Proceedings of the ASME 2014 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition

IMECE2014
November 14-20, 2014, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

IMECE2014-36866

IMPROVED TURBULENCE AND TRANSITION PREDICTION FOR

TURBOMACHINERY FLOWS

Christoph Bode∗ Dragan Kožulović

Thorben Aufderheide
Jens Friedrichs

Institute of Jet Propulsion and Turbomachinery Hamburg University of Applied Sciences

Technische Universität Braunschweig Fakultät Technik und Informatik
Hermann-Blenk-Str. 37 Department Fahrzeugtechnik und Flugzeugbau
D-38108 Braunschweig, Germany Berliner Tor 9
Email: chr.bode@ifas.tu-bs.de D-20099 Hamburg, Germany

ABSTRACT
A correlation based approach for estimation of the turbu-
lence length scale lT at the inflow boundary is proposed and
presented. This estimation yields reasonable turbulence de-
cay, supporting the transition model in accurately predicting the
laminar-turbulent transition location and development. As an
additional element of the approach, the sensitivity of the tur-
bulence model to free stream values is suppressed by limiting
the eddy viscosity in non-viscous regions. Therefore a criterion
to detect those regions, based only on local variables, is de-
rived. The method is implemented in DLR’s turbomachinery flow
solver TRACE in the framework of the k − ω turbulence model by
Wilcox 1988 [1] and the γ −Reθ transition model by Langtry and
Menter [2] in combination with a cross flow (CF) induced tran-
sition criterion after Müller [3]. The improved model is tested to
the T161 turbine test case [4], [5] and validated at the Durham
turbine Cascade [6] and an outlet guide vane for low pressure
turbine configurations [7].
INTRODUCTION
Laminar-turbulent transition plays a significant role in the
boundary layer development of modern highly-loaded low-
∗ Address all correspondence to this author.
pressure turbine (LPT) profiles, and to a smaller degree for com-
pressor profiles. The significance is even accentuated due to the
drop of Reynolds numbers at high flight altitudes, that means
at cruise conditions. Some turbine profiles operate at Reynolds
numbers as low as Re2th ≤ 1.0 · 105 , showing a large laminar
boundary layer patch with subsequent separation and turbulent
reattachment, cf. Mayle [8] and Hourmouziadis [9].
There exist many approaches for the prediction of laminar-
turbulent transition. For turbomachinery flows, a combination of
a RANS (Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes) turbulence model
with a correlation-based transition model is widely spread. In
this work, the combination of the k-ω turbulence model by
Wilcox [1] and the γ -Reθ transition model by Langtry and
Menter [2] in combination with a cross flow (CF) induced transi-
tion criterion after Müller [3] is applied. This transition model is
developed and validated for several generic and turbomachinery
testcases, cf. Langtry and Menter [2]. Herein common turbo-
machinery testcases are turbine and compressor cascades which
provide a wide range of overall characteristics as well as detailed
boundary layer values to validate the distinct transition modes.
The transition process is influenced by many parameters,
e.g. turbulence intensity, Reynolds number, pressure gradient,
etc.. Most transition models capture this influence by taking the
corresponding parameters into account, in one way or another.

1 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 In the present framework, the influence of the turbulence length residual drop of at least three orders of magnitude and a relative
scale (lT ) on the turbulence decay behaviour of the turbulence difference of in- and outlet massflow ≤ 10−3 .
model is investigated. Depending on the prescribed turbulence
length scale at the inflow boundary, different dissipation rates
Description and Testing of The New Viscous Blending
will arise, with significantly altered decay of turbulence inten-
Approach (VB)
sity. This leads to a shift in transition prediction, since the transi-
The new approach (VB) is tested and validated for three dif-
tion model is coupled to the turbulence intensity, cf. for example
ferent low pressure turbine (LPT) cascades in Bode et al. [11]
Bode et al. [10] [11] [12], Babajee and Arts [13] and Moore and
and for flat plate, curved bend and U-duct in Bode et al. [12]
Moore [14]. Turbomachinery flows are very prone to this ef-
(as well as shown in the appendix). Nevertheless the ef-
fect, due to high turbulence levels and corresponding sensitivity
fect of the turbulence length scale on turbulence and transition
to dissipation rate (or length scale) prescription. As many exper-
prediction is shown here in detail for the T161 turbine cas-
iments do not provide the turbulence length scale, the CFD users
cade. In this paper different prescribed turbulence length scales
feel free to choose a value, often one that best fits the experimen-
(Sim. lT =10−2 − 10−5 m) together with the new approach (VB)
tal data. Hence, a correlation for the estimation of the turbulence
are shown and compared to experimental results, at low speed
length scale is derived. This correlation reasonably fits various
conditions, cf. Aufderheide [24] to validate the new approach
experimental data.
(VB). The applied grid consist of 923.648 nodes and is shown in
figure 1. Besides figure 1, where the geometry and some stream-

