Validating Aerodynamic Non-conformance Definitions

MASTER'S THESIS
Validation of Aerodynamic Non-

conformance Definitions
Andreas berg
Master of Science in Engineering Technology
Space Engineering
Lule University of Technology
Department of Engineering Sciences and Mathematics

Abstract
Non-conformances are effects related to the difference between the nominal design of an aircraft
engine component and the finished manufactured product. At the aerothermodynamics
department at Volvo Aero, a number of definitions are used to classify the non-conformances
and their impact on the engine performance.
The main objective of this thesis has been to validate the defined definitions limits for local non-
conformances (bumps) positioned on the outlet guide vanes of a turbine rear frame, using CFD,
and derive a correlation for calculation the drag coefficient of the bumps. The project was
divided into two parts; a flat plate analysis and a real geometry analysis.
The definition of a local non-conformance is based on the height of the bumps in relation to the
boundary layer thickness at that location. The flow over a flat plate has been studied with and
without bumps at a wide range of Reynolds numbers to see how different bump sizes affects the
shape and size of the boundary layer. The added drag to the plate due to the presence of the
bumps has been calculated and compared to the bump-free cases to see if a correlation was
possible to derive.
From the flat plate simulations it was found that the lower limit of 10 % and the upper limit of 99
% of the defined borders are valid. The lower limit can however be rectified due to an increase of
just 11 % of the boundary layer thickness for bumps with a height of 40 %. A correlation was
derived that calculates the drag coefficient of the bumps with an error of 5 % between the
correlation calculation and the CFD results.
The real geometries that were analyzed were representative of the regular vanes and mount vanes
of a turbine rear frame. The boundary layer thickness has been calculated for both nominal vanes
and for vanes with non-conformances (bumps) to determine the effect of the bumps on the
boundary layer and if its possible to compare the results with the flat plate.
The boundary layer thickness on the suction peak was found to be 3.1 mm on the regular vane
and 3.3 mm on the mount vane. However, the method used for calculating the boundary layer
thickness was found to be unstable when the flow over the vane separates. The only cases that
are separation free are the 1 mm bumps, which are located at a height of 32 % of the nominal
boundary layer thickness on the regular vane and 30 % on the mount vane. The increase in
boundary layer thickness differs from the flat plate results and a detailed analysis on how the
thickness is calculated needs to be performed. The correlation was tested on the 1 mm bumps
and the drag coefficient calculated to be 0.285 on the regular vane and 0.275 on the mount vane.
This can be compared to a drag coefficient of 0.25 calculated at the department using a similar
geometry and another method. However, the correlation needs to be compared with other real
geometry bump sizes to be considered fully validated.

Contents
Preface.............................................................................................................................................. i
List of figures .................................................................................................................................. ii
List of tables ................................................................................................................................... iv
Nomenclature .................................................................................................................................. v
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Non-conformance definitions ................................................................................... 2
1.2 Purpose of the project ....................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Limitations ....................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Problem description.......................................................................................................... 4
2 Theory ...................................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Computational fluid dynamics ......................................................................................... 5
2.1.1 Turbulence modeling ................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Boundary layers................................................................................................................ 9
3 Method ................................................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Simulation approach ....................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Software and simulations settings ........................................................................... 13
3.2 Flat plate ......................................................................................................................... 14
3.2.1 Reference case ........................................................................................................ 14
3.2.2 Bumps ..................................................................................................................... 16
3.2.3 Finding a correlation for C
d
.................................................................................... 19
3.3 Real geometry ................................................................................................................ 20
3.3.1 Testing the correlation ............................................................................................ 21
3.4 Boundary layers.............................................................................................................. 22
3.4.1 Flat plate.................................................................................................................. 22
3.4.2 Real geometry ......................................................................................................... 23
4 Results and discussion ........................................................................................................... 24
4.1 Flat plate ......................................................................................................................... 24
4.1.1 Reference case ........................................................................................................ 24
4.1.2 Bumps ..................................................................................................................... 29

4.1.3 Drag coefficient ...................................................................................................... 35
4.2 Real geometry ................................................................................................................ 40
4.2.1 Nominal................................................................................................................... 40
4.2.2 Bumps ..................................................................................................................... 42
5 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 50
5.1 Validation of the defined borders ................................................................................... 50
5.1.1 Flat plate.................................................................................................................. 50
5.1.2 Real geometry ......................................................................................................... 50
5.2 The correlation ............................................................................................................... 52
6 References ............................................................................................................................. 53
7 List of appendices .................................................................................................................. 54
7.1 Reference case ................................................................................................................ 55
7.2 Flat plate with bump ....................................................................................................... 59
7.3 Correlation data .............................................................................................................. 64
7.4 Real geometry ................................................................................................................ 66
7.5 CFX-Scripts .................................................................................................................... 72
7.6 MATLAB code .............................................................................................................. 82

i

Preface
This thesis is the final project of the Master of Science degree in Space Engineering with
specialization in Aerospace Engineering at the Department of Engineering Sciences and
Mathematics, Division of Fluid and Experimental Mechanics at Lule University of Technology,
Sweden. My examiner at the university was PhD Lars-Gran Westerberg and the work has been
carried out at the Department of Aerothermodynamics at Volvo Aero Corporation in Trollhttan,
Sweden under the supervision of Cline Souillet and Mats Henstrm.
I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my main supervisor Cline for all the help and
guidance you have provided me with and for the large interest you have shown in the project. I
would also like to thank Hans Mrtensson for your expertise in the subject and Lars Ljungkrona
for you extensive knowledge about codes and numerics. To the other thesis students and interns
that lived in Trollhttan during these months, Markus, Franois, Mikael, Visakha and Stijn I send
a big thank you for all the good times outside of office hours and for making my stay here very
pleasant. Finally I want to thank Linea for always being there for me and my family for all your
support.

Andreas berg
Trollhttan, July 2011

ii

List of figures
Figure 1: Some of the components of a jet engine and also Volvo Aeros commercial component specializations. ..... 1
Figure 2: The two layers in the near-wall region. ......................................................................................................... 9
Figure 3: Boundary layer along a flat plate. ............................................................................................................... 10
Figure 4: Reference case geometry: flat plate. ............................................................................................................ 14
Figure 5: Initial 2D-mesh for the reference case. ....................................................................................................... 15
Figure 6: Standard bump (h/L = 0.318). ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 7: Flat plate with bump. ................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 8: Wide bump (h/L = 0.159). ........................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 9: Aggressive bump (h/L = 0.637). .................................................................................................................. 17
Figure 10: Flat plate with a bump. .............................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 11: Close-up on a bump. .................................................................................................................................. 18
Figure 12: Nominal regular vane. ............................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 13: Nominal mount vane. ................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 14: Regular vane with 5 mm bump on SS. ....................................................................................................... 21
Figure 15: Mount vane with 5 mm bump on PS. ......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 16: Boundary layer thickness for the reference case. ...................................................................................... 25
Figure 17: Boundary layer thickness at the four Reynolds numbers a) 10
5
b) 7.5*10
5
c) 2*10
6
d) 10
7
. ..................... 26
Figure 18: Skin-friction drag coefficient for the flat plate. ......................................................................................... 26
Figure 19: Skin-friction drag coefficient for a smooth plane surface depending on Reynolds number. ..................... 27
Figure 20: Displacement and momentum thickness for three reference cases. ........................................................... 28
Figure 21: Boundary layer thickness for the 10 % case compared to the reference case. .......................................... 30
Figure 22: Velocity contours for a 10 % bump at Re = 10
6
. ....................................................................................... 30
Figure 23: BLT with bumps at height a) 40 % b) 60 % c) 99 % d) 150 %. ................................................................. 31
Figure 24: Velocity contours for standard bumps at a) 40 %, b) 60 %, c) 99 % and d) 150 % of the BLT at Re = 10
6
.
..................................................................................................................................................................................... 32
Figure 25: Aggressive bump at 40 % showing a) BLT for three Re compared with the reference case and the
standard bump b) Velocity contours for Re = 10
6
. ...................................................................................................... 34
Figure 26: Wide bump at 40 % showing a) BLT for three Re compared with the reference case and the standard
bump b) Velocity contours for Re = 10
6
. ..................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 27: Relation between the drag coefficient and the scale factor based on simulation results. .......................... 35
Figure 28: Drag coefficient depending on Re for aggressive, wide and standard bumps with height 40 %. .............. 36
Figure 29: a as a function of Re. ................................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 30: b as a function of Re. ................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 31: Relation between the drag coefficient and the scale factor based on the derived correlation. ................. 38
Figure 32: Comparison between correlation and simulation results for three Reynolds numbers. ............................ 39
Figure 33: BLT for nominal regular vane, SS. ............................................................................................................ 40
Figure 34: BLT for nominal regular vane, PS. ............................................................................................................ 40
Figure 35: BLT for nominal mount vane, SS. .............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 36: BLT for nominal mount vane, PS. .............................................................................................................. 41
Figure 37: Local Mach number around the mid-span of the regular vane. ................................................................ 41
Figure 38: Static pressure contours on the a) regular vane b) mount vane. ............................................................... 42
Figure 39: Regular vane, SS, 5 mm. ............................................................................................................................ 43
iii

Figure 44: Regular vane, SS, 5 mm, separation. ......................................................................................................... 44
Figure 49. Mount vane, SS, 3 mm. ............................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 50: Mount vane, SS, 2 mm. .............................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 51: Mount vane, SS, 1 mm. .............................................................................................................................. 46
Figure 52: Mount vane, SS, 3 mm, separation. ........................................................................................................... 46
Figure 55: Mount vane, PS, 5 mm. .............................................................................................................................. 48
Figure 59 Mount vane, PS, 1 mm. ............................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 61: BLT for the reference case at Re = a) 2.5*10
5
, b) 5*10
5
, c) 10
6
, d) 4*10
6
, e) 6*10
6
and f) 8*10
6
. ........... 55
Figure 62: DBT for Re a) 10
5
, b) 2.5*10
5
, c) 5*10
5
, d) 10
6
, e) 4*10
6
, f) 6*10
6
and g) 8*10
6
. .................................... 57
Figure 63: MBTfor Re a) 10
5
, b) 2.5*10
5
, c) 5*10
5
, d) 10
6
, e) 4*10
6
, f) 6*10
6
and g) 8*10
6
. ..................................... 58
Figure 64: BLT for the four lowest Reynolds numbers with bump height a) 40 % b) 60 % c) 99 % d) 150 %. .......... 59
Figure 65: Displacement boundary thickness for standard bumps with Re > 10
6
with height 40, 60, 99 and 150 %. 60
Figure 66: Displacement boundary thickness for standard bumps with height 10 %. ................................................ 60
Figure 67: Displacement boundary thickness for aggressive bumps with height 40 %. (Reference included). .......... 61
Figure 68: Displacement boundary thickness for wide bumps with height 40 % (Reference included). ..................... 61
Figure 69: Momentum boundary thickness for standard bumps with Re > 10
6
with height 40, 60, 99 and 150 %. ... 62
Figure 70: Momentum boundary thickness for bump height 10 %. ............................................................................. 62
Figure 71: Momentum boundary thickness for aggressive bumps with height 40 %. (Reference included). .............. 63
Figure 72: Displacement boundary thickness for aggressive bumps with height 40 %. (Reference included). .......... 63
Figure 73: Displacement thickness, Regular vane, SS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included). ............................. 66
Figure 74: Displacement thickness, Mount vane, SS, bump height 1-3 mm (Nominal included). ............................... 67
Figure 75: Displacement thickness, Mount vane, PS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included). ............................... 68
Figure 76: Momentum thickness, Regular vane, SS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included). ................................. 69
Figure 77: Momentum thickness, Mount vane, SS, bump height 1-3 mm (Nominal included). ................................... 70
Figure 78: Momentum thickness, Mount vane, PS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included). ................................... 71

iv

List of tables
Table 1: Non-conformance definitions for local defects. ............................................................................................... 3
Table 2: Inlet velocities for different Reynolds numbers. ............................................................................................ 15
Table 3: Pressure loss and drag coefficients for the grids. ......................................................................................... 16
Table 4: Pressure loss and drag coefficient for the four grids. ................................................................................... 18
Table 5: Flat plate simulation summary. ..................................................................................................................... 24
Table 6: BLT for all Reynolds numbers. ...................................................................................................................... 29
Table 7: The five bump heights (in mm) that were to be created for each Reynolds number. ..................................... 29
Table 8: Percentile increase in boundary layer thickness due to the bumps. .............................................................. 33
Table 9: Percentile increase in boundary layer thickness for the aggressive and wide bumps. .................................. 34
Table 10: Percentile difference in C
d
for aggressive and wide bumps compared to the standard bump, for the sim.
data. ............................................................................................................................................................................. 36
Table 11: The a and b coefficients for each Reynolds number. ................................................................................... 37
Table 12: Percentile difference between the correlation and the simulation results. .................................................. 39
Table 13: Boundary layer thickness at the suction peak for the two nominal vanes. .................................................. 42
Table 14: Summary of all bump analyzed and their location. ..................................................................................... 42
Table 15: Reynolds number for the chord and at the suction peak at 90 % span for both regular and mount vane. .. 49
Table 16: Drag coefficient for the real geometry bumps based on the correlation. Scale factor is included for
comparison. ................................................................................................................................................................. 49
Table 17: Bump height (in mm) at x = 19 m for each Re
L
depending on the intended position in the reference BL. . 64
Table 18: Drag coefficients calculated from the simulation data. ............................................................................... 64
Table 19: Drag coefficients calculated from the correlation....................................................................................... 65
Table 20: Drag coefficient for 40 % bumps with different shape. ............................................................................... 65

v

Nomenclature
Abbreviations
BL Boundary layer
BLT Boundary layer thickness
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
DBT Displacement boundary thickness
DNS Direct numerical simulation
LE Leading edge
LES Large eddy simulation
MBT Momentum boundary thickness
OGV Outlet guide vane
PS Pressure side
RANS Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations
SP Suction peak
SS Suction side
SST Shear stress transport
TE Trailing edge
TEC, TRF Turbine exhaust case, Turbine rear frame

Latin letters
A
b
[m
2
] Frontal area, bump
A
p
[m
2
] Area, plate
C
d
[-] Drag coefficient
C
f
[-] Friction coefficient
C
p
[-] Pressure coefficient
c
p
[-] Specific heat constant, pressure
c
v
[-] Specific heat constant, volume
h [m] Bump height
i [J ] Energy
k [m
2
/s
2
] Turbulent kinetic energy
k
t
[W/mK] Thermal conductivity
L [m
2
] Length
M [-] Mach number
n [-] Normal direction
P
dyn
, P
d
[Pa] Dynamic pressure
P
stat
, P
s
[Pa] Static pressure
P
tot
, P
0
[Pa] Total pressure
Re [-] Reynolds number
V, u , u, v, w [m/s] Velocity
y
+
[-] Dimensionless distance from the
wall to the first node in the
computational grid

vi

Greek letters
o
-

[m] Displacement boundary thickness
o, o
99

[m] Boundary layer thickness
o
ij
[-] Kronecker delta
c
[m
2
/s
3
] Turbulent dissipation

[-] c
p
/c
v

[kg/ms] Dynamics viscosity
t
[kg/ms] Turbulent dynamic viscosity
u
[m] Momentum boundary thickness

[kg/m
3
] Density
t
[Pa] Wall shear force
e
[1/s] Turbulent specific dissipation

Subscripts
in Inlet
out Outlet
wall, w Point on the wall
Freestream
tan Tangential
per Perpendicular
x, y, z Coordinate direction

1

1 Introduction
This chapter presents the reader with an introduction to the thesis, including background,
information about non-conformances and the problem description.
1.1 Background
Volvo Aero (VAC) develops and manufactures components for commercial and military aircraft
engines in co-operation with some of the worlds leading engine manufacturers. These include
General Electric, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce among others. Because of this, VACs
components can be found in 90 % of the worlds large commercial aircrafts. The motto, Make It
Light is the core in VACs goal to reduce aircraft emissions by 50 % until 2020, and the
company focuses heavily on developing lightweight solutions for aircraft engine structures and
rotors. Within the areas of specialization for commercial components (Figure 1) Volvo has
established a number of Centers of Excellence (CoE) and Advanced Technology Areas, which
have enabled them to focus on developing optimal advanced technology solutions and being able
to provide strong competence in all engineering disciplines.

