressure was
recovered along the aft portion of the diffuser to yield similar net
performance as the DES-EB model.
6 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated
 All models predicted an onset of separation along the bottom dead
center (BDC) of the diffuser, as seen in the contours of Mach number in
Figure 12. The contour plots generated from RSM predictions were
omitted as they were similar to those predicted with the K-Epsilon
model. Performance prediction capability of CFD was dependent on the
accurate prediction of the onset of separation, predicted size of the
separated zone, and the capability of the code to predict flow re-
attachment. The onset of separation was predicted along the shroud
with all models with the noted exception of the SST model. Unlike other
models, the SST model predicted the onset of separation along the hub
and not the shroud. Unsteady models predicted flow re-attachment that
was not predicted with steady-state methods. The onset of separation
was predicted further upstream with the DES-SST model than with the
DES-EB model, and re-attachment was predicted further upstream. The
difference in flow development within the diffuser likely affected the
vortex development within the collector, thus leading to differences in
the flow structure at the outlet.
Whereas the pressure data was found to provide a good quantitative
assessment of CFD accuracy, the PIV measurements were used on a
qualitative basis to select a turbulence model that provided a
representative prediction of the flow structure within the collector.
Normalized velocity contours at the collector exit plane previously
defined in Figure 9 were shown in Figure 13. The contours represent a
non-dimensional velocity defined by the normal component in the
direction of the exit plane normalized by the total velocity at the diffuser
inlet. The CFD predictions were shown against ensemble-averaged data
gathered with the PIV system. Optical imagery along the collector front
and back wall was not possible, and a region along these sections were
shaded in blue. Higher velocities were measured along the back wall
and all turbulence models captured this trend. Both measurements and
predictions showed the development of two large counter-rotating
vortices within the collector. The white locations indicate flow reversal
into the collector, and all turbulence models captured this reversal. In
addition to affecting the predicted vortex size and distribution, the
choice of turbulence model was found to affect the size of flow reversal
regions back into the collector. Among the steady-state models,
predictions made with the K-Epsilon and RSM-LPS models were most
representative of measurements. The larger region of flow reversal
predicted with the RSM-LPS model was consistent with under-
prediction of the overall exhaust system performance. The SST model
was found to provide the least-accurate prediction of the overall flow
structure, most notably the size of counter-rotating vortices and the
region where flow reversal occurred. Both the SST and RSM-QPS
models predicted higher velocities along the backwall that contributed
to a pessimistic prediction of the overall pressure recovery. Improved
resolution in the collector outlet flow structure was predicted with the
implicitly unsteady models, and the DES-SST model was most
representative of the time-averaged PIV data.
Time-resolved DES simulations provided greater resolution of the
flow field within a diffuser-collector exhaust system. The models
offered improvements in accurately predicting endwall static pressure
distribution within the diffuser and resolving detailed flow features at
the collector exit. Most notably, DES models captured flow-
reattachment within the diffuser that were not captured with steady-state
analyses. These models require a significant computational effort with
solver time in the order of one month with 200 processors. Major flow
features were adequately captured using the steady-state K-Epsilon
model. Adequate accuracy in predicting both the static pressure rise
within the diffuser and the overall diffuser-collector performance was
7 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated
Figure 10: CFD prediction of Cp relative to experimental data,
evaluated for various turbulence models, Swirl 6.6°, Axial Strut
achieved with the K-Epsilon model with reduced computational
requirements. The K-Epsilon model was therefore exclusively used for
inlet swirl angle and strut stagger angle studies.
5.2 Impact of swirl angle and strut incidence
The exhaust diffuser-collector recovery as a function of average
inlet swirl angle was shown in Figure 14 for the three strut stagger
angles considered. Radial distributions of the inlet swirl angle were also
provided for direct comparison. The recovery values were related to a
new baseline condition with the diffuser strut set axially at a stagger
angle of 0° and the swirl vanes removed to allow for axial inlet flow.
This later configuration was also modeled and the predicted value of
recovery was used as the baseline for relating CFD predictions. The
ability of CFD predictions to track performance differences with swirl
angle changes was evaluated on a relative basis.
Contrary to findings reported for annular diffusers, the addition of
inlet swirl did not positively impact the performance of this diffuser-
collector geometry. The diffuser-collector performance was similar
with and without inlet swirl for cases where flow was aligned with the
strut angle to within 10º degrees. In this range, the CFD predictions of
exhaust recovery as shown on a relative basis were similar to measured
values. On an absolute basis, the difference between predicted and
measured recovery was of the same magnitude as quoted in the
turbulence model study.
In the case of +12º strut stagger, a significant reduction in recovery
was measured for larger incidence angles (Figure 14a). CFD predictions
also showed a large reduction in recovery although at a greater rate. It
would be expected that the diffuser configuration with -12º strut stagger
would experience similar reduction in recovery at positive inlet swirl
angles but the data in Figure 14b showed this not to be the case. A trend
was not captured with data and a weak trend was predicted with CFD
analysis. A similar observation was made for the strut set at 0º, were
better recovery was measured at positive inlet swirl angles than at
negative angles despite utilization of a symmetric strut profile. To
understand this discrepancy, attention was paid not only to the mean
incidence but also to the variation in incidence along the span. At a strut
stagger angle of +12º, the increase in incidence at the hub was higher
than at the shroud. With the strut stagger angle set at -12°, the incidence
at the shroud was more significantly increased. The distinction between
K-Epsilon Model SST Model