COMPUTATIONAL METHOD

TRACE Code
An up-to-date numerical method, the parallel CFD-solver
TRACE of DLR Cologne has been applied, cf. Nürnberger [15],
Kügeler [16], Marciniak et al. [17] and Becker et al. [18]. In this
solver, the three-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
equations are solved on multi-block meshes by a finite volume
technique. The convective fluxes are discretized by the 2nd or-
der TVD upwind scheme of Roe [19] and the diffusive fluxes by
a central differencing scheme. An implicit predictor-corrector
time integration algorithm has been used for the steady simu-
lations. The turbulence is modelled by the two-equation k − ω
model of Wilcox [1], together with the Kato-Launder [20] fix for
the stagnation point anomaly. Integral boundary layer parameters
are determined by integration of the velocity field perpendicular
to the blade surface up to a point where the total pressure has
increased by 99% of the whole velocity defect. A more detailed
description of the method is given in Kožulović [21]. To cap-
FIGURE 1. Computational Domain for T161
ture the streamline curvature effects the k − ω turbulence model
has been modified using local variables only, cf. Kožulović [22].
Furthermore, non-reflecting boundary conditions by Saxer and
Giles [23] have been applied to the inlet and outlet boundaries. wise positions are marked, figure 2 gives an idea of the measuring
The boundary layer transition has been modelled by the two- planes which are used for experimental and numerical investiga-
equation γ − Reθ model of Langtry and Menter [2]. The model tions for this test case. Today linear eddy viscosity models are
evaluates the local flow features to facilitate natural, bypass and the workhorse for aerospace engineers. Those linear models use
separation induced transition. For cross flow (CF) induced tran- the Boussinesq assumption to get the relationship between the
sition an extinction after Müller [3] is used if needed. For a more mean strain rate and the Reynolds stress tensor, cf. equation 1.
detailed description of the original transition model see Langtry
and Menter [2]. Throughout this paper the boundary layers of all 00 00 2
τT,i j = −ρ ui u j = 2µT si j − ρ kδi j (1)
no-slip boundaries are highly resolved with a dimensionless wall 3
distance of the wall adjacent cells down to y+ = 1. Depending on
the test case, the convergence of steady simulations was achieved This equation 1 is reduced to the closure problem of the scalar
after 2000-10, 000 iterations, and was characterized by a density eddy viscosity µT . The main task of turbulence modelling is to

2 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 and needs therefore lT from the CFD-user, see above. Here, an
estimation is derived in the style of the correlation of Baines and
Peterson [25]. Originally, this correlation applied to highly tur-
bulence flows through screens and reads as follows:

( x )− 5
7
Tu = 1.12 (4)
b

Figure 3 shows the correlation after Baines and Peterson [25] for
several experimental data. The free stream turbulence intensity
(TuFS ) dependent on the normalized distance from the turbulence
generating grid (x/b) is shown. In figure 3 the good agreement of
all experimental results, including the inhouse experiments, with
the theory of Baines and Peterson is seen. Figure 3 provides also
confidence in the grid design process and the measurement tech-
nique, cf. Aufderheide et al. [26]. To get the information about
FIGURE 2. Measuring Planes Definitions for T161 (contour lines are
free stream velocity)

get a relationship between turbulent quantities such as turbulent

kinetic energy k, turbulent dissipation rate ω and eddy viscosity
µT . For the k − ω two-equation turbulence model after Wilcox
1988 [1] the eddy viscosity is determined as follows

ρk
µT = Cµ , (2)
ω

with Cµ = 1, as used in many applications. In turbomachinery

flow, especially in turbine and compressor cascades with high
turbulence intensities and moderate turbulent decay rates, this FIGURE 3. Free stream Turbulence Intensity Decay TuFS
approach will result in too high loss prediction. As a result the
CFD-user changes the turbulent length scale and hence the tur-
bulent decay rate (because this is often missing in the experi-
ments) to best fit the experimental data. There exist several rules the turbulent kinetic energy decay (dissipation rate at the inlet
of thumb or best practice guides for the prescription of the tur- boundary ωFS ) here the solution of the destruction term of the
bulent length scale, which usually lead to lT ≈ 10−4 m for typical k-equation after Wilcox [1] is needed and given by the following
turbomachinery conditions. But, this leads to extremely harsh equation
turbulent decay rates which implies incorrect values of turbulent
β
levels and this finally results in a wrong prediction of transitional k (t) − k
= (βω ω0t + 1) βω (5)
behaviour on turbomachinery blades. In this new approach (VB) k0
both inaccuracies will be eliminated.
with βk = 0.09 and βω = 0.075. Herein the dissipation rate ω0
Inlet Boundary Dissipation Rate / Turbulent Length Scale is derived to match the T3X flat plate testseries [27] to ω0 =
In TRACE the free stream dissipation rate at the inlet boundary 220 1/s, cf. Bode et al. [10]. Hence equation 5 can be rewritten
is computed as follows as

√ [( ) ]−1.2
k k (t/t0 ) t
ωFS = (3) = +1 (6)
lT k0 t0

3 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 with t0 = 1/ (βω · F · ω0 ) = 0.0606s (F = 1 in this case). In fig-
ure 4 experimental data for the normalized turbulent kinetic en-
ergy decay kk0 from several experiments (cf. figure 3 and Bode
et al. [11]) is shown. It is well seen that the correlation given
FIGURE 4. Normalized Turbulent Kinetic Energy Decay k/k0
by Baines and Peterson [25] after equation 6 reflects the exper-
imental data for the T3X ERCOFTAC test cases [27] in a well
appropriate way but differs for the other test cases by a factor
F = 0.1, 10 or 100. Thus the correlation after Baines and Peter-
son can not be generally applied and a new correlation must be
found. It is well seen that parameters like Mach number Ma1 and
turbulence intensity Tu1 strongly affects the decay behaviour as
well as turbulence grid parameters like b (∼ lT ) and M. With this
in mind the new correlation resulting from figure 4 is
( )
ωFS = F · ω0 = 69.73 · (Ma1 · Tu1 )0.62 · ω0 .
The new turbulent dissipation rate is now computed from the in-
formation about inlet velocity (in this case Mach number) and
inlet turbulence intensity. Figure 5 shows a comparison of exper-
imental data and numerical simulations with the new approach
(VB using eqn. 7) and numerical simulations with different pre-
scribed length scales (Sim. lT = 0.02m etc. using eqn. 3). In
figure 5 a) the turbulence intensity from the inlet boundary to the
leading edge is shown. Figure 5 b) shows also the turbulence in-
tensity but as figure 2 indicates in the passage of the turbine cas-
cade. It is well seen that only, besides the new approach (VB), the
numerical simulations with a prescribed turbulence length scale
of lT = 0.02m and lT = 0.002m reflects the experimental data
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
(a) Turbulence Intensity At Inlet TuIN
(b) Turbulence Intensity At Passage TuPassage
FIGURE 5. Turbulence decay for T161 Turbine Cascade at a) Inlet
and b) Passage
correctly. This finding is also supported by the measured turbu-
lence length scale of lT ≈ 0.02 − 0.05m. The other turbulence
length scales result in a too strong decay of the turbulence inten-
sity for both the inlet and passage flow. Thus applying the new
approach (VB) the behaviour or decay of the turbulence intensity
is predicted correctly compared to the experiments.
Adaption of the Eddy Viscosity With the now correct pre-
scription of the turbulent length scale the turbulent decay of the
(7) turbulence intensity results, after equation 2 with Cµ = 1, in ex-
cessive high eddy viscosity because of the smaller decrease of
the turbulent intensity and hence the higher amount of turbu-
lent kinetic energy. There exist some approaches in literature
regarding a variable Cµ , cf. Moore and Moore [28] [14], Shih et
al. [29] [30], Durbin [31], Wilcox [1] and Menter [32] to name
the most important. In this paper an approach is presented where
the eddy viscosity from equation (2) is modified like Durbins
time-scale bound, proposed in [31], where he predicts the eddy
viscosity by
ρk
µT = ( √ ) (8)
max ω , α6S
4 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 ω
or Menters implementation of the Bradshaw assumption [32] by for 0.0 ≤ ωFS ≤ 500. The new variable 1/Cµ =: bv reads as fol-
lows
ρ a1 k
µT = . (9)
max (a1 ω , F2 Ω)