Figure 1: Some of the components of a jet engine and also Volvo Aeros commercial component specializations.
This project has been conducted in one of these CoEs, namely the aero-thermodynamics
department, which is the competence centre for method and technology development within
aerodynamics at VAC. This function is part of all the stages of the product development process
and provides R&D and specialist competence in a large number of disciplines such as aero
acoustics, aeromechanics, fluid dynamics, CFD/Numerics, combustion, heat-transfer, radiation,
performance and experimental verification.
OGV
Fan/compressor structures
Shafts
Vanes

Turbine rear frames

Fan Case
Compressor rotors
Combustor structure
LPT-Case
2

Many of the currently ongoing commercial engine projects at VAC are to develop turbine rear
frames (TRFs). The TRF is located behind the low-pressure turbine (LPT) and is one of the parts
used for mounting the engine onto the aircraft wing. The TRF contains a large number of outlet
guide vanes (OGVs) which are used to de-swirl the flow from the LPT so that the air leaving the
engine does so in a straight axial direction.
1.1.1 Non-conformance definitions
During manufacturing, the engine components go through a number of processes, like assembly
and adjustment which will affect the products in different ways. This quite often has the impact
that the finished product does not look like the intended design. Non-conformances (NC) or
geometry defects are effects related to the difference between the nominal (ideal) design of the
components and the actual finished products. These deviations can have an unfortunate impact
on the engine performance resulting in e.g. increased pressure losses, flow separation and
increased swirl angles. The challenge is to determine how much these NC affects the
aerodynamics of the components and if it is possible to relieve manufacturing and design
constraints if they are found not to be detrimental. It will then be possible to reduce
manufacturing and design costs.
The aero-thermodynamics department has spent a lot of time and resources on studying non-
conformances and the process is on-going. The goal in this thesis is to validate the defined limits
of some of the most common NC to identify which defect sizes are acceptable or not and thus
reduce the amount of work spent on analyzing NC at the department.
The department keeps a detailed list over the different types of NC that are commonly
encountered, together with definitions of when the NC can be considered to have a large or small
impact on the aero-parameters as well as the most critical locations to have them on. The most
common of these non-conformances can be seen in Table 1 where the definitions are shown for
local defects. That is, defects that has a local impact on the flow and arent large enough to be
considered global defects.

3

Table 1: Non-conformance definitions for local defects.
Type Definition Critical areas
Impact on
aero-
parameters
Size < 25 % of chord
Bump on vane
Large if h > 99 % of
the boundary layer
thickness

Suction peak
Pressure loss
Separation
Small if h << than
the boundary layer
thickness (5-10 % )
Dimple on vane
Large if h > 99 % of
boundary layer
thickness

Suction peak
Pressure loss
Small if h << than
the boundary layer
thickness (10-20 %)

1.2 Purpose of the project
The definitions in Table 1 have not been validated but instead been developed by qualified
guessing and experience. It is thus of great interest for the department to know if the definitions
can be considered accurate enough or if they need to be adjusted. Therefore, one the purposes of
this project is to validate the defined borders of the local defects to see if the definitions needs to
be adjusted or not. The second purpose is to develop a correlation for calculating the drag
coefficient of a bump, consisting of variables such as bump height in relation to boundary layer
thickness and the Reynolds number at the bump position. The correlation can then be used in a
non-conformance analysis program currently in development at the department.
1.3 Limitations
Due to the limited amount of time available for the project a number of limitations had to be set
to make sure that it would be possible to finish everything in time. Since there are a large number
of different non-conformances that can be studied (welds, surface roughness, bumps, dimples
etc.) it was decided to focus on making a detailed study on the most common one, bumps, seeing
as it would be close to impossible to validate them all during the project.
The definition for the local bumps is defined as a bump height in relation to the boundary layer
thickness at that location. Due to the complex nature of the flow around a vane a more simple
geometry was initially studied to better understand the physics of the flow over a bump. The two
dimensional flow over a flat plate was chosen for the main analysis of the boundary layer and the
h
Flow direction
Flow direction
4

bumps effect on it. The flat plate is commonly used in boundary layer analysis and it was
assumed that the results would correlate well with those of a vane so that just a few simulations
would have to be done for the real geometries.
1.4 Problem description
The project can be divided into two parts, one for the flat plate study and one for the real
geometries. These are presented below.
The first part consists of a flat plate study where the flat plate is simulated at a wide range of
Reynolds numbers and the boundary layer thickness is calculated at a certain position along the
plate. Bumps are then created with heights based on a percentile part of the undisturbed
boundary layer thickness. The bumps effects on the boundary layer in the region behind the
bumps are then analyzed. From these simulation results it is possible to determine the added
force to the plate in the flow direction due to the presence of the bumps so that a correlation for
the drag coefficient can be derived.
The second part consists of boundary layer calculations on a real representative geometry to the
vanes in a turbine rear frame. Initially, nominal regular vanes and nominal mount vanes are
analyzed before moving on to the analysis of bumps placed on the suction peak on the suction
side and the region below the suction peak on the pressure side. The idea is to get results that will
correlate reasonable well with the flat plate results. The correlation derived in the first part is
then to be tested on some of the bumps to see if it is able to predict the drag coefficient for
bumps on a vane.

5

2 Theory
In this chapter the reader is given a brief introduction to computational fluid dynamics,
turbulence modeling and boundary layer theory. It is however assumed that the reader has some
knowledge in the subject.
2.1 Computational fluid dynamics
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is a computer-based simulation tool for the analysis of
systems involving fluid flow, heat transfer and other related processes. These simulation tools
make use of numerical algorithms to solve the physical process of interest. There are three
distinctive types of numerical solution techniques that can be used, namely, finite difference,
finite element and spectral methods. The CFD code chosen in this project, CFX, uses a special
finite difference formulation called the finite volume method. How this works is that the user
creates a computational grid on the domain consisting of cells (control volumes). The outline of
the method is then that in each control volume the governing equations of fluid flow are
integrated, discretized into a system of algebraic equations and solved with an iterative method.
The iterative method is required because of the complex and non-linear nature of the governing
equations (equations (2.1) (2.5)) which can be written in the following form, from Versteeg &
Malalasekera (2007).
Continuity:

(2.1)
X-momentum:

(2.2)
Y-momentum:
(2.3)
Z-momentum:

(2.4)
Energy:

(2.5)

Where S
M
and S
i
are momentum and energy source terms, and u the dissipation function
(equation (2.6)). Equations (2.2) (2.4) are usually referred to as the Navier-Stokes equations.

(2.6)

The governing equations come from applying the three fundamental physical laws of
conservation of mass, momentum and energy to a control volume. For further information about
these laws, the derivation of the equations and the numerical approach used by CFX, the reader
is referred to standard text books in fluid dynamics and CFD such as Cengel & Cimbala (2006),
Versteeg & Malalasekera (2007) and the CFX User-guide (2009).
6

2.1.1 Turbulence modeling
The turbulent nature of flows makes them much more difficult to calculate than if they are
laminar. This is because of the random and chaotic behavior of turbulence that gives rise to
rotational flow structures, so-called eddies, with a wide range of length and time scales. There
currently exists three ways to calculate turbulence in CFD, direct numerical simulation (DNS),
large eddy simulation (LES) and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS).
The DNS method can use the incompressible form of the turbulent continuity and Navier-Stokes
equations to form a set of four equations with four unknowns. These can then be used to find a
starting point for the simulations, which then develops a transient solution to resolve all the
scales of the motion. This method requires extremely fine computational grids (around 10
3
grid
points in each coordinate direction) and very small time steps, which makes it too computational
heavy to be used in industrial applications and hence it is more commonly used in fundamental
research in turbulence.
The LES method uses a filtering method on the Navier-Stokes equations to separate the larger
and smaller eddies. The larger eddies are then resolved using unsteady flow simulations while
the smaller scale eddies are modeled with a so called sub-grid model. This method is much less
demanding on computational resources than DNS but it still requires a lot more computer power
than the third method.
The third method, RANS, is the most common way of dealing with turbulence. This method
doesnt resolve any eddies in the flow but models turbulence by utilizing turbulence models.
This makes the method the most practical to use in engineering applications where its often
unnecessary to resolve the details of the turbulent fluctuations, and mean and time-averaged
properties of the flow are considered satisfactory enough. The averaging is done by applying
Reynolds decomposition on the governing equations so that the flow variables are split up into a
steady mean component
and a time-varying fluctuating component

(2.7)

Utilizing this decomposition on the continuity and Navier-Stokes equations (equation (2.1)
(2.4)) and using tensor notation yields the set of equations depicted below (the energy equation
has been left out since the case simulated in this project is incompressible).
Continuity:
(2.8)
Navier-Stokes:
(2.9)

Where t
ij
is the molecular stress tensor and S
M
the sum of the body forces. The time-averaging
process introduces extra terms
on the right hand side of the Navier-Stokes equations.

7

These terms are usually referred to as the Reynolds stresses and they introduce a new set of
unknowns to the equations. To model these stresses it is possible to use the eddy viscosity
hypothesis (ANSYS Inc, Turbulence and Wall Function Theory, 2009) that propose that the
Reynolds stresses can be related to the mean velocity gradients and the eddy viscosity, analogous
to the relationship between the stress and strain tensors in laminar flow.

(2.10)

Where
is the Kronecker delta,
the eddy viscosity and the turbulence kinetic energy. A

number of turbulence models have been developed over the years to solve these equations but
the two most commonly used in CFX are the k-c and SST k-e models, which were the ones
under consideration when choosing turbulence model in this project.
The two models are so called two-equation models, which means that they introduce two new
transport equations that represents the turbulent properties of the flow. Both models use an
equation for the turbulent kinetic energy k but depending on the model they use either a transport
equation for turbulent dissipation c or turbulent specific dissipation e. The transport equations
used by the models arent shown here but they can be viewed in a turbulence modeling textbook
or in ANSYS Inc. - Turbulence and Wall Function Theory (2009). In the subsequent chapters
some general information about the models and their advantages/disadvantages are presented.
2.1.1.1 The k-c model
The model is one of the most widely used in the industry and its proven to show excellent
performance for a large number of industrial flows. Its the simplest model for which only initial
and boundary conditions need to be supplied and its also one of the least demanding on
computational resources. It does however show poor performance in a variety of important cases
such as some unconfined flows, curved boundary layers, swirling flows, rotating flows and fully
developed flows in non-circular ducts according to Versteeg & Malalasekera (2007). In curved
models the k-c model predicts excessive levels of turbulent shear stress, leading to suppression of
separation, which poses a problem in areas such as aerodynamic flows. Some of the deficiencies
of the model can be related to how it calculates in the near-wall region, and hence different wall
treatment methods have been developed over the years to try and solve this issue.
8

2.1.1.2 The SST k-e model
The standard k-e model was developed for solving the c-equations problems when modeling the
flow in the boundary layer region, close to the wall. This makes the e-model much better in
predicting adverse pressure gradient boundary layer flows and separation. One of the downsides
of the standard model is its strong sensitivity to freestream conditions, outside the shear layer,
which tends to make it difficult to use in aerodynamic flows.
The SST k-e model was designed to deal with this problem by combining the e-equation and the
c-equation by the use of a blending function. This makes it possible for the model to use the
advantages of the c-formulation in the freestream region and the e-equation in the boundary
layer region. The model is therefore valid for a great number of flow cases and it gives accurate
predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation under adverse pressure gradients.
Because of this it is one of the most widely used turbulence models in aerodynamic flows. Some
of the deficiencies of the model are that it in some cases can under-predict pressure losses and be
too conservative in predicting separation. The SST model is recommended for high accuracy
boundary layers simulation by ANSYS Inc. in the CFX User-guide - Turbulence and Wall
Function Theory (2009).
2.1.1.3 The y
+
value
The y
+
value is the dimensionless distance from the wall to the first node in the computational
grid. It is used to check how fine the grid is in the boundary layer region and gives information
on what turbulence model and wall treatment can be used. The y
+
value can be calculated using
equation (2.11) and (2.12).