DES – EB Model DES – SST Model

Figure 11: CFD Prediction capability of endwall static pressure recovery for select turbulence model

a) b) c) d)

Figure 12: CFD predictions of the Mach number through the exhaust diffuser-collector cross-section
a) K-Epsilon Two-Layer, b) SST, c) DES-EB, d) DES-SST

8 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

 DIFFUSER

BACK WALL

(a) PIV Measurements b) CFD Prediction – SST (Menter) Model

c) CFD Prediction – k – Epsilon Two - Layer Model d) CFD Prediction – K – Epsilon EB Model

e) CFD Prediction - RSM Model – Linear Pressure Strain f) CFD Prediction – RSM Model – Quad. Pressure Strain

g) CFD Prediction – DES-EB Model – Ensemble Average h) CFD Prediction – DES-SST Model – Ensemble Average

Figure 13: PIV measurements and CFD predictions of collector exit normal velocity component normalized to inlet velocity

9 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

 a) Strut stagger angle +12° b) Strut stagger angle -12°
Figure 14: Exhaust diffuser-collector recovery change as a function of inlet swirl and strut stagger angle (top),
compared along the radial distribution of inlet swirl angle (bottom)
the influence of hub and shroud incidence on diffuser-collector recovery
was apparent when comparing the swirl angle sensitivity on the axial
strut. A performance degradation was measured with the increase in
flow angle at the hub. Shroud incidence of the same magnitude did not
impact the diffuser-collector performance. For flows with radial
distributions of inlet swirl, the influence of swirl on the performance of
this diffuser-collector exhaust system was dependent on the radial
location associated with maximum strut incidence angle.
The diffuser-collector recovery as a function of strut incidence
angle at the hub was plotted in Figure 15a and the shroud in Figure 15b.
The data was provided in relative form consistent with the baseline
configuration with axial flow aligned with the axial strut. A definitive
correlation of recovery with hub incidence was observed. Exhaust
performance did not correlate with shroud incidence. The accuracy of
CFD performance predictions became increasingly unreliable as the
flow angle deviated from the strut by 12º and higher. The accuracy of
CFD predictions was also dependent on the radial location of incidence.
Accurate predictions were not achieved when large incidence angles at
the hub were present.
The influence of strut incidence angle on flow development was
further evaluated with the use of static pressure measurements gathered
at the endwalls. These measurements were converted to a local recovery
value and shown in relative form. The data was related to the total
exhaust recovery measured for the baseline case with no swirl and no
incidence. Three scenarios were considered:
10
c) Strut stagger angle 0°
i. Strut stagger of +12º and inlet swirl angle of -14.6º. The resulting
incidence angle along the hub and shroud were -34° and -19º
respectively,
ii. Strut stagger of -12º and swirl angle of -6.6º. The resulting
incidence angle along the hub and shroud were +2° and +10°
respectively, and,
iii. Strut stagger of -12º and swirl angle of 9.4º. The resulting
incidence angle along the hub and shroud were +15° and +34°
respectively.
Distributions of relative recovery along the hub and shroud were
shown in Figure 16 and Figure 17 respectively. The plots were
separated for data gathered at the top-dead-center (TDC) and bottom-
dead-center (BDC). The measurements were not gathered upstream of
38% normalized axial distance and the complementary CFD analysis
was used in this range to provide insight in flow development within
this region.
For the case with least incidence, an initial reduction in recovery
was observed within the strut commensurate to the reduction of cross-
sectional flow area due to strut blockage. Along the hub, gradual
diffusion within the struts was observed once the flow passed through
the strut region of maximum thickness (maximum reduction of cross-
section flow area). Along the shroud, initial recovery was low due to