The testing of the Durbin approach, presented in Bode et al. [11],

showed an unphysical behaviour of the eddy viscosity. There-
fore the eddy viscosity after equation 8 and equation 9 is modi-
fied, so that the correct behaviour regarding overall characteris-
tics and boundary layer development is given but the unphysical
behaviour of the eddy viscosity is reduced. Also the use of the
wall distance like in F2 for Menters shear stress transport (SST)
(a) Total Pressure Loss Coefficient ζ2th
is avoided. For this reason, a criterion for the determination of

(b) Turbulence Intensity TuME40%lax

(a) Surface Pressure Coefficient c p FIGURE 7. Wake Traverse Measurements and Numerical Simula-
tions at Measuring Plane ME = 40%lax for T161 Turbine Cascade

[ [( ) ] ]
ω
bv = min max , 0.1 , 1.0 . (10)
ωFS

and this leads to the new formulation of the eddy viscosity:

(b) Numerical Predicted Intermittency γ
ρ a1 k
FIGURE 6. Experimental and Numerical Boundary Layer Behaviour µT = . (11)
max (a1 ω , bv S)
for T161 Turbine Cascade

As a result figure 6 a) shows the surface pressure distribution for

viscous regions (boundary layers and wakes) has been developed
as an additional element of the implemented approach (cf. [10]
and [11]). This criterion is based on the large values of turbulent
dissipation rate ω . It takes the relationship between the turbu-
lent dissipation rate estimated from the k − ω turbulence model
and the turbulent dissipation rate in the free stream of the flow
estimated by the new approach (VB) after equation 7. The effect
of the very high ratio in the boundary layer and wakes is used
to separate them from the free stream. The derived reasonable
range varies within the test cases. A good compromise is found
numerical simulations with the new approach (VB using eqn. 7
and 11) and different prescribed lT (using eqn. 3 and 2) compared
to experimental data. The numerical results with the correct pre-
scribed lT from figure 5 results in a wrong surface pressure dis-
tribution with a fully turbulent boundary layer as figure 6 b) indi-
cates. Here the smaller lT show a correct and physical boundary
layer behaviour. Also the simulation with the new approach is
able to reproduce the surface pressure distribution and also the
numerical intermittency indicates a transitional boundary layer
as expected. Figure 7 shows a comparison of experimental and
numerical results for the wake plane ME 40%lax . Figure 7 a)

5 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 shows the total pressure loss coefficient where figure 7 b) shows
the turbulence intensity. Both figures indicates that a prescribed
lT results in too high predicted total pressure loss due to the over-
production of turbulent kinetic energy. Just the small prescribed
turbulence length scales again result in an adequat prediction of
total pressure loss and turbulence intensity in the wake plane (cf.
table 1). Only the new approch is able to predict the transitional

- ζ2th /ζExp.
EXP 1.0 FIGURE 8. Turbulence Intensity Decay
VB 0.946
lT = 0.02m 2.225
lT = 0.002m 1.027 is taken into account by specifying a streamtube height distribu-
lT = 0.0002m 0.709 tion in accordance with the endwall boundary layer development.
lT = 0.00002m 0.682 A corresponding method has been proposed by Stark and Ho-
TABLE 1. Normalized Total Pressure Loss ζ2th /ζExp. heisel [34]. Essentially, this method yields a potential solution
of the endwall displacement effect on the midspan. It has been
used in combination with different blade-to-blade codes to cal-
culate Q2D flows in compressor cascades, cf. for example Bode
behaviour and the turbulence intensity decay correctly compared et al. [35]. The applied grid consists of 18.000 cells and shows a
to the experiments. A closer look at figure 7 shows that the to- high resolution of the boundary layers. Computations conducted
tal pressure loss peaks are better predicted and the mean levels with finer grids offered essentially the same solutions. For more
of the turbulence intensity is best predicted by the new approach informations the reader is referred to Koch et al. [7].
(VB).
Inlet Flow Figure 8 shows again a comparison of experimental
data and numerical simulations for the turbulence intensity at the
inlet block. Again only the simulations with the high value of the
Validation of the New Viscous Blending Approach (VB)
turbulence length scale and the simulation with the new approach
The remaining part of this paper will show the accuracy of
(VB) fits the experimental data in a well appropriate way where
the new approach (VB) by presenting test cases that have been
the simulations with the small turbulence length scales fail.
computed with the TRACE solver and the new approach (VB)
described in the previous section. As one test cases an outlet
Transition Behaviour In figure 9 and figure 10 detailed exper-
guide vane airfoil is presented. This test case is characterized
imental and numerical results for different boundary layer val-
by detailed midspan measurements regarding transition start and
end location as well as boundary layer development and overall
characteristics. As a second test case the Durham turbine cascade
is shown, were the focus lies on the three dimensional flow and
the effects to transition. Therefore the previous mentioned cross
flow (CF) extinction for the transition modell is used.