(2.11)

(2.12)
Where y is the distance from the wall, u
t
the friction velocity at the wall, v the local kinematic
viscosity, t
w
the wall shear stress and
w
the density at the wall.
Experiments and mathematical analysis have shown that the near-wall region can be divided into
two layers, the viscous sub-layer, and the logarithmic layer. In the viscous sub-layer, which is
closest to the wall, the flow is almost laminar and the molecular viscosity is dominant in
momentum and heat transfer while in the logarithmic layer, turbulence is the dominating mixing
process. These layers are illustrated in Figure 2. Between these two layers there exists a region
called the buffer layer where molecular viscosity and turbulence effects are equally important.
9

Figure 2: The two layers in the near-wall region.
There are two approaches that can be used to model the flow in this region, the wall function
method and the low-Re method. The wall function method doesnt resolve the inner region
(viscous sub-layer and buffer layer) but instead uses empirical formulas to bridge the inner
region between the wall and the logarithmic layer, thus saving a lot of computational resources.
This method requires that the first node is in the logarithmic layer with a lower limit on y
+
of 30,
and an upper limit that can extend up to several thousand depending on the Reynolds number.
The low-Re method fully resolves the details of the boundary layer profile. This does however
require that the grid is refined in the direction normal to the surface so that a y
+
< 1 can be
achieved. To take full advantage of the capabilities of the method one should try to have between
10 and 20 nodes within the boundary layer to fully resolve it. This approach is much more
computational heavy than using wall functions since is requires a larger number of nodes. If the
details of the boundary layer are of little interest, a wall function approach might be more
suitable to use.
2.2 Boundary layers
Consider fluid flow over a flat plate, like in Figure 3. In the vast region of the flow field away
from the surface, the velocity gradients are very small and friction has little effect on the flow. At
the wall however, the velocity gradients are large and friction has a large impact on the flow due
to the frictional forces retarding the motion of the fluid, and hence a thin layer is formed above
the surface. This thin viscous region is called the boundary layer. At the surface the flow velocity
is zero (the no-slip condition) and as we move away from the surface in the y-direction the
velocity increases until it reaches a point where it equals the freestream velocity u
. The height
above the wall where this occurs is called the boundary layer thickness o and its normally
defined as the point above the wall where the velocity equals 99 % of the freestream velocity
(equation (2.13)).

= 0.99u u (2.13)

10

Figure 3: Boundary layer along a flat plate.
Boundary layers (BL) can be either laminar or turbulent, depending on the Reynolds number
(Re). In the flow over a flat plate there is a transition between the two at approximately Re =
5*10
5
. For lower Reynolds numbers the BL is laminar and the velocity changes uniformly as one
move away from the wall, while for higher Re the boundary layer is turbulent and characterized
by unsteady swirling flows.
The fluid particles in the BL do not always remain in the thin layer which adheres to the body
along the length of the wall (Schlichting, 1979). In some cases when adverse pressure gradients
are present, the flow in the boundary layer can become reversed and the boundary layer increases
its thickness considerably. The consequence of a reversed flow is that the flow separates from the
surface and creates a large wake of recirculating flow downstream of the surface. This will cause
a pressure drop in the region and will increase the pressure drag on the body.
Two commonly used boundary layer properties are the displacement thickness o
-
and the
momentum thickness u, which can be calculated from equation (2.14) and (2.15).

(2.14)

(2.15)
Where y
1
is a point above the boundary layer. The displacement thickness can be thought of as
an index proportional to the missing mass flow due to the presence of the BL, but could also
be explained as the imaginary increase in wall thickness, as seen by the outer flow, due to the
effect of the growing boundary layer. The momentum thickness in an index that is proportional
to the decrement in momentum flow due to the presence of the BL. In other words, it is the
height of a hypothetical streamtube that contains the missing momentum flow at freestream
conditions (Andersson, 2007; Cengel & Cimbala, 2006).
11

Over the years a number of correlations have been derived for o,

o and u for both laminar and
turbulent flows over a flat plate. The most widely used correlations are shown in equations (2.16)
(2.21).
Laminar flow:

(2.16)

(2.17)

(2.18)
Turbulent flow:

(2.19)

(2.20)

(2.21)
Where x is a point along the plate and Re
x
the Reynolds number at that point.
Due to the large uncertainties associated with turbulent flow fields the turbulent flow correlations
are less exact than the correlations used for laminar flow and should therefore be treated as more
approximate solutions. They do however provide a good measure of comparison when
performing boundary layer calculations.

12

3 Method
To validate the local non-conformance definition for the bumps the work was split up into
several parts. First an investigation of the flow over a flat plate was conducted (reference case) to
visualize the boundary layers and to find the thickness at a position where the flow was fully
developed. This was done for Reynolds numbers ranging from 10
5
to 10
7
to see how the
thickness changed with Re.
Since the NC definition that VAC use is defined as a percentage of the boundary layer thickness
(BLT), bumps were created with a height of 10, 40, 60, 99 and 150 % of the BLTs found in the
flat plate simulations. This was done to see how the size and shape of the BL was affected by the
bumps. A correlation for the drag coefficient for the bumps was then derived based on the data
from the bump analysis.
Finally the boundary layers for representative vanes of a TRF were analyzed for both nominal
cases and with bumps so that VAC could be provided with recommended values for maximum
allowed bump sizes on the vanes. The correlation derived from the flat plate simulations was
then tested on some of the bump cases to see how well it predicted the drag coefficient.
3.1 Simulation approach
A similar approach was used during all the simulations to standardize the work. All the flat plate
simulations were very much alike, apart from slight geometry changes and boundary conditions,
which made it possible to keep a lot of things constant during the process.
For each case the steps below were followed.
1. Create the geometry.
2. Create the computational grid. Depending on the inlet boundary condition used in step 3,
modify the distance from the wall to the first node.
3. Define the simulation case with appropriate boundary conditions and simulation settings.
4. Run the calculations. Monitor convergence of the residuals and domain imbalances until
the monitored parameters can be considered to be low enough and steady.
5. Check if the y
+
value fulfills the criteria demanded by the turbulence model. If it does,
continue to step 6, otherwise repeat step 2-5.
6. Post-process the results.
More details about each step are presented in the subsequent section.

13

3.1.1 Software and simulations settings
Due to the simple geometry of a flat plate it was constructed in the geometry builder of the
meshing software ANSYS ICEM 12.1. The bumps that were to be placed on the flat plate were
created in MATLAB and then imported as formatted point data files into ICEM. All the mesh
generation was then done with ICEM.
The solver chosen was the commercial software package ANSYS CFX 12.1 where CFX-Pre was
used for defining the simulations and CFX-Solver for running them. In CFX-Pre the simulations
were set up as steady and incompressible and run with the k-e SST turbulence model. For
calculating the advection terms in the discrete finite volume equations as well as the turbulence
numerics, 2
nd
order high resolution schemes were utilized. Since the boundary layers were
studied in detail it was important to use a turbulence model that could utilize a fine mesh and
calculate well close to the walls. Hence the k-e SST model was chosen because of it advantages
compared to the k-c model when it comes to wall treatment for complex geometries and its
conservative separation prediction.
The post-processing was carried out in several programs. CFX-Post was mainly used for
exporting data from the CFD-simulations for the BL and drag coefficient calculations. MATLAB
was utilized to deal with the large amount of data needed to calculate the boundary layer
thickness and doing the BL calculations. Microsoft Excel was used for evaluating all the data
relevant to the drag coefficient as well as deriving the correlation.

14

3.2 Flat plate
The flat plate case was divided into two parts. A reference study and a bump study. The
reference case is presented first since it lays the foundation for the bump study.
All the simulations were made in 2D for simplicity. Since CFX is a 3D-solver it cant work with
2D geometries unless they are converted to 3D. To solve this problem the computational grids
were saved as FLUENT 2D files in ICEM and then extruded with a thickness of 1 element when
imported into CFX (ANSYS Inc, Modeling 2D Problems, 2009).
3.2.1 Reference case
3.2.1.1 Geometry
The geometry for the reference case (Figure 4) was shaped as a rectangle with a height of ten
meters and a length of twenty-five meters, where the bottom side represents the plate and the left
and right hand side where the air would flow through. The large size of the domain was chosen
to allow for the flow to fully develop, the boundary layer to build up and to avoid blockage in the
domain so that the pressure in the free-stream would remain constant. The distances in Figure 4
are not according to scale and are exaggerated to better illustrate the geometry.

3.2.1.2 Mesh
All the computational grids (meshes) were created as structured grids, which made it easy to
adjust the amount of cells in the domain. When defining the edge parameters of the meshes a
hyperbolic mesh law was used, in accordance with recommendations from VAC, with a growth
factor of between 1.1 and 1.2. This has been proven to be an effective method since it gives a
good transition between the cells and avoids large sudden changes in cell size, thus providing a
high quality mesh. It also made it possible to coarsen the grid far away from the plate where the
flow where of less importance.
Length = 25 m
Width = 1 element
OUTLET
TOP WALL
INLET
Height = 10 m
BOTTOM WALL FRONT WALL
BACK WALL
Flow direction
Figure 4: Reference case geometry: flat plate.
15

Figure 5: Initial 2D-mesh for the reference case.
3.2.1.3 Boundary conditions
- The leftmost side in Figure 5 was set as an inlet with a velocity V
in
depending on the
Reynolds number Re
L
wanted at a location of x = 19 meters (Table 2). VACs applications
arent restricted to just one Re so it was important to study how the BL changed with an
increasing value, but also to be able to find a correlation that would work for a wide
range of Re. The inlet velocity was calculated from equation (3.1).

L V
L
Re (3.1)
Table 2: Inlet velocities for different Reynolds numbers.
Re
L
V
in
[m/s]
100000 0.081
250000 0.203
500000 0.407
750000 0.610
1000000 0.813
2000000 1.627
4000000 3.253
6000000 4.880
8000000 6.506
10000000 8.132

- The bottom side of the geometry was given the appearance of a plate by setting it as a
wall with a no-slip boundary condition.
- The top side of the domain was set as a wall with a free-slip condition.
- The two walls in the cross-flow direction (Figure 4) were both given a symmetry
boundary condition (ANSYS Inc, Modeling 2D Problems, 2009).
- For the rightmost side of the domain an outlet boundary condition was set with an
average static pressure of zero Pascal over the whole outlet.
x
y
INLET
WALL
OUTLET
WALL
16

3.2.1.4 Mesh dependency
To be certain that the simulation results were independent of the grid size a mesh dependency
study was performed on the reference case. An initial resolution of 75000 cells was created and
then multiplied by a factor of 2, 3 and 4 to get four different meshes. Simulations were then run
for all four cases at Re = 10
6
and variables such as pressure loss P
loss
(equation (3.2)) and drag
coefficient C
d
(equation (3.3), where A
p
is the area of the plate as seen from the y-direction) were
monitored. The results can be seen in Table 3.

100
.
, 0 , 0
=
in dyn
out in
loss
P
P P
P
(3.2)

p in
x
d
A V
F
C
2
2
1
=
(3.3)

Table 3: Pressure loss and drag coefficients for the grids.
Mesh Cells Measured y
+
P
loss
[%] C
d
[10
-3
]
Initial (x1) 75000 <1 1.24741 4.23522
Mid-size (x2) 150000 <1 1.24735 4.23499
Refined (x3) 225000 <1 1.24734 4.23495
Extra Refined (x4) 300000 <1 1.24734 4.23493

Because of the small differences between the grids, it was possible to use the initial grid for the
reference simulations.
3.2.2 Bumps
3.2.2.1 Geometry
The shape of the bumps was chosen as a standard cosine curve (Figure 6), which is a good
approximation of the normal shape of a bump or weld in the flow direction. The cosine curve
data was exported from MATLAB, changed to a formatted point data file, and then imported into
ICEM where its coordinate system was matched to that of the flat plate and the bump moved to
its intended position at x = 19 meters (Figure 7).

Figure 6: Standard bump (h/L = 0.318).
L
h
17

Figure 7: Flat plate with bump.
The shape of the bumps in the flow direction was also of interest since a larger height to length
ration is more prone to cause separation and increase the amount of pressure drag. Therefore two
more types of bumps were investigated, one with double the length and one with half the length
of the standard model (Figure 8 and Figure 9).

Figure 8: Wide bump (h/L = 0.159).

Figure 9: Aggressive bump (h/L = 0.637).
3.2.2.2 Mesh
All the meshes were created in the same way as the reference case with the exception that they
were refined around the bumps. This was done to avoid sharp edges around the bumps and
improve the transition between the cells in this area (Figure 10 and Figure 11). Since the y
+
value
is dependent on the wall shear and the friction velocity (equation (2.11)), the distance to the first
node from the plate was adjusted in all cases to ensure a value less than one.
x
y
L
h
L
h
18

Figure 10: Flat plate with a bump.

Figure 11: Close-up on a bump.
3.2.2.3 Mesh dependency
Four different grids were created to be certain that the grid size chosen during all simulations
was independent of the resolution. As previously, two variables were monitored and compared
(P
loss
and C
d
), and the mesh study was done with a Reynolds number of 10
6
and a bump height of
40 % of the boundary layer thickness. The results can be seen in Table 4.
Table 4: Pressure loss and drag coefficient for the four grids.
Mesh Cells (approx.) Measured y
+
P
loss
[%] C
d

Initial (x1) 75000 <1 1.78852 0.20505
Mid-size (x2) 150000 <1 1.82145 0.21790
Refined (x3) 225000 <1 1.82702 0.22026
Extra Refined (x4) 300000 <1 1.82855 0.22067

Comparing the variation in pressure loss and drag coefficient between the four cases shows that
at a factor of 3 the grid is fine enough to be considered mesh independent. Because of this, the
number of cells aimed at during the mesh creation was approximately 225000.

19

3.2.3 Finding a correlation for C
d

For VAC it is of great interest to find a correlation between the drag coefficient of the bumps, the
Re and the bump height in relation to the boundary layer thickness.
For the reference case the drag is almost completely consisting of frictional drag while for the
bumps its mainly due to pressure. By subtracting the force in the x-direction of the reference
case from the bump case it is possible to find the additional force on the plate due to the presence
of the bumps (equation (3.4)).

(3.4)

It is then possible to calculate the drag coefficient for all bumps in the whole span of Re using
equation (3.5), taken from Andersson (2007),

(3.5)

where the normalization area A
b
is the frontal area of the bumps, calculated from h w A
b
=
where w is the width of the bump in the cross-flow direction (1 mm for the flat plate) and h the
bump height.
Plotting these values against the bump height in relation to the BLT h/o
99
for each Re yields ten
logarithmically shaped curves. It is then assumed that the correlation for the drag coefficient can
be written in the following form,

(3.6)

where a and b are functions of Re and x of h/o
99
. Excel is then used to find values for a and b that
minimize the error between equation (3.6) and the simulations. The results can be seen in chapter
4.1.3.