local flow acceleration at the diffuser inlet, where the axial flow-
conditioning flow path connected with the diffuser. For this low
incidence case, continuous diffusion was observed throughout the
length of the diffuser downstream of the strut mid chord. CFD
Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated
predictions of endwall static pressure were in good agreement with
measurements.
Pressure recovery, as derived from measurements, was
significantly impacted for cases were the strut was subjected to large
levels of incidence. However, the rate of static pressure rise at the
downstream 60% of the diffuser wall was similar, and the losses
occurred upstream of the locations were measurements were taken.
CFD predictions indicated that large pressure losses were present within
the strut, and the magnitude of these losses was a function of the radial
location of the greatest incidence i.e. the hub or the shroud. Losses due
to incidence effects on the strut were larger in the hub region than the
shroud, and the both measurements and predictions show this trend. At
these high incidence angles, CFD predictions over-predicted the loss.
Flow visualization along both the hub and shroud walls was
completed to examine the impact of incidence on flow behavior near the
endwalls. Photos of the streamlines along the hub and shroud were
shown in Figure 18 and Figure 20 respectively. The diffuser average
inlet swirl angle was set at -6.6°, and surface streak lines were visualized
and compared for two cases of diffuser strut angle a) -12° (case ii above)
and b) +12° (case i). As seen in Figure 18 a), separation along the BDC
of the hub was observed with the diffuser operating with little incidence.
This separated region was at about 75% of axial length. The flow along
the hub was completely changed by modifying the strut stagger angle,
and was characterized by recirculating flow along the entire diffuser
length at the BDC location. The transition from axial to radial flow that
should occur within the collector commenced further upstream within
the diffuser. The reduction in exhaust diffuser-collector performance
resulted from the compounding effects of: 1) reduced diffuser length
utilization that reduced the operating area ratio, 2) increased mixing
losses that resulted from flow separation and 3) increased blockage
caused by flow separation and increased through-flow velocities. The
streamlines along the shroud BDC as captured with flow visualization
were shown in Figure 20. The flow along the shroud was mostly well
behaved, and the flow direction was changed by the strut stagger angle.
In Figure 20a) a region along the BDC existed were flow began to turn
well upstream of the diffuser-collector transition. The corresponding
strut incidence at the shroud was +10°. This flow phenomenon was not
observed when the strut was re-set to +12º and the strut incidence at the
shroud -14°. In summary, the flow along the shroud was changed with
a net increase in wetted area. The associated differences in flow
structure resulting from re-setting the diffuser strut were much larger
along the hub.
Comparative streamlines, as predicted with CFD analysis, were
shown in Figure 19 along the hub and Figure 21 along the shroud. These
velocity streamlines were plotted on a surface offset by 0.010 inches
from the endwalls. The CFD results in sub-labels a) and b) provided
direct comparisons to streamlines shown using experimental techniques.
Numerical predictions of streamlines were in good agreement with
experimental visualization in terms of capturing the overall flow
direction and associated strut impact. The flow along the hub was
susceptible to separation at low strut incidence angles, and the full
length of the diffuser was not utilized along the BDC location. The
increase in strut incidence angle resulted in additional level of
separation and a reduction in the utilized diffuser length. Predicted flow
direction along the shroud was in good agreement with experimental
visualizations, and the impact of strut stagger angle on flow direction