Turbine Outlet Guide Vane Airfoil

The outlet guide vane airfoil was investigated experimen-
tally by Koch [33] and numerically for low turbulence intensi-
ties by Koch et al. [7]. The experiments were conducted in a
low speed cascade wind tunnel of Technische Universität Braun-
schweig under standard atmosphere conditions. The airfoil was
investigated at a Reynolds number of 1.5 · 105 which is typical
for OGV’s at cruise conditions. The numerical simulations in FIGURE 9. Transition Start and End Locations on Suction Side Sur-
this paper were performed as Q2D-simulations. In the computa- face (Legend as in Figure 8)
tional method, the influence of a midspan streamtube contraction

6 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 ues are shown to describe the transitional behaviour of the outlet
guide vane. In figure 9 a comparison of experimental and numer-
ical predicted transition start and end locations on the suction
side surface for different investigated inlet angels β1 are shown.
In figure 10 static pressure coefficient distributions, suction side
wall shear stress and numerical intermittency distributions for
design inlet angle and a low incidence angle are shown. Addi-
tionally the transition start and end locations for the design inlet
angle and low incidence from figure 9 are considered. It can
(b) design piont
(a) small incidence
FIGURE 10. Suction Surface Behaviour
be seen from figure 9 and figure 10 that the numerical simula-
tions with a prescribed turbulence length scale of lT = 0.01m
and lT = 0.001m result in a fully turbulent suction side boundary
7 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
layer which is wrong according to the experimental results for
design inlet angle and a low incidence. Most of the investigated
inlet angles here show a transitional boundary layer behaviour
with a separation induced transition which is only predicted with
the small prescribed turbulence length scale of lT = 0.0001m and
lT = 0.00001m and for the simulations with the new approach
(VB). All three simulations predict the transition start and end
locations in an adequate manner, where the smallest length scale
performed best at the lowest incidence with no reattachment of
the boundary layer at the trailing edge. The separation bubble on
the suction side can be clearly seen in the surface pressure dis-
tributions. Here the simulation with a prescribed length scale of
lT = 0.0001m and the simulation with the new approach best fits
the experimental data in size and location.
Overall Performance In conclusion for the outlet guide vane
airfoil test case figure 11 shows overall performance character-
istics for the different numerically investigated length scales and
the simulations with the new approach (VB). Besides the ref-
erence total pressure loss coefficients, turning angles, and ref-
erence static pressure rise coefficients also axial velocity ratios
obtained in the experiments are shown and compared to the nu-
merical simulations. Again it can be seen that only the simula-
tions with the small prescribed length scales of lT = 0.0001m and
lT = 0.00001m and the simulation with the new approach (VB) is
able to predict all of the characteristics in an adequate way com-
pared to the experiments. Due to the fully turbulent predicted
boundary layer for the whole incidence range with a length scale
of lT = 0.01m and lT = 0.001m the reference total pressure loss
is predicted much too high compared to the experimental ones.
FIGURE 11. Overall Performance Cascade Characteristics
 Durham Turbine Cascade
The Durham turbine cascade is one of the most known and
used CFD validation test cases. The cascade has been described
in detail earlier, see for instance Walsh [36], Moore [6] and
Moore and Gregory-Smith [37]. The cascade consists of six
blades which have a profile typical for a high pressure turbine
rotor. For a design inlet angle of β1 = 42.75◦ a turning of over
110◦ is achieved. With an axial blade chord of lax = 181mm and (a) Velocity Profile (b) Turbulent Kinetic (c) Turbulence Intensity
an outlet Mach number of Ma2 = 0.1 a Reynolds number, based Energy Profile Profile
on axial chord and exit velocity, of Re = 4.0 · 105 is reached. The FIGURE 13. Inlet Boundary Conditions for Durham Turbine Cascade

tion IN of Slot A, B and C, cf. figure 12. In Moore [6] detailed

inlet velocity, turbulent kinetic energy coefficient and turbulent
intensity profiles are given. Representative, figure 13 shows that
the prescribed inlet velocity, turbulent kinetic energy coefficient
as well as the turbulent intensity matches the experimental ones,
here for the numerical simulations with the new approach (VB).

FIGURE 12. Computational Domian for Durham Turbine Cascade

turbulence intensity and turbulence length scale is measured af-

ter Moore [6] to Tu1 = 4.6% and lT = 4.4mm, where in Moore
(a) Exp. (b) Sim. lT = 9.4mm
et al. [37] the turbulence intensity of Tu1 = 5.6% and turbulence
length scale of lT = 9.4mm is given. Contrary to the design an
inlet angle of βIN = 43.5◦ was measured in the experiments. The
computational domain for the Durham cascade is shown in fig-
ure 12. The applied grid (OH-structure) consists of 5.513.536
nodes (124 nodes in spanwise direction, 440 nodes around the
blade surface, 53 nodes normal to the surface, half-span simula-
tion) with a high low Reynolds resolution of the boundary lay-
ers. This results in an average dimensionless wall distance of (c) Sim. lT = 0.94mm (d) Sim. lT = 0.094mm
y+ ≈ 1.0 in a cell-centered scheme. Moore et al. [6] concluded
that the measured/assumed length scale of lT = 9.4mm had a
large effect on the results with their used mixing length model
what is also, described previously in this paper, according to eddy
viscosity models. Furthermore they concluded that, besides lam-
inar extinctions, only a prescribed variation of lT = 0.094mm is
able to fairly match the experimental results regarding the total
pressure loss coefficient. In this paper the same lT -variation is
performed. (e) VB (f) VB + CF