20

3.3 Real geometry
The real geometries used for studying the boundary layer thickness were the vanes from a
representative TRF (both a regular and a mount vane). The simulation results were all supplied
by VAC so no simulations were performed.
Two geometries were investigated, and each with a set of non-conformances. Initially the BLT,
displacement boundary thickness (DBT) and momentum boundary thickness (MBT) were
calculated at 50 % span (with the method presented in the next chapter) for nominal cases
without geometry defects, for both the suction and pressure side. The most critical location to
have a non-conformance is on is the suction peak, so by finding the boundary layer thickness in
that position makes it possible to decide where in the boundary layer the investigated bumps
were positioned. Five bumps were studied on the regular vane SS, three on the mount vane SS
and finally five bumps on the mount vane PS.
An aerodynamic study of non-conformances on a TRF done by VAC in 2009, where the pressure
losses and the swirl angles had been investigated for the bumps mentioned above, were used for
analyzing the results from the real geometry bump study. Comparisons were done between the
results from the real geometry study and the flat plate study to see if the boundary layer was
affected in a similar way on the vane as it was on the flat plate.
Figure 12 and Figure 13 below shows the nominal vanes and Figure 14 and Figure 15 two of the
geometry defects studied.

Figure 12: Nominal regular vane.

Figure 13: Nominal mount vane.

21

Figure 14: Regular vane with 5 mm bump on SS.

Figure 15: Mount vane with 5 mm bump on PS.

3.3.1 Testing the correlation
The correlation derived from the flat plate simulations was tested on the bumps of the
representative geometries to see if the correlation could be used on real geometries.
Hundreds of bump simulations have been conducted at the aerothermodynamics department on
geometries similar to the one analyzed in this project. From these simulations, C
d
values have
been calculated using a method based on force equilibrium for a control volume, resulting in an
equation on the following form.

(3.7)
Where ) / cos(
tan , x in per in
v v A A = is the domain inlet area perpendicular to the flow, h w A
b
= is
the front area of the bump,
out in
P P P
, 0 , 0
= A is the pressure difference between the inlet and
outlet of the domain and P
dyn
the maximum dynamic pressure in the zone on the vane where the
bump is located.
It was therefore expected that the correlation results would be of similar magnitude as the C
d

value calculated for bumps at the department, which is 0.25 on the suction side of separation free
vanes.
22

3.4 Boundary layers
Calculating the boundary layer thickness from the simulation data is a quite challenging task
since there is no built-in function or general method available for doing this in CFX. Because of
this a method had to be developed for doing the following,
- Create lines normal to the surface of interest in CFX.
- Export the velocity profile along the lines together with position.
- Use MATLAB to find where

= 0.99u u and do the integration that yields the
displacement and momentum thicknesses.
3.4.1 Flat plate
Creating lines normal to the flat plate is an easy process due to the fact that they are only
depending on the position along the plate (x-direction) and the normal to the surface (y-
direction). However, since a lot of lines had to be created for a wide span of Reynolds numbers
the process was simplified by creating a script for CFX-Post (Appendix 7.5). In addition to
creating the lines the script exports data for position, static pressure and total pressure along each
line to a file, to be used in the post-processing in MATLAB.
To get comparative results between the flat plate and the real geometries the same method for
calculating the velocity was used. Since the stream situation for the real geometries (vanes) lack
free stream conditions the isentropic velocities along the lines had to be calculated for both cases
(flat plate and vanes) using equation (3.8).

(3.8)

Where equation (3.8) originates from Bernoullis equation.

(3.9)
A script was constructed in MATLAB (Appendix 7.6) for post processing all the data from the
flat plate simulations. The script calculates the DBT and MBT and gives an approximate value
for the BLT at each line along the plate and then plots the data to visualize the shape of the
layers. By doing this it was possible to extract the BLT at x = 19 meters for the whole range of
Re
L
.
The same procedure used for the reference case was also used for the case with bumps. In
MATLAB it is then easy to compare the differences and see how the shape and size of the
boundary layer were affected by the bumps, depending on their height in relation to the reference
thickness.

23

3.4.2 Real geometry
To be able to validate the results from the flat plate simulations it was important to calculate the
boundary layer thicknesses for a real geometry. This was done in a similar way as for the flat
plate but with some large modifications to CFX script.
Creating lines normal to the surface for a curved 3D model involves a lot of additional steps
compared to a straight model that only depends on x- and y-coordinates. The following method
was therefore developed,
- At the span of interest, create a surface around the vane and export data for x-, y-, z-
coordinates as well as the normal directions.
- Use the coordinates and normal directions for creating planes normal to the surface along
the vane. Transform the normals in the following way, depending on whether the SS or
PS is of interest,
SS:

PS:

- Create a contour on each plane with enough levels that one level lands on top of the span
chosen. Then create a polyline along that level and export the coordinates.
- Use the coordinates from the polyline to create a regular line spanning from the vane
surface to half the length of the polyline. This to be able to choose the length of the line
and the amount of data points, options that are not available for polylines.
- Export the data required to calculate the BLT, DBT and MBT in MATLAB, i.e.
coordinates, static pressure and total pressure.
The simulation results for the real geometry cases were supplied by VAC and had been run in
FLUENT and a variable for total pressure was missing when imported into CFX-Post. To solve
this problem a user defined variable was created from equation (3.10).

(3.10)

The equation comes from Andersson (2007) and is used since the flow over the vane is
compressible. The script created for the representative vanes can be seen in Appendix 7.5.
The MATLAB code only required some slight modifications to how the length to each point
along the lines were calculated as well as the method of finding the maximum velocity
(Appendix 7.6).

24

4 Results and discussion
In this chapter the results from the different phases of the project is presented and discussed. It
also contains a discussion about the methods used, the choice of turbulence model and some
recommendations.
4.1 Flat plate
This section deals with the results from the flat plate and flat plate with bump simulations. For
both cases the results were compared to the equations for ideal laminar and ideal turbulent flow
presented in the theory chapter. Table 5 summarizes all the simulations done on the flat plate (S
= Standard, A = Aggressive, W = Wide, Ref = Reference). The five heights depicted in Table 5
were chosen since it was of interest to study the upper and lower limit of the non-conformance
definition (Table 1) as well as values above the upper limit and values between the two limits.
Table 5: Flat plate simulation summary.
Summary
Scale factor
1.5 0.99 0.6 0.4 0.1 -
Re
L
S A W S A W S A W S A W S A W Ref
100000 x - - x - - x - - x x x x - - x
250000 x - - x - - x - - x x x - - - x
500000 x - - x - - x - - x x x - - - x
750000 x - - x - - x - - x x x - - - x
1000000 x - - x - - x - - x x x x - - x
2000000 x - - x - - x - - x x x - - - x
4000000 x - - x - - x - - x x x - - - x
6000000 x - - x - - x - - x x x - - - x
8000000 x - - x - - x - - x x x - - - x
10000000 x - - x - - x - - x x x x - - x

As was mentioned in the method chapter it was of great importance to calculate the BLT, DBT
and MBT for a flat plate at a wide range of Re. It was believed that by doing so the effect of a
bump on the BL could be seen and that the results would correlate well with those for a real
geometry. The reason for choosing a flat plate as reference is because it is good for developing a
basic understanding of how the boundary layer develops along a surface and it is known to be a
fairly good approximation for many applications, such as airfoils. Even though the flow over a
vane will differ due to increasing/decreasing pressure gradients and depending on if observing
the SS or PS, the flat plate will show a similar behavior and will aid in the understanding of the
BL development over the vane.
4.1.1 Reference case
Following the method for calculating the BLT for the flat plate yielded the results shown in
Figure 16. The line at the top of the graph is the lowest Re (10
5
) and the bottom one the highest
(10
7
) and as was mentioned earlier they all correspond to a Re at 19 meters in the flow direction.
What is seen is how the boundary layer builds up along the plate and it can be observed that as
25

the Re increases the boundary layer thickness decreases. This was of course expected since the
BLT is inversely proportional to the Reynolds number. However, what wasnt expected was that
no transition between laminar and turbulent could be seen for either case, since it was anticipated
that the BLT for the lower Re would correlate quite well with equation (2.16) for laminar flows
and that the higher Re would do the same with the 1/7
th
power law from Schlichting (1979),
equation (2.19). By looking at some of the BLTs individually it can be observed that they deviate
from these correlations (Figure 17). The exempt is the first portion of the boundary layer for the
lowest Re (Figure 17a) which matches quite well with equation (2.16), and the highest Re
(Figure 17d) that almost match with the power law. The left-out cases can be seen in Appendix
7.1.

Figure 16: Boundary layer thickness for the reference case.

a) Re = 10
5
.

b) Re = 7.5*10
5
.
26

c) Re = 2*10
6
.

d) Re = 10
7
.
Figure 17: Boundary layer thickness at the four Reynolds numbers a) 10
5
b) 7.5*10
5
c) 2*10
6
d) 10
7
.
A small investigation was done to answer the question as to why the transition from laminar to
turbulent couldnt be seen in the flat plate results. It was expected that by calculating the drag
coefficient C
d
(equation (3.3)) for each case and plotting it against the respective Reynolds
number would yield results (Figure 18) that could be compared to the theory of a flat plate, and
that this would give some insight into the source of the error.

Figure 18: Skin-friction drag coefficient for the flat plate.
Comparing the results with Figure 19 from chapter 2-6 in Hoerner (1965) strongly indicated that
the flow over the flat plate was a forced turbulence flow and not a developing flow. After
studying the user manual for CFX in more depth these results could be confirmed, as the
turbulence model in CFX models fully turbulent flow, which wasnt realized from the start.
Because of this the BLTs for low Re (below 750000) will be somewhat thicker than what they
should be. However, since VAC most often deal with Re larger than this the deviation for low
values were of less importance.
0.001
0.01
1E+04 1E+05 1E+06 1E+07 1E+08 1E+09 1E+10
C
d
Re
L
27

Figure 19: Skin-friction drag coefficient for a smooth plane surface depending on Reynolds number.
Looking at the DBT and MBT for each case shows that they match very well with the correlation
for an ideal turbulent flat plate (equation (2.20) and (2.21). The reason for this is considered to be
that the method used for calculating both the DBT and MBT is much more robust and accurate
than the approximate method used for finding the BLT. Looking at these thicknesses is therefore
a good addition when studying the boundary layer for checking that the simulation results are
correct. Figure 20 below shows the DBT and MBT for the three Reynolds numbers 7.5*10
5
(a
and b), 2*10
6
(c and d) and 10
7
(e and f) and the rest are shown in Appendix 7.1.

a) Re = 7.5*10
5

b) Re = 7.5*10
5

28

c) Re = 2*10
6

d) Re = 2*10
6

e) Re = 10
7

f) Re = 10
7

Figure 20: Displacement and momentum thickness for three reference cases.
The boundary layer thickness associated with each Reynolds number at x = 19 meters can be
seen in Table 6. This data was the base for determining the height of the bumps for the different
scale factors (h/o
99
).

29

Table 6: BLT for all Reynolds numbers.
Re
L
BL thickness [mm]
100000 471.571
250000 394.648
500000 354.515
750000 331.103
1000000 317.725
2000000 287.625
4000000 260.869
6000000 250.836
8000000 240.803
10000000 237.458
4.1.2 Bumps
As mentioned earlier three types of bumps were created. Initially a standard cosine shaped bump
was studied for the whole Re range and for all five heights. After this an aggressive and a wide
bump was simulated for all Reynolds numbers at a height of 40 % to see how the shape of the
non-conformance in the flow direction would affect the BL. First the results for the standard
cosine bumps are presented.
Utilizing the results from Table 6 the five bump heights could be determined for all Re (Table 7).
The five heights of interest were 10 %, 40 %, 60 %, 99 % and 150 % of the BLT.
Table 7: The five bump heights (in mm) that were to be created for each Reynolds number.

Scale factor
Re
L
1.5 0.99 0.6 0.4 0.1
100000 707.357 466.856 282.943 188.629 47.157
250000 591.973 390.702 236.789 157.860 39.465
500000 531.772 350.970 212.709 141.806 35.452
750000 496.655 327.792 198.662 132.441 33.110
1000000 476.588 314.548 190.635 127.090 31.773
2000000 431.438 284.749 172.575 115.050 28.763
4000000 391.304 258.261 156.522 104.348 26.087
6000000 376.254 248.328 150.502 100.334 25.084
8000000 361.204 238.394 144.482 96.321 24.080
10000000 356.187 235.083 142.475 94.983 23.746

The first height to be tested was 10 %, which was the lower limit of the non-conformance
definition as was mentioned in the introduction. It was expected that these bumps would have
little or no effect on the flow and therefore only three Re (10
5
, 10
6
and 10
7
) were initially
simulated. If this was proven to be true then it would be unnecessary to do any further
simulations for that height, which would then save a lot of computational time. Utilizing the
scripts (Appendix 7.5 and 7.6) on the simulation data the following results were found.
30

Figure 21: Boundary layer thickness for the 10 % case compared to the reference case.

Figure 22: Velocity contours for a 10 % bump at Re = 10
6
.
Figure 21 and Figure 22 clearly shows that a bump that is placed at 10 % of the boundary layer
thickness have an insignificant effect on the size and shape of the BL in the region behind the
bump, regardless of the Reynolds number. Figure 21 shows that the BL stabilizes at the same
thickness as the reference case almost immediately after the bump. The definition that VAC uses
to define when the size has a negligible effect on aero parameters (Table 1) is therefore valid.
Looking at the MBT and DBT for the 10 % case gave the same results as for the BLT, a
negligible effect on the thickness. These results are shown in Appendix 7.2.
31

The second height simulated was 40 %. An initial simulation for a Reynolds number of 10
6
indicated that a difference in BLT compared to the reference case existed. That gave a clear
indication that all heights larger than this would have an impact on the BLT and hence the whole
range of Re were simulated for each remaining case. In the figures below the four lowest
Reynolds numbers have been left out to make it easier for the reader to view the results. They
have instead been included in Appendix 7.2. The reference cases have been included in the
graphs to visualize the increase in thickness better.

a) 40 %.

b) 60 %.

c) 99 %.

d) 150 %.
Figure 23: BLT with bumps at height a) 40 % b) 60 % c) 99 % d) 150 %.
As can be seen in Figure 23 a c, the boundary layer stabilizes before reaching the outlet for all
cases and it is quite straightforward to see how much the boundary layers have been affected by
the bumps. For the 150 % case (Figure 23d) it nearly stabilizes for the highest Reynolds number
but for the remainder the domain is too short to make this possible. This indicates that the BL
would need a substantial distance behind the bumps to stabilize themselves. If the domain was to
be extended around 10 meters or so it would probably be enough to solve this problem. It should
therefore be noted that the BLT values at the outlet for this height is somewhat larger than what
they should be.
32

In Figure 24 the velocity contours can be seen for the four bump heights at a fixed Re. The dark
blue color in the figures represents negative velocity, i.e. separated flow and its easy to see that
the two largest bump heights (99 % and 150 %) induce a large separated region behind them.

a) 40 %.

b) 60 %.

c) 99 %.

d) 150 %.
Figure 24: Velocity contours for standard bumps at a) 40 %, b) 60 %, c) 99 % and d) 150 % of the BLT at Re = 10
6
.
By comparing the BLT for each bump with the corresponding reference case it was possible to
calculate the increased thickness due to the presence of the bumps. The results presented in Table
8 are shown as an increase from the reference case (i.e. a 20 % increase is the same as a 20 %
thicker boundary layer than the reference case) and values at the domain outlet are used.