was captured. CFD results showed an increase in flow velocities along
the shroud that resulted from flow separation induced blockage along
the hub.
11
The streamlines shown in Figure 19 and Figure 21 sub-labels c)
and d) correspond to the previously examined case i corresponding to
strut incidence at the hub of -34º, and case iii corresponding to strut
incidence at the shroud of +34º respectively. These predictions were
examined to assess possible reasons for reduced CFD prediction
accuracy and establish a general trend regarding flow behavior at high
incidence angles along the hub and shroud. The diffuser-collector
geometry between cases b) and c) was identical and the average swirl
angle was increased from -6.6° to -14.6°. Flow streamlines along the
hub were similar for the two cases, but the region of flow recirculation
along the BDC has increased and also moved further upstream. Flow
separation along the shroud was predicted at increased inlet flow angles.
This additional separation along the shroud lead to further degradation
in predicted exhaust recovery.
Similarly, the diffuser-collector geometry between cases a) and d)
were identical and the average swirl angle was increased from -6.6° to
+9.4°. The increase in positive inlet swirl angle results in a stabilizing
effect on the flow along the hub despite an increase in strut incidence.
The flow interaction between the diffuser and collector were therefore
sensitive to the diffuser inlet swirl angle. As seen in Figure 21 d), flow
along the shroud separated at high incidence angles. The separated
region shifted the general flow direction and resulted in an increase in
the wetted area. The flow direction along the shroud followed the entire
length of the diffuser. This was contrary to swirl angle sensitivity at the
hub, were significant strut incidence resulted in flow separation that
impeded effective utilization of the full diffuser length.
CONCLUSIONS
The impact of inlet swirl angle and associated radial distribution
on diffuser-collector performance was examined along with the
influence of strut stagger angle. Experimental measurements coupled
with complimentary CFD analyses were completed on a quarter-scaled
geometry representative of an industrial gas turbine exhaust. The
introduction of inlet swirl did not positively impact the performance of
this diffuser-collector geometry. This finding was contrary to findings
widely reported for annular diffusers without a downstream collector.
The diffuser-collector was able to accommodate a significant amount of
inlet swirl without a degradation in performance, so long as the inlet
flow direction did not significantly deviate from the strut stagger angle.
A reduction in exhaust system performance was measured as the
deviation between flow angle and strut stagger angle increased beyond
±12°. A symmetrical airfoil strut was used for this study and the impact
of strut geometry was not investigated.
For flows with radial gradients of diffuser inlet swirl angle, the
reduction in performance was dependent on the radial location
corresponding to the highest strut incidence. Increases in incidence
along the shroud had a weak effect on diffuser-collector performance.
Incidence effects on struts result in local flow separation that impact the
overall flow direction in the downstream section of the diffuser.
Changes in diffuser recovery were mainly attributed to differences in
wetted flow area and additional losses impacted by local flow
separation. A much stronger correlation between strut incidence at the
hub and diffuser-collector performance was identified. A reduction in
diffuser-collector performance was measured as the swirl angle was
increased beyond 12º of strut incidence at the hub. Endwall static
pressure measurements, flow visualization, and numerical predictions
were completed to identify differences in flow behavior at the hub and
shroud that impacted swirl angle sensitivities. Strut incidence at the hub
Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated
a) b)