FIGURE 14. Suction Surface Intermittency Behaviour for Durham

Inlet Flow Free stream flow conditions are derived experimen- Turbine Cascade
tally and compared to the numerical ones at −1.0 ·Cax ≈ at posi-

8 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Blade Surface Flow Figure 14 and 15 show experimental and
numerical contour plots of the intermittency on the suction and
pressure surface of the Durham turbine cascade. The experimen-
tal results for the suction and pressure side are obtained from
traverses of 1.5mm to 100mm from the endwall in spanwise di-
rection at different slots (slot 2 - 8) in the blade passage, from
6% − 97%Cax and 1mm above the suction side and pressure side
surface. Moore [6] pointed out that a intermittency measurement
error is impossible to estimate. Furthermore he rates the accu-
racy of the measured intermittency values to ±0.1. The numer-
ical integral boundary layer parameter like intermittency are de-
termined here by integration of the velocity field perpendicular
to the blade surface up to a point where the total pressure has
increased by 99% of the whole defect. In figure 14 it is well seen
(b) Sim. lT = 9.4mm
(a) Exp.
(c) Sim. lT = 0.94mm (d) Sim. lT = 0.094mm
(e) VB (f) VB + CF
FIGURE 15. Pressure Surface Intermittency Behaviour for Durham
Turbine Cascade
that neither the simulation with the measured length scale (Sim.
lT = 9.4mm) nor the simulation with an one magnitude smaller
length scale (Sim. lT = 0.94mm) is able to predict the suction
side intermittency distribution correctly. Instead, both simula-
tions result in a fully turbulent suction side boundary layer be-
9 Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
haviour. Only the computations with a prescribed length scale of
lT = 0.094mm in d) and with the new approach (VB) in e) and f)
are able to fairly reproduce the trend of the experimental results.
In figure 15 again it is well seen that neither the simulation with
the measured length scale (Sim. lT = 9.4mm) nor the simulation
with a one magnitude smaller length scale (Sim. lT = 0.94mm)
is able to predict the pressure side intermittency distribution cor-
rectly. In contrast to the suction side surface the trend of the
intermittency contours are getting better with decreasing length
scale. But again only the compuations with a prescribed length
scale of lT = 0.094mm in d) and with the new approach (VB)
in e) and f) are able to reproduce the trend of the experimental
results in an adequate way.
Endwall Flow Figure 16 shows experimental and numerical
contour plots of the intermittency on the endwall surface of the
Durham turbine cascade. The experimental results for the end-
wall are obtained from several measurements at slot 1-10. The
accuracy and the numerical determination is the same as de-
scribed in the previous paragraph. Here all simulations with
a prescribed turbuelnce length scale (Sim. lT = 9.4mm, Sim.
lT = 0.94mm and Sim. lT = 0.094mm) are not able to reproduce
the experimental results for the intermittency contour on the end-
wall. The simulations with the new approach (VB and VB + CF)
are adequate compared to the experiments. The new approach is
able to reproduce the region with low intermittency on the end-
wall and in the wake of the pressure side (cf. light blue dashed
lines). The new approach, however, fails to predict the region of
high intermittency in the passage between the leading edge (LE)
and the suction side as well as downstream the suction side and
the wake of the suction side (cf. pink dashed lines). Also minor
improvement of the intermittency prediction on the endwall with
the cross flow (CF) extension is achieved regarding the region of
high intermittency described previous (cf. pink dashed lines).
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A correlation for the prescription of the turbulence length
scale at inflow boundaries is provided. This correlation aims
at highly turbulent turbomachinery flows. Furthermore, the free
stream sensitivity of the turbulence model is suppressed by a lim-
itation of eddy viscosity in the non-viscous regions. The method
is implemented in a framework of the k − ω two-equation turbu-
lence model and the γ -Reθ transition model. The new approach
(VB) is tested and validated for several test cases. In this paper
the approach is tested and validated at the T161 turbine cascade
and the Durham turbine cascade as well as an outlet guide vane.
The influence of turbulence length scale at the transition location,
loss coefficients, and pressure distributions are evaluated. Over-
all, the new approach (VB) yields reasonable turbulence dissipa-
tion rates and also a very good agreement with the transitional
measurements. Additionally, it is shown for the Durham turbine
 cascade test case that a cross flow transition criterion can improve
the transitional prediction accuracy on endwalls.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the substantial contri-
butions of the DLR Institute of Propulsion Technology, MTU
Aero Engines and Prof. Dr.-Ing. Reinhard Niehuis from the Uni-
versity of the Armed Forces in München are thanked for pro-
viding the T161 turbine cascade hardware. Dipl.-Ing. Christoph
Müller from the Leibniz Univeristy of Hannover is thanked for
using and discussing the cross flow transition criterion extension
in TRACE. Furthermore, the authors thank MTU Aero Engines
for the permission to publish this work.
(a) Exp. (b) Sim. lT = 9.4mm

NOMENCLATURE
a1 constant in equation 9
b turbulence grid parameter
bv blend viscous in equation 10
cp pressure coefficient, (p − p1 )/(pt1 − p1 )
c p,2th pressure coefficient, (p − p2th )/(pt1 − p2th )
i incidence
k turbulent kinetic energy
l chord
lT turbulent length scale
p pressure
∆p static pressure rise
q dynamic pressure
(c) Sim. lT = 0.94mm (d) Sim. lT = 0.094mm
si j strain rate, 0.5 (δ jUi + δiU j )
tθ pitch
t time in equation 5
x,y,z coordinates
y+ dimensionless wall distance, ρ uτ y/µ
C chord Durham turbine cascade
Cµ coefficient in viscosity equation
Ctke turbulent kinetic energy coefficient
F2 Blending Function in equation 9
M mesh size
Ma Mach number, U/a
Re Reynolds number, ρ ·U · l/µ
Re2th Reynolds number, ρ2 ·U2th · l/µ2
S strain rate, si j s ji
√
(e) VB (f) VB + CF 2k
3
Tu turbulence intensity, U
FIGURE 16. Endwall Intermittency Behaviour for Durham Turbine U velocity
Cascade