33

Table 8: Percentile increase in boundary layer thickness due to the bumps.
BLT increase Scale factor
Re
L
0.4 0.6 0.99 1.5
100000 5.8 18.0 48.0 129.5
250000 8.3 19.3 54.8 125.1
500000 9.0 21.2 57.2 124.4
750000 8.1 20.0 55.6 118.1
1000000 9.8 20.2 50.6 109.1
2000000 12.8 25.4 61.1 114.1
4000000 15.2 29.2 62.1 112.8
6000000 13.6 28.0 60.6 108.9
8000000 13.4 28.2 60.6 107.8
10000000 12.4 26.2 54.0 92.8
Average increase [%] 10.8 23.6 56.5 114.3

From the results presented in the table it can be seen that for the lowest scale factor the average
increase in boundary layer thickness is only about 11 %, which indicates that the bump has a
small impact on the BL but not small enough to be considered unimportant. Its interesting to see
that the increase rises about 50 % between each scale factor, which could indicate that it follows
some sort of power law and that a correlation might be possible to derive from the results. The
large increase in thickness due to the bumps with a size close to or above the BLT tells us that
they will have a large effect on the aero parameters. A large increase of the thicknesses (BLT,
DBT and MBT) will have the unfortunate effect of changing the geometrys effective shape and
hence reduce the circulation and lift. It will also be highly prone to cause separation on the vane
and give rise to a high pressure drag, consequently increasing the total drag on the vane.
The aggressive and the wide bumps were studied at a height of 40 % and for the full range of Re.
The reason for not analyzing the rest of the bump sizes was because it was assumed that they
would follow the same trend as the standard cosine bumps. In Figure 25 and Figure 26 the BLT
for three Reynolds numbers (10
5
, 10
6
and 10
7
) are shown for the two bump types and the
displacement and momentum boundary thicknesses in Appendix 7.2.

34

a) Boundary layer thickness for aggressive bumps at 40 %.

b) Velocity contours, Re = 10
6
.
Figure 25: Aggressive bump at 40 % showing a) BLT for three Re compared with the reference case and the standard
bump b) Velocity contours for Re = 10
6
.

a) Boundary layer thickness for wide bumps at 40 %.

b) Velocity contours, Re = 10
6
.
Figure 26: Wide bump at 40 % showing a) BLT for three Re compared with the reference case and the standard bump
b) Velocity contours for Re = 10
6
.
Comparing the figures shows that the wide bump affects the shape and size on the boundary
layer less than the aggressive one does, and in Table 9 we can see that the wide bump has a very
small increase in BLT compared to the reference case. The aggressive bump however shows
tendencies towards the 60 % case for the standard bumps. The velocity contours tells us that the
separated region behind the bumps is noticeably larger for the aggressive bump. We can
therefore assume that the wide bumps will have a smaller impact on the aero parameters
compared to the standard case and that the aggressive one will have a larger impact.
Table 9: Percentile increase in boundary layer thickness for the aggressive and wide bumps.
BLT increase Scale factor = 0.4
Re
L
Aggressive Standard Wide
100000 9.4 5.8 5.1
1000000 11.9 9.8 4.6
10000000 17.9 12.4 5.4

35

4.1.3 Drag coefficient
Below follows the results from the derivation of the correlation for the drag coefficient. First the
results from the simulation data is presented and then the corresponding correlation. The
correlation has been derived from the simulation data for the standard cosine bump.
4.1.3.1 Simulations
4.1.3.1.1 Standard bump
Using equation (3.4) from the method chapter it was possible to calculate the force induced by
the bumps in the flow direction. This data was then used in equation (3.5) and normalized with
the height of the bumps to find a corresponding drag coefficient for each bump height and Re.
The tables containing the calculated drag coefficients are shown in Appendix 7.3. By plotting the
C
d
for each Re against the scale factor h/o
99
it was possible to see the correlation between the
variables (Figure 27).

Figure 27: Relation between the drag coefficient and the scale factor based on simulation results.
It is clear that the curves in the figure follow a logarithmic shape and that a logarithmic function
can be derived from the data, as was mentioned in the method chapter. More about this in
chapter 4.1.3.2.

0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
d
h/o
99
10^5
2,5*10^5
5*10^5
7,5*10^5
10^6
2*10^6
4*10^6
6*10^6
8*10^6
10^7
36

4.1.3.1.2 Aggressive and wide bumps
Since the aggressive and wide bumps were only evaluated at 40 % of the BLT they were
compared the 40 % case for the standard bump and plotted against the Re.

Figure 28: Drag coefficient depending on Re for aggressive, wide and standard bumps with height 40 %.
In Figure 28 we can see that the aggressive bump follows the same trend as the standard bump
with the exception that the drag coefficient is higher due to the increase in pressure drag. The C
d

for the wide bump on the other hand starts to decline somewhat for Re higher than 10
6
. The
shape and magnitude of the curves can be related to the height to length ratio of the bumps h/L,
where a higher h/L value will increase the amount of pressure drag and hence increase the drag
coefficient, while a lower value will decrease the drag coefficient.
The results from comparing the increase/decrease in C
d
for the aggressive and wide bumps with
the standard bump can be seen in Table 10.
Table 10: Percentile difference in C
d
for aggressive and wide bumps compared to the standard bump, for the sim. data.
Difference Scale factor = 0.4
Re
L
Aggressive bump Wide bump
100000 18.82 -27.84
250000 22.85 -31.86
500000 25.54 -33.81
750000 25.99 -35.15
1000000 23.42 -37.07
2000000 26.62 -41.50
4000000 28.81 -47.20
6000000 30.78 -50.85
8000000 30.95 -52.95
10000000 31.68 -56.07
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 5000000 10000000
C
d
Re
Standard
Aggressive
Wide
37

Clearly, there are large differences between the bumps, with an average increase in C
d
of 27 %
for the aggressive and a 41 % decrease for the wide compared to the standard bump.
4.1.3.2 Correlation
Following the results in Figure 27 it was assumed that the correlation would have the form
presented in the method chapter (equation (3.6)). By using the simulation results from the
standard cosine bump study it was possible to find values for the coefficients a and b in equation
(3.6). The solver in Excel was used for guessing values of a and b that minimized the error
between the correlation and the simulation results. The results are presented in Table 11.
Table 11: The a and b coefficients for each Reynolds number.

Coefficients
Re
L
a b
100000 0.455424553 0.252791285
250000 0.454860716 0.221292917
500000 0.461813834 0.195293037
750000 0.462009399 0.179833327
1000000 0.471259180 0.163746198
2000000 0.460685200 0.137872449
4000000 0.452094966 0.121280189
6000000 0.444300587 0.112079976
8000000 0.436480399 0.106156106
10000000 0.435992571 0.089439931

It was sought after to find coefficients depending on the Reynolds number, hence a and b were
plotted against the Reynolds number to find suitable values (Figure 29 and Figure 30).

Figure 29: a as a function of Re.
y = -3E-09x + 0.4628
0.43
0.44
0.45
0.46
0.47
0.48
0 5000000 10000000
f(Re)
Re
38

Figure 30: b as a function of Re.
Trendlines were then created in Figure 29 and Figure 30 to find correlations for a and b, and
when these were inserted into equation (3.6) it resulted in the following correlation for C
d
.

(4.1)

If we use this correlation with the bump heights and Re calculated for the flat plate it results in
the following figure.

Figure 31: Relation between the drag coefficient and the scale factor based on the derived correlation.
Selecting three of the Reynolds numbers (10
5
, 10
6
and 10
7
) in the figure and comparing them
with the corresponding simulation data shows us that the difference between the two is very
small (Figure 32) and that the correlation match the simulation data quite well.
y = -0.035ln(x) + 0.6475
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0 5000000 10000000
f(Re)
Re
0.200000
0.250000
0.300000
0.350000
0.400000
0.450000
0.500000
0.550000
0.600000
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
d
h/o
99
10^5
2,5*10^5
5*10^5
7,5*10^5
10^6
2*10^6
4*10^6
6*10^6
8*10^6
10^7
39

Figure 32: Comparison between correlation and simulation results for three Reynolds numbers.
Looking at these results even further we can see that the percentile difference between Figure 27
and Figure 31 is within 5 % (Table 12), which can be considered to be a quite good match.
Table 12: Percentile difference between the correlation and the simulation results.
Difference Scale factor
Re
L
0.4 0.6 0.99 1.5
100000 -5.58 3.46 2.52 -0.06
250000 1.49 3.42 3.51 0.65
500000 1.49 0.86 0.90 -0.64
750000 1.30 -0.10 -0.22 -0.75
1000000 -3.63 -2.86 -2.93 -2.12
2000000 0.20 -1.24 -1.58 -0.61
4000000 3.42 0.37 -0.60 -0.73
6000000 4.37 1.51 -0.12 -0.80
8000000 5.13 2.30 0.08 -0.78
10000000 0.67 -0.37 1.92 -1.20

The correlation is based on the simulation results from the standard cosine bump study. It will
therefore miss-predict the drag coefficient if used with aggressive or wide bumps since the
correlation is independent of the length in the flow direction. A more detailed analysis needs to
be carried out by e.g. finding a coefficient that the correlation can be multiplied with so that the
correlation can be used with bumps of different h/L.

0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
C
d
h/o
99
Sim. Re = 10^5
Sim. Re = 10^6
Sim. Re = 10^7
Corr. Re = 10^5
Corr. Re = 10^6
Corr. Re= 10^7
40

4.2 Real geometry
To see how the size and shape of the boundary layer was for a real geometry, the vanes of a
representative Turbine Rear Frame was investigated. As was mentioned in the method chapter,
two models were initially looked at, a nominal regular vane and nominal mount vane. The
modified scripts for CFX-Post and MATLAB were used on the simulation results to calculate the
BLT, DBT and MBT for both the SS and PS of the vanes, and also at different spans.
After this the results from a bump investigation on the suction side of the regular vane and
suction and pressure side on the mount vane are presented and discussed.
4.2.1 Nominal
The BL results for the regular and the mount vane on both the SS and PS can be seen in the
figures below (DBT and MBT in Appendix 7.4). It was assumed that the SS would have a
similar appearance as the flat plate, with the exception that the boundary layers would be thinner
before the suction peak due the increase in velocity and wider after the suction peak due to the
decrease in velocity. For the PS the BL were assumed to show a similar tendency, with the
exception of being thinner near the TE due to the shape of the geometry. It was also suspected
that the stagnation point at the LE would cause problem in the BL calculations, which later
turned out to be correct for some of the cases.

Figure 33: BLT for nominal regular vane, SS.

Figure 34: BLT for nominal regular vane, PS.

41

Figure 35: BLT for nominal mount vane, SS.

Figure 36: BLT for nominal mount vane, PS.

The figures presented above clearly go against what was initially assumed concerning the
boundary layer thickness for the region before the suction peak. The reason for this was unclear
at first but it was realized to be caused by compressible effects. The inlet velocity for the domain
is close to 260 m/s and at the vane it is even higher. In Figure 37 the Mach number is shown at
the mid-span of the regular vane and it is easy to see that the velocity is highly accelerated
around the vane.

Figure 37: Local Mach number around the mid-span of the regular vane.
The increasing temperature near the vane surface due to friction causes the boundary layer to
become thicker when the velocity increases (Chapter 13 and 23 in (Schlichting, 1979)). That is
why the BLT in Figure 33 - Figure 36 is thicker than suspected. The calculated boundary layer
thickness at 50 % span on the suction peak located at 30 % of the chord length can be seen in
Table 13. Also, since the bumps studied for the real geometries were positioned at approximately
90 % span the boundary layer was analyzed in this location and the thicknesses calculated at the
suction peak to see if it there was any difference between the two spans.
42

Table 13: Boundary layer thickness at the suction peak for the two nominal vanes.
BLT [mm] Case
Span Regular vane Mount vane
50 % 3.4 4.0
90 % 3.1 3.3

The reason that the boundary layer thickness is lower at 90 % span was assumed to be due to
different velocities at the suction peak along the vane. This could be confirmed by looking at the
static pressure contours (Figure 38) on both the regular and the mount vane, which also explains
why the boundary layer is somewhat thicker on the mount vane.

a) Regular vane, SS.

b) Mount vane, SS.
Figure 38: Static pressure contours on the a) regular vane b) mount vane.
4.2.2 Bumps
Table 14 shows a summary of the range of bump sizes that were part of the validation work for
the real geometries and also their location.
Table 14: Summary of all bump analyzed and their location.
Regular vane Mount vane
Height [mm] SS PS SS PS
1 x - x x
2 x - x x
3 x - x x
4 x - - x
5 x - - x

The graphs for the DBT and MBT from all cases are presented in Appendix 7.4 and shown next
are the results for the BLT, starting with the regular vane.

43

4.2.2.1 Regular vane
If we look at Figure 39 - Figure 42 we can see that the boundary layer calculations collapse in
the region behind the bump. Comparing these results with the pressure losses in VAC (2009) and
with the negative axial velocities in Figure 44 Figure 47, we can see large regions of separation
for all four heights. The code used in the boundary layer calculations therefore has large
problems with determining the thicknesses for highly separated regions. However, for the 3 mm
case there is a separation free region about halfway between the bump and the trailing edge of
the vane and for the 2 mm case the flow barely manages to reattach near the trailing edge, which
explains the spikes in Figure 41 and Figure 42 and gives some information of how much the
boundary layer thickness has increased due to the bumps.

Figure 39: Regular vane, SS, 5 mm. Figure 40: Regular vane, SS, 4 mm.

Figure 41: Regular vane, SS, 3 mm.


44


Figure 44: Regular vane, SS, 5 mm, separation.