Figure 15: Impact of incidence at the (a) hub and (b) shroud on exhaust diffuser-collector recovery

Figure 16: Pressure recovery along the hub (a) TDC, (b) BDC

Figure 17: Pressure recovery along the shroud (a) TDC, (b) BDC

12 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

a) Hub Incidence +2°, Shroud Incidence +10° b) Hub Incidence -22°, Shroud Incidence -14°

Figure 18: Surface flow visualization along the diffuser hub BDC location

a) Hub Incidence +2°, Shroud Incidence +10° b) Hub Incidence -22°, Shroud Incidence -14°

c) Hub Incidence -35°, Shroud Incidence -19° d) Hub Incidence +15°, Shroud Incidence +34°

Figure 19: Streamlines predicted with CFD along the diffuser-collector hub

13 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

a) Hub Incidence 2°, Shroud Incidence 10° b) Hub Incidence -22°, Shroud Incidence -14°

Figure 20: Surface flow visualization along the diffuser shroud BDC location

a) Hub Incidence +2°, Shroud Incidence +10° b) Hub Incidence -22°, Shroud Incidence -14°

c) Hub Incidence -35°, Shroud Incidence -19° d) Hub Incidence +15°, Shroud Incidence +34°

Figure 21: Streamlines predicted with CFD along the diffuser-collector shroud

14 Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated

resulted in formation of large regions of flow separation along the
bottom-dead-center of the diffuser. The reduction in performance was
attributed to:
1) The location where flow direction changes from axial to radial
was shifted upstream and was observed to be within the diffuser. The
diffuser area ratio and length were effectively reduced.
2) An increase in pressure losses resulted from the flow separation
3) An increase in blockage was caused by flow separation that
increased the flow velocities within the passage.
Despite the presence of an adverse pressure gradient that is coupled
with highly unsteady three-dimensional chaotic vortical flow, steady-
state Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) with K-Epsilon two-
layer turbulence closure model can be successfully applied for diffuser-
collector performance evaluations at design-conditions. Predominant
flow structures, static pressure distributions, and mass-averaged values
of diffuser recovery used for performance calculations were predicted
within 5 points (Cp of 0.05). More advanced DES models are capable
of capturing flow re-attachment that is not possible with steady-state
methods. At design conditions, the increase in flow resolution offered
by the DES models does not warrant the increased computational effort.
The accuracy of steady-state CFD performance predictions become
increasingly unreliable as the flow angle deviates from the strut stagger
angle. The accuracy is especially impacted for simulations with high
incidence at the hub, where flow behavior is significantly different than
observed at design conditions. Simulations of these flow conditions
may warrant the application of DES models as the improved ability to
capture re-attachment may yield less pessimistic performance
predictions at off-design conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The work was sponsored by Solar Turbines Incorporated. The
authors would like to express their gratitude to Nihar Samal and
Geoffrey Potts of Solar Turbines Incorporated for their contributions in
designing two swirl vanes. The authors would like to thank Chao Zhang
from CD-Adapco for providing technical support with numerical
simulations and contributing to the turbulence model study with
computational resources for the DES-SST case.
REFERENCES
[1] Rocha, G. and Etheridge, C. J., 1998 “Evolution of the Solar Turbines
Titan 130 Industrial Gas Turbine,” International Gas Turbine and
Aeroengine Congress and Exposition, Stockton, Sweden, June 2-5,
ASME Paper No. 98-GT-590.
[2] Waldhelm, C, 1992 “Evolution and Introduction of the Mars T-14,000
Gas Turbine,” International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress
and Exposition, Cologne, Germany, June 1-3, ASME Paper No. 92-
GT-332.
[3] Jones, M., Pytanowski G., Files D., Wilson J., 1994 “Evolution and
Experience of the Mars 100LS Gas Turbine,” International Gas
Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exposition, June 13-16,