Greek
α constant in equation 8

10 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 β flow angle with respect to axial direction OUT measurement plane downstream the cascade,
βω closure coefficient also outlet of computational domain
βk closure coefficient PS Pressure Side
∆β deflection angle with respect to axial direction Q2D quasi two dimensional
δi j Kronecker-Delta RANS Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
Θ momentum thickness Sim. simulation
γ intermittency SS Suction Side
µT eddy viscosity SST shear stress transport
ρ density T3X ERCOFTAC T3 Flat Plate Test Series
τW wall shear stress, µ (∂ U/∂ y)W TE trailimg edge
00 00
τT,i j Reynolds stress tensor, −ρ ui u j TRACE Turbomachinery Research Aerodynamics
ζ loss coefficient, (pt1 − ptOUT )/(pt1 − p1 ) Computational Environment
ζ2th loss coefficient, (pt1 − ptOUT )/(pt1 − p2th ) TVD total variation diminishing
ζre f reference loss coefficient, ζ /ζADP VB Viscous Blending
ω specific dissipation rate
Ω vorticity
REFERENCES
[1] Wilcox, D. C., 2006. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. DCW
Subscripts Industries, La Canada.
0 initial value [2] Langtry, R. B., and Menter, F. R., 2009. “Correlation-Based
1 far upstream the cascade Transition Modeling for Unstructured Parallelized Compu-
ational Fluid Dynamics Codes”. AIAA Journal, Vol. 47,
2 far downstream the cascade
No. 12.
ax axial
[3] Müller, C., and Herbst, F., 2014. “Modelling of crossflow-
FS free stream induced transition based on local variables”. In Proc. EC-
NUM numerical COMAS, Paper No. 2252, Barcelona (Spain).
P profile fixed coordinate system [4] Gier, J., Franke, M., Hübner, N., and Schröder, T., 2010.
Passage passage “Designing Low Pressure Turbines for Optimized Airfoil
ref referred to ADP Lift”. Journal of Turbomachinery, 132(2), p. 031008.
t total value [5] Ludewig, T., Niehuis, R., and Franke, M., 2010. “Com-
th theoretical value parison of the Capability of Active and Passive Methods of
W wall Boundary Layer Control on a Low Pressure Turbine Cas-
∞ infinity cade”. In Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Mul-
tidiscipinary Design, Springer Verlag, Berlin, Band 112, S.
191-198.
[6] Moore, H., 1995. “Experiments In A Turbine Cascade
Abbreviations For The Validation Of Turbulence And Transition Models”.
ADP Aerodynamic Design Point PhD thesis, School of Engineering and Computer Sciences,
AVR axial velocity ratio The University of Durham.
CF Cross Flow [7] Koch, H., Hoeger, M., and Kožulović, D., 2012. “Outlet
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics Guide Vane Airfoil for Low Pressure Turbine Configura-
tions”. In 42nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Ex-
DLR German Aerospace Center
hibit, Paper No. AIAA-2012-2979, New Orleans (USA).
Exp. experiment
[8] Mayle, R. E., 1991. “The Role of Laminar-Turbulent Tran-
IN measurement plane upstream the cascade, sition in Gas Turbine Engines”. Journal of Turbomachin-
also inlet of computational domain ery, 113, pp. 509–536.
LE leading edge [9] Hourmouziadis, J., 1989. Aerodynamic Design of Low-
LPT Low Pressure Turbine Pressure Turbines. Tech. rep., AGARD Lecture Series 167.
ME Mess Ebene, engl. Measuring Plane [10] Bode, C., Kožulović, D., Franke, M., and Westhäuser, K.,
OGV Outlet Guide Vane 2011. “Incorporating the Effects of Turbulence Length