45

The 1 mm case experiences a small separation behind the bump, but the effect in negligible on
the calculation method. The BLT is however affected at the end of the vane, with an increase of
about 80 % compared to the nominal case. For the 2 mm bump the increase is about 250 %
compared to the nominal case but the second result is unreliable due to the separated flow along
the vane. The 1 mm bump height is approximately 32 % of the BLT at the suction peak for the
nominal case, while for the 2 mm bump it is roughly 65 %. Since the 2 mm bump causes
separation that barely manages to reattach there seems to be a limit of what height can be
allowed on the regular vane of roughly 30 %, to be conservative. It is likely that bumps in the
range 30-60 % of the BLT can be allowed but this needs to be studied in more detail.
As can be noted from the results the percentile increase in boundary layer thickness in the region
behind the 1 and 2 mm bumps compared to nominal is much larger than for bumps located at the
same h/o
99
on the flat plate. The cause of this can be due to the shape of the vane being curved
and the adverse pressure gradients causing a more rapid increase in boundary layer thickness in
the region behind the bumps. Its possible that the boundary layer thicknesses from the flat plate
simulations are somewhat underestimated, seeing as the boundary layer thicknesses were
calculated to be thinner than the ideal turbulent boundary layer thicknesses calculated from the
theory. The impact would be that the bumps created and simulated on the flat plate would be in a
smaller percentile part of the BLT, which would imply that the real geometry bumps should be
compared to flat plate bumps located at a higher percentile part of the BLT rather than at the
same percentile part.
It is unlikely that the boundary layer would be affected by the 1 mm bump on the regular vane to
such a large extent compared to the mount vane (presented in the next chapter). Looking at the
increase in displacement boundary thickness (Figure 73e and Figure 74c in Appendix 7.4) and
momentum boundary thickness (Figure 76e and Figure 77c) compared to nominal for both 1 mm
bumps gives some insight into this problem. It can be seen in the figures that the thickness
increase is about the same for both bumps. This tells us that there must be some error in the
calculation method when used on the regular vane since there is such a large difference between
the increases in boundary layer thickness for the two cases. The code used when analyzing the
BLT on the vanes as well as the method in chapter 3.4.2 therefore needs to be investigated
further.
4.2.2.2 Mount vane
It was found that the mount sector is more sensitive to NC since the 3 mm bump (Figure 52)
shows a separated region that is larger than the separation observed for the 5 mm bump on the
regular vane. It was therefore decided not to analyze 4 and 5 mm bump heights. The analysis on
the simulations results from the mount vanes suction side was therefore done for three bump
heights (1, 2 and 3 mm).
46

Figure 49. Mount vane, SS, 3 mm.

Figure 50: Mount vane, SS, 2 mm.

Figure 51: Mount vane, SS, 1 mm.

Clearly the boundary layer calculation falters for the 3 and 2 mm defects while its just slightly
affected by the 1 mm bump. Again, comparing the results with the negative axial velocities
(Figure 52 and Figure 53) gives a clearer image as to what happens in the flow.

Figure 52: Mount vane, SS, 3 mm, separation.

47

There is a large difference in separated flow between the 2 and 3 mm cases and the
corresponding results for the same bump heights on the regular vane (Figure 46 and Figure 47).
This further strengthens the conclusions from VAC (2009) that the mount vanes are much more
sensitive to non-conformances. For the 1 mm case the separation is restricted to a few small
areas close to the trailing edge. These are present on the nominal mount vane as well and they
have a negligible effect on the calculations. The spikes in Figure 49 and Figure 50 are due to the
separated flow detaching from the surface behind the bump and then reattaching halfway to the
TE. The flow barely manages to reattach again at the TE for the 2 mm bump while for the 3 mm
bump it fails completely. Looking at the pressure losses from VAC (2009) for 1 and 2 mm shows
that there is a rapid increase in pressure loss between these two heights. It therefore seems as 2
mm bumps are too large to be allowed. The 1 mm bump is in this case approximately 30 % of
the BLT and the 2 mm bump 60 %. It is interesting to note that the percentile increase in
boundary layer thickness for the 1 mm case compared to nominal is just about 18 %, which is
more in line with the flat plate results, and especially the 60 % bump height results. The results
from the boundary layer calculations on the suction side of the mount sector gives an
approximate limit for what bump sizes can be allowed on the suction peak. Because of the mount
vanes sensitivity to non-conformances and due to the rapid increase in pressure loss between 1
mm and 2 mm bumps a height of approximately 30 % of the nominal BLT would be
recommended.
The pressure side on the mount vane was very insensitive to geometry defects and the boundary
layers stabilized before reaching the trailing edge for all five bump heights (Figure 55 - Figure
59). As can be seen in the figures the large bumps greatly increase the boundary layer just behind
the defects but it still manages to stabilize before the trailing edge. By looking at the negative
axial velocity on the vane with a 5 mm bump on it (Figure 60) shows that the flow over the vane
is separation free, with the exempt of a small region just behind the bump. It can therefore be
concluded that bump sizes of up to 5 mm can be allowed on the pressure side of the mount vane
since no visible effects on the aero parameters can be seen.
48

Figure 55: Mount vane, PS, 5 mm.






49

4.2.2.3 Testing the correlation
As was mentioned in the method chapter the correlation derived from the flat plate simulations
was tested on a representative geometry with bumps. The correlation needs the boundary layer
thickness, the bump height and the Reynolds number to be able to calculate the drag coefficient.
The boundary layer thickness was calculated on the suction peak at 90 % span for both the
regular and the mount vane in chapter 4.2.1. The Reynolds number based on the chord was then
calculated from equation (3.1) and from these results the Reynolds number at the suction peak
could be determined (Table 15).
Table 15: Reynolds number for the chord and at the suction peak at 90 % span for both regular and mount vanes.
Case Position Reynolds number
Reg vane Chord, 90 % Span = 0.203 m 3582117
Mount vane Chord, 90 % Span = 0.265 m 4693553
Reg vane, SP Chord, 90 % Span = 0.075 m 1325383
Mount vane, SP Chord, 90 % Span = 0.077 m 1361130

Knowing all the data necessary to utilize the correlation the drag coefficient was calculated for
the bumps on the suction side of the vanes.
Table 16: Drag coefficient for the real geometry bumps based on the correlation. Scale factor is included for comparison.
Case
Variable Regular Mount
Bump height [mm] 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
h/o
99
0.324 0.647 0.971 1.295 1.618 0.301 0.602 0.904
C
d
0.285 0.392 0.454 0.499 0.533 0.275 0.381 0.443

Considering that the drag coefficient calculated by the department based on all their simulation
results is 0.25, the results from the correlation shows quite good accuracy for the smallest bumps.
It should however be noted that their results comes from vanes with bumps that are separation
free. The only bumps analyzed here that are separation free are the 1 mm bumps on the regular
and the mount vane. Owing to the fact that the drag coefficients calculated for the bump sizes
above 1 mm are much larger than the ones calculated for the 1 mm bumps, and that no validation
data is available for these, a more thorough investigation needs to be performed on these bump
sizes using the force equilibrium method presented in the method chapter to be able to call the
correlation validated and accurate enough.
50

5 Conclusions
In this chapter the conclusions that can be drawn from the results of the different project parts are
presented. Also included are some recommendations for future work.
5.1 Validation of the defined borders
5.1.1 Flat plate
From the reference simulations done in CFX it was found that the flow over the flat plate was
that of a forced turbulence flow and not of a developing flow. This resulted in that the boundary
layer thickness for lower Reynolds numbers matched the ideal laminar results for a flat plate
from the theory quite poorly. For higher Reynolds numbers the thickness matched the ideal
turbulent flat plate results much better but the boundary layer thicknesses are somewhat thinner
than what they should be according to theory. It is therefore possible that the boundary layer
thicknesses are somewhat under-predicted. However, the displacement and momentum boundary
thicknesses matched the theory results very well and the method used for calculating those can
thus be considered more reliable. The transition model available in the SST turbulence model
would be interesting to use since it would enable one to simulate a developing flow and thus be
able to get a more accurate solution for low Reynolds numbers.
From the flat plate with bump simulations it was realized that the average increase in boundary
layer thickness in the region behind the standard cosine bumps is 11% for bumps with a height of
40 % of the reference boundary layer thickness, 24 % for bumps with a height of 60 %, 57 %
with a height of 99 % and 114 % with a bump height of 150 %. For aggressive bumps at 40 %
height the increase was approximately 13 % and for wide bumps 5 %. The 10 % bumps showed
a negligible effect on the boundary layer and the lower limit in Table 1 can thus be considered
accurate. However, based on the flat plate simulations the boundary layer increase is just above
10 % for bump heights of 40 % so the lower limit can be rectified.
5.1.2 Real geometry
The boundary layers on the suction side and pressure side of real geometries representative of
vanes in a turbine rear frame was analyzed both with and without bumps. The boundary layer
thickness at the suction peak was calculated to be 3.4 mm at 50 % span and 3.1 mm at 90 % span
on the regular vane along with 4 mm at 50 % span and 3.3 mm at 90 % span on the mount vane.
The code used for calculating the boundary layer thickness along the vanes had great difficulties
when highly separated regions were present, as was the case with bumps larger than 1 mm on
both vane types. For the 1 mm bumps the increase in boundary layer thickness in the region
behind the bumps was found to be approximately 80 % on the regular vane and 20 % on the
mount vane. The two 1 mm bumps height in relation to the boundary layer thickness was
determined to be 32 % for the regular vane 33 % for the mount vane based on the nominal
thicknesses. Comparing the increases in boundary layer thickness with the results from the flat
plate simulation shows tendencies that the 1 mm bump on the regular vane has a boundary layer
51

thickness increase similar to the 99 % height and above while the bump on the mount vane is
close to 60 %.
There is number of possible reasons for this. One of these are that the vane geometry is curved,
compared to the plate being flat and the flow is therefore subject to adverse pressure gradients in
the region behind the bump which will make the boundary layer grow faster and the flow more
likely to separate from the vane. Another reason is that the boundary layer thicknesses found in
the flat plate reference simulations are, as was mentioned earlier, somewhat under-predicted.
This would make the five h/o
99
cases in the flat plate study higher than what they truly are even
though their effect on the boundary layer thickness would be correct. It would therefore be
interesting and advantageous to analyze and modify the code used for calculating the boundary
layer thickness so that it would match the correlations from the flat plate theory better.
The boundary layer increase is very large for the 1 mm case on the regular vane, compared to the
mount vane. By looking at the increase in displacement and momentum boundary thickness
between these two cases it was found that they were of similar magnitude. For that reason, the
bumps should have a similar impact on the boundary layer and the increase found for the bump
on the regular vane therefore seems to be over-predicted. The regular vane needs to be analyzed
in more detail to find the cause of the large boundary layer increase and the code used for
calculating the boundary layer thickness needs to be developed further.
Due to the fact that the mount vane is more sensitive to bumps on the suction peak it is
recommended that the bumps allowed on the suction side are considerably lower than 2 mm,
preferably below 1.5 mm since a 2 mm bump shows a large separation near the trailing edge and
almost a doubling in pressure loss compared to the 1 mm bump. A 1.5 mm bump would
correspond to a h/o
99
of around 45 %. The pressure side is less sensitive to non-conformances
and bump heights of 5 mm has a negligible effect on the boundary layer and on the pressure loss.
On the regular vane the flow separates for 2 mm bumps but manages to reconnect at the trailing
edge. For bumps higher than this the flow doesnt reconnect and it is therefore recommended that
the bumps allowed on the suction side are below 2 mm, preferably in the range 30-50 % of the
boundary layer thickness. This limit does however need to be investigated further due to the
large uncertainties around the boundary layer calculations.

52

5.2 The correlation
The drag coefficient correlation derived from the flat plate simulations is more reliable than the
boundary layer calculations due to the fact that it is calculated using more robust methods. The
correlation is based on the simulation results from the standard cosine bumps and calculates the
drag coefficient with an error of 5 % between the correlation calculation and the CFD results,
when used with standard cosine bumps. It was realized that changing the height to length ratio
affected the drag coefficient results from the simulations with an approximate increase of 27 %
for aggressive bumps and a 41 % decrease for wide bumps at 40 % height. Therefore, in its
current state the correlation should be analyzed further and possibly multiplied by a coefficient,
depending on the height to length ratio of the bump analyzed, so that a new correlation can be
derived.
When using the correlation on the real geometry with bumps it was able to determine the drag
coefficient for 1 mm bumps on the suction side of the regular vane and on the mount vane with
quite good accuracy. The calculated drag coefficient for the 1 mm bumps was 0.285 on the
regular vane and 0.275 on the mount vane. These can be compared to the drag coefficient
calculated by the department of 0.25, which are based on a few hundred simulations on a similar
geometry. However, for larger bumps the correlation needs to be further validated seeing as the
drag coefficient increases rapidly with increasing bump height. It would therefore be interesting
to use the force equilibrium method mentioned in the method chapter to realize how well the
correlation predicts the drag coefficient for bumps larger than 1 mm. The correlation derived is
shown below.

53

6 References
Andersson, J. D. (2007). Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 1st international edition. McGraw-
Hill.
ANSYS Inc. (2009). Modeling 2D Problems. In CFX-Solver Modeling Guide. ANSYS Inc.
ANSYS Inc. (2009). Turbulence and Wall Function Theory. In CFX-Solver Theory Guide.
ANSYS Inc.
Cengel, Y. A., & Cimbala, J. M. (2006). Fluid Mechanics - Fundamentals and Applications, 1st
edition. McGraw-Hill.
Hoerner, S. F. (1965). Fluid-Dynamic Drag. Hoerner Fluid Dynamics.
Schlichting, H. (1979). Boundary-Layer Theory, 7th edition. McGraw-Hill Inc.
VAC. (2009). Aerodynamic study of non-conformances on a TRF. Volvo Aero Corporation.
Versteeg, H. K., & Malalasekera, W. (2007). An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics
- The Finite Volume Method, 2nd edition. Pearson Education Limited.

54

7 List of appendices

7.1 Reference case
7.2 Flat plate with bump
7.3 Correlation data
7.4 Real geometry
7.5 CFX Scripts
7.6 MATLAB code

55

7.1 Reference case
Boundary layer thickness

a) Re = 2.5*10
5
.

b) Re = 5*10
5
.

c) Re = 10
6
.

d) Re = 4*10
6
.

e) Re = 6*10
6
.

f) Re = 8*10
6
.
Figure 61: BLT for the reference case at Re = a) 2.5*10
5
, b) 5*10
5
, c) 10
6
, d) 4*10
6
, e) 6*10
6
and f) 8*10
6
.