ASME Paper No. 94-GT-301.
[4] Sovran,G., Klomp E., “Experimentally Determined Optimum
Geometries for Rectilinear Diffusers with Rectangular, Conical, or
Annular Cross-Section,” Fluid Dynamics of Internal Flow, Elsevier
Publishing Co. 1967.
[5] Japikse D., Baines, N., Turbomachinery Design Technology, Concepts
ETI, Inc. Norwich, Vermont, USA 05055, 1984.
[6] McDonald A., Fox R., Van Dewoestine R., 1971, “Effect of Swirling
Inlet Flow on Pressure Recovery in Conical Diffusers, AIAA J.,
9(10), pp. 2014-2018.
15
[7] Kumar D., Kumar K., 1980, Effect of Swirl on Pressure Recovery in
Annular Diffusers, J. Mech. Eng. Sci., Vol 22 (6), pp. 305-313.
[8] Vassiliev V., Irmisch S., Claridge M., Richardson D., 2003,
“Experimental and Numerical Investigation of the Impact of Swirl on
the Performance of Industrial Gas Turbines Exhaust Diffusers,”
ASME Turbo Expo, Atlanta, Georgia, USA., June 16-19, ASME
Paper No. GT2003-38424.
[9] Senoo Y., Kawaguchi N., Kojima T., Nishi M., 1981, “Optimum
Strut-Configuration for Downstream Annular Diffusers with Variable
Swirling Inlet Flow”, J. Fluids Eng., 103, pp. 294-298.
[10] Vassiliev V., , Irmisch S., Florjancic S., 2002 “CFD Analysis of
Industrial Gas Turbine Exhaust Diffusers”, ASME Turbo Expo,
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ASME Paper No. 2002-GT-30597.
[11] Japiske D., Pampreen R., 1979, “Annular Diffuser Performance for
an Automotive Gas Turbine”, ASME J. Eng. Power., 101, pp. 358-
372.
[12] Xue S., Guillot S., Ng W., Fleming J., Lowe K, Samal N., Stang U.,
2016, “An Experimental Investigation of the Performance Impact of
Swirl on Turbine Exhaust Diffuser/Collector for a Series of Diffuser
Strut Geometries”, J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 138(9), pp. 092603,
1-8.
[13] Lui J. Cui Y., Jiang H., 2003, “Investigation of Flow in a Steam
Turbine Exhaust Hood With/Without Turbine Exit Conditions
Simulated” ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 125(1), pp. 292-299.
[14] Liu J., Hynes T., 2002, The Investigation of Turbine and Exhaust
Interaction in Asymmetric Flows Part 2 – Turbine-Diffuser-Collector
Interactions, ASME Turbo Expo Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June
3-6, ASME Paper No. GT-2002-30343.
[15] Fu J., Lui J., 2008, “Influences of Inflow Conditions on Non-
Axisymmetric Flows in Turbine Exhaust Hoods,” J. Thermal Sci.
17(4), pp. 305-313.
[16] Stastny M,. Tajc L., Kolar P., Ucek A., 2000 “Effects of Inlet Swirl on
the Flow in a Steam Turbine Exhaust Hood,” J. Thermal Sci., 9(4) pp.
327-333.
[17] Sultanian B., Nagao S, Sakamoto T., 1999, “Experimental and Three-
Dimensional CFD Investigation in a Gas Turbine Exhaust System,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power, 121(1), pp 364-374.
[18] Zhang W., Pail B., Jang Y., Lee S., Lee S., Kim J., 2007, “Particle
Image Velocimetry Measurement of the Three-Dimensional Flow in
an Exhaust Hood Model of a Low-Pressure Steam Turbine,” ASME J.
Eng. Gas Turbine Power, 129(2), pp. 411-419.
[19] Guillot S., Ng W., Hamm H., Stang U., Lowe K., 2015, “The
Experimental Studies of Improving the Aerodynamic Performance of
a Turbine Exhaust System,” J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power 137(1), pp.
12601, 1-13.
[20] Roach, P. E., 1987, “The generation of Nearly Isotropic Turbulence
by Means of Grids,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow,
Vol. 8, Issue: 2, Publisher: Elsevier, pp. 82-92.
[21] Boehm, B. P., 2012, “Performance Optimization of a Subsonic
Diffuser-Collector Subsystem Using Interchangeable Geometries,”
M. S. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
[22] Bernier, B., Ricklick, M., Kapat J. S., “Impact of a Collector Box on
the Pressure Recovery of an Exhaust Diffuser System” ASME Turbo
Expo, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 6-10, 2011, ASME
Paper No. GT2011-46455.
[23] Star-CCM, 2016, “Star-CCM+ Version 10.06, USA, CD-Adapco.
[24] Shur, M.L., Spalart, P.R., Strelets, M.Kh., and Travin, A.K. 2008. “A
hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled
LES capabilities”, International J. Heat and Fluid Flow, 29(6), pp.
1638-1649.
Copyright © 2017 Solar Turbines Incorporated