11 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Scale in Turbulence and Transition Models for Turboma-
chinery Flows”. Proc. 60th DLRK, Paper No. DLRK-1466,
Bremen (Germany).
[11] Bode, C., Aufderheide, T., Friedrichs, J., and Kožulović,
D., 2014. “The Effects of Turbulence Length Scale on
Turbulence and Transition Prediction in Turbomachinery
Flows”. In Proc. of the ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No.
GT2014-27026, Düsseldorf (Germany).
[12] Bode, C., Aufderheide, T., Friedrichs, J., and Kožulović,
D., 2014. “Correlation Based Inlet Boundary Conditions
For Improved Turbulence And Transition Prediction In Tur-
bomachinery Flows”. In Proc. of VI. European Conference
on Computational Fluid Dynamics, Barcelona, Spain, 20.-
25. July.
[13] Babajee, J., and Arts, T., 2012. “Investigation of the lami-
nar separation-induced transition with the γ − reθ transition
model on low pressure turbine rotor blades at steady con-
ditions”. In Proc. of the ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No.
GT2012-68687.
[14] Moore, J. G., and Moore, J., 1999. “Realizability in Turbu-
lence Modelling for Turbomachinery CFD”. In In Proc. of
the ASME Paper No. 99GT-24.
[15] Nürnberger, D., 2004. “Implizite Zeitintegration für die
Simulation von Turbomaschinenströmungen”. PhD thesis,
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, also DLR Forschungsbericht
2004-27.
[16] Kügeler, E., 2005. “Numerisches Verfahren zur genauen
Analyse der Kühleffektivität filmgekühlter Turbinen-
schaufeln”. PhD thesis, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, also
DLR Forschungsbericht 2005-11.
[17] Marciniak, V., Kügeler, E., and Franke, M., 2010. “Predict-
ing Transition on Low-Pressure Turbine Profiles”. Proc. of
V. European Conference on Computational Fluid Dynam-
ics, Lisbon, Portugal, 14.-17. June.
[18] Becker, K., Heitkamp, K., and Kügeler, 2010. “Recent
Progress in a Hybrid-Grid CFD Solver for Turbomachin-
ery Flows”. Proc. of V. European Conference on Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics, Lisbon, Portugal, 14.-17. June.
[19] Roe, P., 1981. “Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter
vector and difference schemes”. J. Comp. Phys., Vol. 34,
pp. 357–372.
[20] Kato, M., and Launder, B. E., 1993. “The Modelling of
Turbulent Flow Around Stationary and Vibrating Square
Cylinders”. Proc. 9th Symp. on Turb. Shear Flow, Vol.
9, pp. 10.4.1–10.4.6.
[21] Kožulović, D., 2007. “Modellierung des Gren-
zschichtumschlags bei Turbomaschinenströmungen unter
Berücksichtigung mehrerer Umschlagsarten”. PhD thesis,
Ruhr-Universität Bochum, also DLR Forschungsbericht
2007-20.
[22] Kožulović, D., and Röber, T., 2006. “Modelling the
Streamline Curvature Effects in Turbomachinery Flows”.
12
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
In Proc. ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. ASME-GT2006-
90265, Barcelona (Spain).
[23] Saxer, A., and Giles, M. B., 1993. “Quasi-three-
dimensional nonreflecting boundary conditions for Euler
equation calculations”. AIAA J. Prop. and Power, Vol. 128,
pp. 263–271.
[24] Aufderheide, T., 2013. “Konstruktion und Erprobung eines
aktiven Turbulenzerzeugers für den Großen Gitterwind-
kanal Braunschweig (GGB)”. Master’s thesis, Institut für
Flugantriebe und Strömungsmaschinen, Technische Uni-
versität Braunschweig.
[25] Baines, P. E., and Peterson, E. G., 1951. “An Investigation
of Flow through Screens”. In In Proc. of the ASME Paper
No. 50-A-23.
[26] Aufderheide, T., Bode, C., Friedrichs, J., and Kožulović,
D., 2014. “The Generation Of Higher Levels Of Turbulence
In A Low-Speed Cascade Wind Tunnel By Pressureized
Tubes”. In Proc. of VI. European Conference on Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics, Barcelona, Spain, 20.-25. July.
[27] Roach, P. E., and Brierley, D. H., 1990. The influence of a
turbulent free stream on zero pressure gradient transitional
boundary layer development. Tech. rep., Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, (Numerical simulation of unsteady flows and
transition to turbulence).
[28] Moore, J. G., and Moore, J., 1997. “Controlling Over-
Production of Turbulence in Two-Equation Models by
Limiting the Anisotropy of the Reynolds Normal Stress”.
In In Proc. of the ASME Paper No. FEDSM97-3356.
[29] Shih, T. H., Zhu, J., and Lumley, J. L., 1994. Modeling
of Wall-Bounded Complex Flows and Free Shear Flows.
Tech. rep., NASA TM 106513.
[30] Shih, T. H., Liou, W. W., Shabbir, A., Yang, Z., and Zhu, J.,
1994. A New k-ε Eddy Viscosity Model for High Reynolds
Number Turbulent Flows - Model Development and Valida-
tion. Tech. rep., NASA TM 106721.
[31] Durbin, P. A., 1996. “On the k − ε Stagnation Point
Anomaly”. Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, 17, pp. 89–90.
[32] Menter, F. R., 1994. “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Tur-
bulence Models for Engineering Applications”. AIAA Jour-
nal, Vol. 32, No. 8, pp. 1598–1605.
[33] Koch, H. Private communication. Technische Universität
Braunschweig, Institut fr̈ Strömungsmechanik.
[34] Stark, U., and Hoheisel, H., 1981. “The combined effect of
axial velocity-density ratio and aspect ratio on compressor
cascade performance”. ASME Journal of Engineering for
Power, Vol. 103, No. 1, pp. 247–255.
[35] Bode, C., Kožulović, D., Stark, U., and Hoheisel, H.,
2012. “Performance and Boundary Layer Development of
a High Turning Compressor Cascade at Sub- and Supercrit-
ical Flow Conditions”. In Proc. of the ASME Turbo Expo,
Paper No. GT2012-68382.
[36] Walsh, J. G. C., 1987. “Secondary Flows and Inlet Skew
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 in Axial Flow Turbine Cascades”. PhD thesis, School
of Engineering and Computer Sciences, The University of
Durham.
[37] Moore, H., and Gregory-Smith, D. G., 1996. “Transition
Effects on Secondary Flows in a Turbine Cascade”. In In
Proc. of the ASME Turbo Expo, Paper No. 96-GT-100.
[38] So, R. M. C., and Mellor, G. L., 1972. An Experi-
mental Investigation of Turbulent Boundary Layers along
Curved Surfaces. Tech. rep., NASA Contractor Report
1940, Princeton University, April.
[39] Rumsey, C. L., and Gatski, T. B., 2001. “Isolating curva-
ture effects in computing wall-bounded turbulent flows”. In
AIAA Paper No. 2001-0725.
[40] Monson, D. J., and Seegmiller, H. L., 1992. An Ex-
perimental Investigation of Subsonic Flow in a Two-
Dimensional U-Duct. Tech. rep., NASA Technical Mem-
orandum 103931, Ames Research Center, California, July.
[41] Comte-Bellot, G., and Corrsin, S., 1971. “Simple Eular-
ian Time Correlation of Full- and Narrow-Band Velocity
Signals in Grid Generated Turbulence”. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 48, pp. 273–337.
[42] Wigeland, R. A., and Nagib, H. M., 1978. Grid-Generated
Turbulence With And Without Rotation About The Stream-
wise Direction. Tech. rep., Illinois Institute of Technology.
[43] Mandal, A. C., Venkatakrishnan, L., and Dey, J., 2010. “A
study on boundary-layer transition induced by free-stream
turbulence”. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 660, pp. 114–
146.
[44] Cutrone, L., De Palma, P., Pascazio, G., and M., N., 2008.
“Predicting transition in two- and three-dimensional sepa-
rated flows”. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow,
29, pp. 504–526.
[45] Hebbel, H. H., 1960. Systematische Gitteruntersuchungen
bei hohen Unterschallgeschwindigkeiten Teil IV Vorunter-
suchungen an Turbinenschaufelgittern mit Profilen NACA
8410 bei inkompressibler Strömung. Tech. rep., DFL-
Bericht Nr. 090.
[46] Kiock, R., 1966. Messung des Turbulenzgrades
im Turbinenstufenprüfstand der Firma Siemens AG,
Mülheim/Ruhr. Tech. rep., DFL-Bericht Nr. 0376.
[47] Rüd, K., 1985. “Transitionale Grenzschichten unter
dem Einfluss hoher Freistromturbulenz, intensiver
Wandkühlung und starken Druckgradienten in Heiß-
gasströmungen”. PhD thesis, Universität Karlsruhe
(TH).
[48] Michalek, J., Monaldi, M., and Arts, T., 2010. “Aero-
dynamic Performance of a Very High Lift Low Pressure
Turbine Airfoil (T106C) at Low Reynolds and High Mach
Number with Effect of Free Stream Turbulence Intensity”.
In In ASME Turbo Expo 2010: Power for Land, Sea and
Air, Paper No. GT2010-22884.
[49] Brück, C. Private communication. Technische Universität
13
Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo
Berlin, Institut für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Fachgebiet Luft-
fahrtantriebe.
[50] Jonas, P., Mazur, O., and Uruba, V., 2000. “On the recep-
tivity of the by-pass transition to the length cale of the outer
stream turbulence”. Eur. J. Mech. B-Fluids, 19, pp. 707–
722.
Appendix: Validation at Basic Turbulence Testcases
ERCOFTAC T3X Flat Plate
To evaluate the new approach (VB) experiments on flat
plates from Roach and Brierley [27] are compared to numeri-
cal simulations predicted with the new approach (VB). Contrary
to the most numerical investigations, where kIN and ωIN must be
prescribed at the computational inlet domain, here only the ex-
perimental information about the free stream turbulence intensity
is directly prescribed at the inlet. With the information about the
Mach number which is also provided in the experiments kIN and
ωIN are computed after equation 7. Figure 17 a) indicates that
equation 7 gives the correct decay behaviour of the turbulence
intensity and no information about the turbulence length scale
or dissipation rate is necessary. Figure 17 b) and c) shows that
the transitional behaviour of all three flat plates is reproduced in
an adequat manner by the new approach (VB). May the transi-
tion for the T3B is a little to early and the momentum thickness
Reynolds number is somewhat underpredicted for all cases. In
figure 18 the boundary layer velocity profiles U/U0 for differ-
ent streamwise positions, for the T3A flat plate are given. The
comparison of the velocity profiles is very good.
Curved Bend And U-Duct
The curved bend test case of So and Mellor [38] deals with
the stabilizing (damping) effect of the surface curvature. The ap-
plied countur wall has been taken from Rumsey and Gatski [39],
who adapted that wall in order to reproduce the measured pres-
sure distribution at the inner wall. For further details may the
reader is directed to [12]. The U-duct of Monson and Seeg-
miller [40] is also a test case where curvature dampes and am-
plificates the turbulence production like in a real turbomachine.
For further details may the reader is directed to [12]. Figure 19 a)
and b) show again a good agreement between experiments and
the numerical simulation with the new approach (VB).
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
 (a) Velocity Profiles U/U0
(a) Turbulence Intensity TuFS
FIGURE 18. Boundary Layer Behaviour for T3A Flat Plate