56

Displacement boundary thickness

a) Re = 10
5
.

b) Re = 2.5*10
5
.

c) Re = 5*10
5
.

d) Re = 10
6
.

e) Re = 4*10
6
.

f) Re = 6*10
6
.
57

g) Re = 8*10
6
.

Figure 62: DBT for Re a) 10
5
, b) 2.5*10
5
, c) 5*10
5
, d) 10
6
, e) 4*10
6
, f) 6*10
6
and g) 8*10
6
.
Momentum boundary thickness

a) Re = 10
5
.

b) Re = 2.5*10
5
.

c) Re = 5*10
5
.

d) Re = 10
6
.
58

e) Re = 4*10
6
.

f) Re = 6*10
6
.

g) Re = 8*10
6
.

Figure 63: MBTfor Re a) 10
5
, b) 2.5*10
5
, c) 5*10
5
, d) 10
6
, e) 4*10
6
, f) 6*10
6
and g) 8*10
6
.

59

7.2 Flat plate with bump
Boundary layer thickness
Standard bump

a) 40 %.

b) 60 %.

c) 99 %.

d) 150 %
Figure 64: BLT for the four lowest Reynolds numbers with bump height a) 40 % b) 60 % c) 99 % d) 150 %.

60

Standard bump

a) 40 %.

b) 60 %.

c) 99 %.

d) 150 %.
Figure 65: Displacement boundary thickness for standard bumps with Re > 10
6
with height 40, 60, 99 and 150 %.

Figure 66: Displacement boundary thickness for standard bumps with height 10 %.
61

Aggressive bump

Figure 67: Displacement boundary thickness for aggressive bumps with height 40 %. (Reference included).
Wide bump

Figure 68: Displacement boundary thickness for wide bumps with height 40 % (Reference included).

62

Standard bump

a) 40 %.

b) 60 %.

c) 99 %.

d) 150 %.
Figure 69: Momentum boundary thickness for standard bumps with Re > 10
6
with height 40, 60, 99 and 150 %.

Figure 70: Momentum boundary thickness for bump height 10 %.

63

Aggressive bump

Figure 71: Momentum boundary thickness for aggressive bumps with height 40 %. (Reference included).
Wide bump

Figure 72: Displacement boundary thickness for aggressive bumps with height 40 %. (Reference included).

64

7.3 Correlation data

Table 17: Bump height (in mm) at x = 19 m for each Re
L
depending on the intended position in the reference BL.
Re
L

BLT
Ref.
[mm]
Bump size
150% 120% 99% 80% 60% 40% 30% 20% 10% 5%
100000 471.5 707.3 565.8 466.8 377.2 282.9 188.6 141.4 94.3 47.1 23.5
250000 394.6 591.9 473.5 390.7 315.7 236.7 157.8 118.3 78.9 39.4 19.7
500000 354.5 531.7 425.4 350.9 283.6 212.7 141.8 106.3 70.9 35.4 17.7
750000 331.1 496.6 397.3 327.7 264.8 198.6 132.4 99.3 66.2 33.1 16.5
1000000 317.7 476.5 381.2 314.5 254.1 190.6 127.0 95.3 63.5 31.7 15.8
2000000 287.6 431.4 345.1 284.7 230.1 172.5 115.0 86.2 57.5 28.7 14.3
4000000 260.8 391.3 313.0 258.2 208.6 156.5 104.3 78.2 52.1 26.0 13.0
6000000 250.8 376.2 301.0 248.3 200.6 150.5 100.3 75.2 50.1 25.0 12.5
8000000 240.8 361.2 288.9 238.3 192.6 144.4 96.32 72.2 48.1 24.0 12.0
10000000 237.4 356.1 284.9 235.0 189.9 142.4 94.98 71.2 47.4 23.7 11.8

Table 18: Drag coefficients calculated from the simulation data.
C
d
- Simulations Bump size
Re
L
40 % 60 % 99 % 150 %
100000 0.252523 0.326292 0.448712 0.562004
250000 0.263432 0.341819 0.444298 0.544685
500000 0.284602 0.362053 0.455332 0.541089
750000 0.297230 0.372024 0.459825 0.535102
1000000 0.321220 0.387126 0.471965 0.537653
2000000 0.328126 0.390292 0.462694 0.516588
4000000 0.333603 0.390398 0.452341 0.501270
6000000 0.337287 0.387222 0.444305 0.489745
8000000 0.337927 0.383388 0.437516 0.479523
10000000 0.354040 0.391675 0.423839 0.472258

65

Table 19: Drag coefficients calculated from the correlation.
C
d
- Correlations Scalefactor
Re
L
40 % 60 % 99 % 150 %
100000 0.238423 0.337579 0.460042 0.561656
250000 0.267359 0.353511 0.459915 0.548202
500000 0.288838 0.365154 0.459408 0.537616
750000 0.301092 0.371653 0.458801 0.531111
1000000 0.309568 0.376046 0.458152 0.526279
2000000 0.328797 0.385439 0.455396 0.513442
4000000 0.345026 0.391832 0.449640 0.497606
6000000 0.352030 0.393081 0.443782 0.485852
8000000 0.355256 0.392225 0.437884 0.475769
10000000 0.356412 0.390214 0.431962 0.466602

Table 20: Drag coefficient for 40 % bumps with different shape.
C
d
- Simulations
Bump height 40 %
Bump shape
Re
L
Standard Aggressive Wide
100000 0.25252 0.30004 0.18222
250000 0.26343 0.32361 0.17951
500000 0.28460 0.35729 0.18837
750000 0.29723 0.37451 0.19277
1000000 0.32122 0.39646 0.20214
2000000 0.32813 0.41547 0.19194
4000000 0.33360 0.42973 0.17615
6000000 0.33729 0.44111 0.16578
8000000 0.33793 0.44253 0.15901
10000000 0.35404 0.46620 0.15552

66

7.4 Real geometry
Regular vane SS

a) 5 mm.

b) 4 mm.

c) 3 mm.

d) 2 mm.

e) 1 mm.
Figure 73: Displacement thickness, Regular vane, SS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included).

67

Mount vane SS

a) 3 mm.

b) 2 mm.

c) 1 mm.
Figure 74: Displacement thickness, Mount vane, SS, bump height 1-3 mm (Nominal included).
Mount vane PS

a) 5 mm.

b) 4 mm.
68

c) 3 mm

d) 2 mm.

e) 1 mm.
Figure 75: Displacement thickness, Mount vane, PS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included).

69

Regular vane SS

a) 5 mm.

b) 4 mm.

c) 3 mm.

d) 2 mm.

e) 1 mm.
Figure 76: Momentum thickness, Regular vane, SS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included).

70

Mount vane SS

a) 3 mm.

b) 2 mm.

c) 1 mm.
Figure 77: Momentum thickness, Mount vane, SS, bump height 1-3 mm (Nominal included).
Mount vane PS

a) 5 mm.

b) 4 mm.
71

c) 3 mm.

d) 2 mm.

e) 1 mm.
Figure 78: Momentum thickness, Mount vane, PS, bump height 1-5 mm (Nominal included).

72

7.5 CFX-Scripts
Flat plate
# Session file started: 2011/02/28 10:56:26
# CFX-12.1 build 2009.10.15-23.00

# To avoid unnecessary file pre-processing and modifications, include
# COMMAND FILE at the top of your session file.
# If it is not included, the file is assumed to be older and will be
# modified for backward compatibility.
COMMAND FILE:
CFX Post Version = 12.0
END

! mkdir "Reference/Reynoldsnmb1" ;
! $count = 0;
! while ($count <= 25) {;
! $LineName = "Reference/Reynoldsnmb1/line_data".$count.".csv";
! print "$count \n";
! $count2 = $count;
#! Used if creating lines on the bump peak
#! if ($count2==19) {
#! $bumpcount=0.1886286; #Modify depending on bump height
#! }
#! else {
#! $bumpcount=0;
! }
!

#Create vertical line with 600 data points
LINE:Line $count
Apply Instancing Transform = On
Colour = 1, 1, 0
Colour Map = Default Colour Map
Colour Mode = Constant
Colour Scale = Linear
Colour Variable = Pressure
Colour Variable Boundary Values = Hybrid
Domain List = /DOMAIN GROUP:All Domains
Instancing Transform = /DEFAULT INSTANCE TRANSFORM:Default Transform
Line Samples = 600
Line Type = Sample
Line Width = 1
Max = 0.0 [Pa]
Min = 0.0 [Pa]
Option = Two Points
Point 1 = $count2 [m], $bumpcount [m], 0 [m]
Point 2 = $count2 [m], 2.5 [m], 0 [m]
Range = Global
OBJECT VIEW TRANSFORM:
Apply Reflection = Off
Apply Rotation = Off
Apply Scale = Off
Apply Translation = Off
73

Principal Axis = Z
Reflection Plane Option = XY Plane
Rotation Angle = 0.0 [degree]
Rotation Axis From = 0 [m], 0 [m], 0 [m]
Rotation Axis To = 0 [m], 0 [m], 0 [m]
Rotation Axis Type = Principal Axis
Scale Vector = 1 , 1 , 1
Translation Vector = 0 [m], 0 [m], 0 [m]
X = 0.0 [m]
Y = 0.0 [m]
Z = 0.0 [m]
END
END

#Export the data from Line2 to a new file
EXPORT:
ANSYS Export Data = Element Heat Flux
ANSYS File Format = ANSYS
ANSYS Reference Temperature = 0.0 [K]
ANSYS Specify Reference Temperature = Off
ANSYS Supplemental HTC = 0.0 [W m^-2 K^-1]
BC Profile Type = Inlet Velocity
Export Connectivity = Off
Export Coord Frame = Global
Export File = $LineName
Export Geometry = On
Export Node Numbers = Off
Export Null Data = On
Export Type = Generic
Export Units System = Current
Export Variable Type = Current
Include File Information = Off
Include Header = On
Location List = /LINE:Line $count
Null Token = null
Overwrite = On
Precision = 8
Separator = " "
Spatial Variables = X,Y,Z
Variable List = Pressure, Total Pressure, Velocity
Vector Brackets = ()
Vector Display = Scalar
END
>export

! $count ++;
! }

# End while loop

74

Real geometry
COMMAND FILE:
CFX Post Version = 12.0
END

! mkdir "Polylines_mount_ss_90" ;
# Start with reading in points from the surface around the blade containing X,Y,Z
# coordinates and normal directions.
! $cnt = 0;
! open(IN,"<blade_data_mount_span90_ss.csv");
! while (defined ($line = <IN>)) {;
! @coord = split(',',$line);
#! $coord[3] = $coord[3] * -1; #Pressure side
! $coord[5] = $coord[5] * -1; #Suction side

! $LineName = "Polylines_mount_ss_90/Linevert".$cnt.".csv";
! $LineName3 = "Polylines_mount_ss_90/Line".$cnt.".csv";
! $LineName4 = "Polylines_mount_ss_90/Line_data".$cnt.".csv";

PLANE:Plane 2
Apply Texture = Off
Blend Texture = On
Bound Radius = 0.5 [m]
Colour = 0.75, 0.75, 0.75
Culling Mode = No Culling
Direction 1 Bound = 1.0 [m]
Direction 1 Orientation = 0 [degree]
Direction 1 Points = 10
Direction 2 Bound = 1.0 [m]
Direction 2 Points = 10
Draw Faces = On
Draw Lines = Off
Invert Plane Bound = Off
Lighting = On
Line Colour = 0, 0, 0
Line Colour Mode = Default
Line Width = 1
Max = 0.0 [Pa]
Min = 0.0 [Pa]
Normal = $coord[5] , $coord[4] , $coord[3]
Option = Point and Normal
Plane Bound = None
Plane Type = Slice
Point = $coord[0] [m], $coord[1] [m], $coord[2] [m]
Point 1 = 0 [m], 0 [m], 0 [m]
Point 2 = 1 [m], 0 [m], 0 [m]
75

Point 3 = 0 [m], 1 [m], 0 [m]
Range = Global
Render Edge Angle = 0 [degree]
Specular Lighting = On
Surface Drawing = Smooth Shading
Texture Angle = 0
Texture Direction = 0 , 1 , 06.32090271e-01
Texture File =
Texture Material = Metal
Texture Position = 0 , 0
Texture Scale = 1
Texture Type = Predefined
Tile Texture = Off
Transform Texture = Off
Transparency = 0.0
X = 0.0 [m]
Y = 0.0 [m]
Z = 0.0 [m]
Apply Scale = Off
Principal Axis = Z
X = 0.0 [m]
Y = 0.0 [m]
Z = 0.0 [m]
END
END

76

CONTOUR:Contour N
Clip Contour = Off
Colour Variable = Span Normalized
Constant Contour Colour = Off
Contour Range = Global
Culling Mode = No Culling
Draw Contours = On
Font = Sans Serif
Fringe Fill = On
Lighting = On
Line Colour = 0, 0, 0
Line Colour Mode = Default
Line Width = 1
Location List = /PLANE:Plane 2
Max = 0.0 [m]
Min = 0.0 [m]
Number of Contours = 19 #(Change so that one contour is above the span of interest)
Show Numbers = Off
Specular Lighting = On
Surface Drawing = Smooth Shading
Text Colour = 0, 0, 0
Text Colour Mode = Default
Text Height = 0.024
Transparency = 0.0
Value List = 0 [m],1 [m]
Apply Scale = Off
Principal Axis = Z
X = 0.0 [m]
Y = 0.0 [m]
Z = 0.0 [m]
END
END

77

POLYLINE:Polylinee
Colour = 0, 1, 0
Colour Variable Boundary Values = Conservative
Contour Level = 13 #(Change to that the contour is on the span of interest)
Contour Name = /CONTOUR:Contour N
Input File =
Line Width = 2
Max = 0.0 [Pa]
Min = 0.0 [Pa]
Option = From Contour
Range = Global
Apply Scale = Off
Principal Axis = Z
X = 0.0 [m]
Y = 0.0 [m]
Z = 0.0 [m]
END
END

USER SCALAR VARIABLE:Vel
Boundary Values = Conservative
Calculate Global Range = On
Expression = sqrt(Velocity u^2+Velocity v^2+Velocity w^2)
Recipe = Expression
Variable to Copy = Pressure
Variable to Gradient = Pressure
END

USER SCALAR VARIABLE:MachNumber
Expression = Vel/sqrt(1.4*287[J kg^-1 K^-1]*Temperature)
Recipe = Expression
END

78

USER SCALAR VARIABLE:TotalPressure
Expression =Pressure*(1+((1.4-1)/2)*MachNumber^2)^(1.4/(1.4-1))
Recipe = Expression
END