(b) Skin Friction Coefficient c f

(a) Curved Bend

(b) U-Duct
(c) ReΘ
FIGURE 19. Boundary Layer Values for Curved Bend And U-Duct
FIGURE 17. Boundary Layer Values for T3X Flat Plate

14 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo

 Appendix: Database for Figure 4

Experiments Turbulence Generating Grid U∞ Tu1

Comte-Bellot & Corrsin [41] square mesh and parallel rods ≈ 5.0m/s ≈ 0.45%
Wigeland-Nagib [42] square mesh ≈ 5.0m/s ≈ 0.45%
Mandal et al. [43] parallel rods ≈ 22.0m/s ≈ 0.9 − 2.8%
Cutrone et al. [44] square mesh and parallel rods ≈ 2.5 − 5.0m/s ≈ 1.1 − 3.9%
Roach & Brierley [27] square mesh and parallel rods ≈ 5.4 − 19.8m/s ≈ 0.9 − 6.0%
Koch [33] square mesh ≈ 22.0m/s ≈ 0.5 − 2.3%
Hebbel [45] square mesh ≈ 20.0m/s ≈ 13.0%
Kiock [46] square mesh and parallel rods ≈ 40.0m/s ≈ 13.0 − 24.0%
Rüd [47] square mesh ≈ 38.0 − 55.0m/s ≈ 1.6 − 8.7%
Michalek et al. [48] without ≈ 90m/s ≈ 0.9%
Brück [49] square mesh ≈ 1.4 − 7.3m/s ≈ 7.1 − 7.3%
Aufderheide [24] parallel rods (passive and pressureized) ≈ 6.3 − 28.0m/s ≈ 0.8 − 7.0%
Jonas [50] square mesh ≈ 5.4/s ≈ 3.0%
TABLE 2. Summary of the different used experiments for figure 4

Additionally Koch [33], Rüd [47] and Aufderheide [24] did measurements without a turbulence grid. The data for Michalek et
al. [48] is obtained without any turbulence grid.

15 Copyright © 2014 by ASME

Downloaded From: http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/conferences/asmep/83068/ on 04/20/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/abo