EXPORT:
ANSYS Export Locator = /USER SURFACE:User Surface 1
Export File = $LineName3
Include Header = Off
Location List = /POLYLINE:Polylinee
Null Token = null
Overwrite = Off
Precision = 8
Separator = ", "
Variable List =
END
>export

! open(INV,">$LineName"); #Opens the file with the vertical polyline
! open(OUT,"<$LineName3"); #Opens the file LineXX.csv

! $count_rows=0;
! while (defined ($line2 = <OUT>)) {;
! @coord_poly = split(',',$line2);
! if ($coord_poly[2] >= $coord[2]){ #(change to <= for pressure side)
! print INV @coord_poly;
! $count_rows = $count_rows+1;
! }
! }
! close(OUT);
! close(INV);

! open(INV2,"<$LineName");
79

! $count_sort = 0;
! while (defined($line3=<INV2>)){;
! @coord_sort=split(' ',$line3);
! if ($count_sort == 0){
! @coord_one = @coord_sort;
! }
! if ($count_sort == 5){
! @coord_two = @coord_sort;
! }
! $count_sort=$count_sort+1;
! }

! print "Point1: $coord_one[2]\n";
! print "Point5: $coord_two[2]\n";
! close(INV2);

! if ($coord_one[2] < $coord_two[2]){ #(change to < for pressure side)
! $count3 = 0;
! $middle = $count_rows*0.6;
! $middle_roundoff = int($middle);
! while (defined($line4 = <INV3>)) {;
! @coord_vert = split(' ',$line4);
! if ($count3 == 0){
! @coord_blade = @coord_vert;
! }
! if ($count3 == $middle_roundoff) {
! @coord_end = @coord_vert;
! }
! $count3 = $count3+1;
! }
! close(INV3);
! } else {
! $count4 = 0;
! $middle = $count_rows*0.4;
! $middle_roundoff = int($middle);
! while (defined($line5 = <INV4>)) {;
! @coord_vert2 = split(' ',$line5);
! if ($count4 == ($count_rows-1)){
! @coord_blade = @coord_vert2;
! }
! if ($count4 == $middle_roundoff) {
! @coord_end = @coord_vert2;
! }
! $count4 = $count4+1;
! }
! close(INV4);
! }

80

! print "X0= $coord_blade[0]\n";
! print "Y0= $coord_blade[1]\n";
! print "Z0= $coord_blade[2]\n";
! print "XE= $coord_end[0]\n";
! print "YE= $coord_end[1]\n";
! print "ZE= $coord_end[2]\n";

#Creating the line normal to the surface.
LINE:Line 2
Colour = 1, 1, 0
Line Samples = 3500
Line Type = Sample
Line Width = 2
Max = 0.0 [Pa]
Min = 0.0 [Pa]
Option = Two Points
Point 1 = $coord_blade[0] [m], $coord_blade[1] [m], $coord_blade[2] [m]
Point 2 = $coord_end[0] [m], $coord_end[1] [m], $coord_end[2] [m]
Range = Global
Apply Scale = Off
Principal Axis = Z
X = 0.0 [m]
Y = 0.0 [m]
Z = 0.0 [m]
END
END

#Exporting the line normal to the surface.
EXPORT:
ANSYS Export Locator = /USER SURFACE:User Surface 1
81

Export File = $LineName4
Include Header = Off
Location List = /LINE:Line 2
Null Token = null
Overwrite = On
Precision = 8
Separator = " "
Variable List = Pressure, TotalPressure
END
>export

! $cnt = $cnt +1;
! }
! close(IN);
# End while sats

82

7.6 MATLAB code
Flat plate
clear all
close all
%% Beginning of loop for going through all Reynolds numbers in the folder

for it=1:10;

%% Import data from files

format long
% Path to simulation data files
dirName =
cat(2,'/home/yy53418/Simuleringar/Flat_plate/Simulations/Reference/Reynoldsnmb',num2st
r(it))
fileName = cell(31,1);
for n=1:31;
fileName{n,1} = cat(2,dirName,'/line_data',num2str(n-1),'.csv');
end

Delimiter = ' ';
Headerlines = 6;

BL0i = importdata(char(fileName(1)), Delimiter, Headerlines);

83

%% Compile data. Extracts the data from the imported files.

BL0 = BL0i.data;
BL1 = BL1i.data;
BL2 = BL2i.data;
BL3 = BL3i.data;
BL4 = BL4i.data;
BL5 = BL5i.data;
BL6 = BL6i.data;
BL7 = BL7i.data;
BL8 = BL8i.data;
BL9 = BL9i.data;
BL10 = BL10i.data;
BL11 = BL11i.data;
BL12 = BL12i.data;
BL13 = BL13i.data;
BL14 = BL14i.data;
BL15 = BL15i.data;
BL16 = BL16i.data;
BL17 = BL17i.data;
BL18 = BL18i.data;
BL19 = BL19i.data;
BL20 = BL20i.data;
BL21 = BL21i.data;
BL22 = BL22i.data;
BL23 = BL23i.data;
BL24 = BL24i.data;
BL25 = BL25i.data;
BL26 = BL26i.data;
BL27 = BL27i.data;
BL28 = BL28i.data;
BL29 = BL29i.data;
BL30 = BL30i.data;

%% Calculate thicknesses

% Inlet velocity for the domain. (Used for ideal flat plate calculations)
if it==1;
Vf = 0.081323562;
elseif it==2;
Vf = 0.203308905;
elseif it==3;
Vf = 0.40661781;
elseif it==4;
Vf = 0.609926716;
elseif it==5;
Vf = 0.813235621;
elseif it==6;
Vf = 1.626471241;
elseif it==7;
Vf = 3.252942483;
elseif it==8;
Vf = 4.879413724;
elseif it==9;
Vf = 6.505884966;
elseif it==10;
Vf = 8.132356207;
end

84

% X-position depending on which plate length is simulated.
Xpos = (0:1:30)';
% Density
rho = 1.185;
% Viscosity
mu = 1.831*10^-5;
% Kinematic viscosity
nu = mu/rho;

% Boundary layer calculations

clear dbts0 mbts0 lenVel0;
% The location of the maximum pressure along the line.
[C, I] = max(BL0(1:end,5));
% The length between the plate and each point.
len = BL0(1:I,2);
% V/Vmax.
V = sqrt(BL0(1:I,5) - BL0(1,4))/sqrt(BL0(I,5) - BL0(1,4));
% Velocity at the wall = 0.
V(1) = 0;
% Displacement boundary-layer series.
dbts0(1) = (1-V(1))*len(1);
% Momentum boundary-layer series.
mbts0(1) = dbts0(1)*V(1);
% Velocity at each point up to the point of maximum velocity.
lenVel0 = [len, sqrt(2*(BL0(1:I,5) - BL0(1,4))/rho)];
% The approximate position of 0.99*V.
[min_difference, array_position] = min(abs(lenVel0(:,2)-0.99*max(lenVel0(:,2))));
% Calculation of DBT and MBT
for iter = 2:length(V);
dbts0(iter) = (1-V(iter))*(len(iter) - len(iter-1));
mbts0(iter) = dbts0(iter)*V(iter);
end
% The displacement boundary-layer thickness at Xpos = 0.
dbt0 = sum(dbts0)
% The momentum boundary-layer thickness at Xpos = 0.
mbt0 = sum(mbts0)
% The boundary layer thickness at Xpos = 0.
blt0 = lenVel0(array_position,1)

% The code for calculating the blt, dbt and mbt for line 1-29 has been left out
% to save space in the report.

clear dbts30 mbts30;
% The location of the maximum pressure along the line.
[C, I] = max(BL30(1:end,5));
% The length between the plate and each point.
len = BL30(1:I,2);
% V/Vmax.
V = sqrt(BL30(1:I,5) - BL30(1,4))/sqrt(BL30(I,5) - BL30(1,4));
V(1) = 0;
dbts30(1) = (1-V(1))*len(1);
mbts30(1) = dbts30(1)*V(1);
% Velocity at each point up to the point of maximum velocity.
lenVel30 = [len, sqrt(2*(BL30(1:I,5) - BL30(1,4))/rho)];
min_difference, array_position] = min(abs(lenVel30(:,2)-0.99*max(lenVel30(:,2))));
% Calculation of DBT and MBT.
85

end
% The displacement boundary-layer thickness at Xpos = 30.
dbt30 = sum(dbts30)
% The momentum boundary-layer thickness at Xpos = 30.
mbt30 = sum(mbts30)
% The boundary layer thickness at Xpos = 30.

%% Array of the BL, DBL and MBL thicknesses

dbt =
[dbt0;dbt1;dbt2;dbt3;dbt4;dbt5;dbt6;dbt7;dbt8;dbt9;dbt10;dbt11;dbt12;dbt13;dbt14;dbt15
;dbt16;dbt17;dbt18;dbt19;dbt20;dbt21;dbt22;dbt23;dbt24;dbt25;dbt26;dbt27;dbt28;dbt29;d
bt30];
mbt =
[mbt0;mbt1;mbt2;mbt3;mbt4;mbt5;mbt6;mbt7;mbt8;mbt9;mbt10;mbt11;mbt12;mbt13;mbt14;mbt15
;mbt16;mbt17;mbt18;mbt19;mbt20;mbt21;mbt22;mbt23;mbt24;mbt25%mbt26;mbt27;mbt28;mbt29;m
bt30];
blt =
[blt0;blt1;blt2;blt3;blt4;blt5;blt6;blt7;blt8;blt9;blt10;blt11;blt12;blt13;blt14;blt15
;blt16;blt17;blt18;blt19;blt20;blt21;blt22;blt23;blt24;blt25;blt26;blt27;blt28;blt29;b
lt30];

%% Calculation of the BL, DBL and MBL thickness for an ideal flat plate

for i = 1:31
% laminar
delta(i) = 1.7208*sqrt(nu*Xpos(i,1)/Vf);
theta(i) = 0.664*sqrt(nu*Xpos(i,1)/Vf);
blti(i) = 5*sqrt(nu*Xpos(i,1)/Vf);

% turbulent
delta2(i) = 0.04625*Xpos(i,1)*((Vf*Xpos(i,1))/nu)^-0.2;
theta2(i) = 0.036*Xpos(i,1)*((Vf*Xpos(i,1)/nu))^-0.2;
blti2(i) = 0.37*Xpos(i,1)*((Vf*Xpos(i,1)/nu))^-0.2;

end

%% Graphs of the layers along the flat plate

figure(1); clf;
plot(Xpos(:),blt(:),'k',Xpos(:),blti(:),'rx',Xpos(:),blti2(:),'g*','linewidth',2,'mark
ersize',5);
legend('BL thickness','ideal laminar','ideal turbulent',2)
title('Boundary-layer thickness','fontsize',12);
ylabel('Thickness [m]','fontsize',12);
xlabel('Position along plate [m]','fontsize',12);
axis([0 30 0 1])

figure(2); clf;
plot(Xpos(:),dbt(:),'k',Xpos(:),delta(:),'rx',Xpos(:),delta2(:),'g*','linewidth',2,'ma
rkersize',5);
legend('Displacement thickness','ideal laminar','ideal turbulent',2)
title('Displacement boundary-layer thickness','fontsize',12);
axis([0 30 0 0.2])

86

figure(3); clf;
plot(Xpos(:),mbt(:),'k',Xpos(:),theta(:),'rx',Xpos(:),theta2(:),'g*','linewidth',2,'ma
rkersize',5);
legend('Momentum thickness','ideal laminar','ideal turbulent',2)
title('Momentum boundary layer thickness','fontsize',12);
axis([0 30 0 0.16])

%% Save the graphs to the image directory as jpeg files
savePath =
cat(2,'/home/yy53418/Simuleringar/Flat_plate/Images/Reference/Reynoldsnmb',num2str(it)
)
dbtPath = cat(2,savePath,'/DBT');
mbtPath = cat(2,savePath,'/MBT');
bltPath = cat(2,savePath,'/BLT');
saveas(1,bltPath,'jpg')
saveas(2,dbtPath,'jpg')
saveas(3,mbtPath,'jpg')

% Save the boundary layer thickness at 19 meters to a file.
compData = [Vf*Xpos(20,1)/nu, blt19];
save /home/yy53418/Simuleringar/Flat_plate/Simulations/Reference/compRE.txt compData -
append -ascii

blData = blt(:);
dbtData = dbt(:);
mbtData = mbt(:);
% Save the BLT, DBT, MBT along the plate for a file.
if it==1;
save
/home/yy53418/Simuleringar/Flat_plate/Simulations/Reference/Reynoldsnmb1/BLthick.txt
blData dbtData mbtData -append -ascii
end
if it==2;
save
end
if it==3;
save
end
if it==4;
save
end
if it==5;
save
end
if it==6;
save
end
if it==7;
save
87

end
if it==8;
save
end
if it==9;
save
end
if it==10;
save
end
it
%% end of loop
end

88

Real geometry
Same as the code used for the flat plate but with the modification that the maximum pressure
along each line is found using the method shown below.
clear dbts0 mbts0 lenVel0;
% The location of the first maximum pressure along the line.
[C, I] = findpeaks(BL0(1:end,5));
% The length from the blade to each point.
len = sqrt((BL0(1:I(1),1)-BL0(1,1)).^2+(BL0(1:I(1),3)-BL0(1,3)).^2);
% V/Vmax.
V = sqrt(BL0(1:I(1),5) - BL0(1,4))/sqrt(BL0(I(1),5) - BL0(1,4));
V(1) = 0;
dbts0(1) = (1-V(1))*len(1);
mbts0(1) = dbts0(1)*V(1);
% Velocity at each point up to the point of first maximum velocity.
lenVel0 = [len, sqrt(2*(BL0(1:I(1),5) - BL0(1,4))/rho)];
[min_difference, array_position] = min(abs(lenVel0(:,2)-0.99*max(lenVel0(:,2))));
% Calculation of DBT and MBT.
end
% The displacement boundary-layer thickness.
dbt0 = sum(dbts0)
% The momentum boundary-layer thickness.
mbt0 = sum(mbts0)
% The boundary layer thickness.

89

Validating Aerodynamic Non-conformance Definitions

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Validating Aerodynamic Non-conformance Definitions

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MASTER'S THESIS

Validation of Aerodynamic Non-

and a time-varying fluctuating component

on the right hand side of the Navier-Stokes equations.

is the Kronecker delta,

the eddy viscosity and the turbulence kinetic energy. A

Вам также может понравиться