International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

International Journal of Mechanical Sciences

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijmecsci

Effects of condensing moist air on shock induced oscillation around an airfoil

in transonic internal flows
A.B.M. Toufique Hasan a,n, S. Matsuo b, T. Setoguchi c, A.K.M. Sadrul Islam d
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology (BUET), Dhaka-1000, Bangladesh
b
Department of Advanced Technology Fusion, Saga University, Saga 840-8502, Japan
c
Institute of Ocean Energy, Saga University, Saga 840-8502, Japan
d
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Islamic University of Technology (IUT), Gazipur-1704, Bangladesh

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: Shock induced oscillation around an airfoil in transonic internal flow fields are often observed due to
Received 17 March 2011 complex shock wave boundary layer interaction. However, in actual flow where finite amount of water
Received in revised form vapor is present in the air, the rapid expansion of the flow may give rise to non-equilibrium
31 October 2011
condensation. Effects of condensing moist air on unsteady shock induced oscillation were numerically
Accepted 5 November 2011
Available online 19 November 2011
studied for total back pressure to reservoir pressure ratios of 0.73–0.65. Results showed that in case
with condensing moist air flows, the root mean square of shock induced pressure oscillation and the
Keywords: oscillation frequency were reduced significantly compared with those without the non-equilibrium
Transonic flow condensation. However, there was an increase of total pressure loss for condensing moist air flows.
Shock wave
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Shock induced oscillation
Internal flow
Moist air
Non-equilibrium condensation

1. Introduction surface, three typical flow regimes, namely attached boundary

The transonic flow over an airfoil is associated with the
appearance of shock waves on airfoil surfaces. In this case, the
interaction between the shock wave and boundary layer becomes
complex. Under certain conditions, this interaction generates the
self-excited shock wave oscillation and thus shock induced
oscillations (SIO) in the flow field. Further, buffeting, high cycle
fatigue failure (HCF), nonsynchronous vibration (NSV), flutter,
aeroacoustic noise and vibration and so on are the detrimental
consequences of this unsteady interaction.
Unsteady self-excited shock wave oscillation on isolated air-
foils in external flows has been investigated by Lee [1], Deck [2],
Xiao et al. [3]. They have analyzed the various modes of shock
wave motion and the evolution of shock-induced separation.
Recently, Chen et al. [4], numerically investigated compressible
flow past a circular arc aerofoil at free-stream Mach number of
0.76. The detached eddy simulation confirmed the self-sustained
shock motions repeated alternately along the upper and lower
surfaces of the airfoil, which was identified as type C by Tijdeman
and Seebass [5]. Further, due to shock movement on airfoil
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ880 173 071 4444; fax: þ 880 2 8613046.
E-mail addresses: toufiquehasan@me.buet.ac.bd,
ttoufique108@yahoo.com (A.B.M.T. Hasan).
layer, moving shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction
and intermittent boundary layer separation region were recog-
nized during the cycle. Similar phenomena can also be seen in
internal flows around an airfoil such as in the flow fields of
compressor blades [6,7], turbine cascades, butterfly valves, fan
and so on. Weitao et al. [8] performed a large eddy simulation of
complex shock wave boundary layer interaction (SWBLI) in a
turbine cascade. It was found that the SWBLI causes a pressure
fluctuation on the suction side downstream of this region and the
maximum value was about 2% of the local mean pressure.
Lepicovsky et al. [9] studied the transonic flow on the suction
surface of an airfoil of a modern low aspect ratio fan blade.
Intermittent shock generation makes the flow field bi-stable. As a
result, the pressure jumping between two levels impose large
intermittent loading on the blade leading edge region and can
lead to the onset of blade vibration. All the previous studies of
shock induced oscillation considered the dry air as working gas
(single phase).
However, the actual atmospheric air contains finite amount of
water vapor. This water vapor may condense on liquid droplet by
non-equilibrium condensation process due to rapid expansion in
transonic or supersonic flow fields [10–12]. In this case, the
degree of supersaturation S¼ pv/ps,N(T) or S ¼ ^/100 (where pv is
the water vapor pressure and ps,N(T) is the saturation pressure of
water vapor at a given temperature T and ^ is the relative

0020-7403/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijmecsci.2011.11.004
250 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259

humidity) may reach much above one (S b1) without condensa- reasonable accuracy. The computations were performed using manu-
tion because the liquid droplets do not reach the critical size for ally developed in house two-dimensional viscous flow solver. The
growth and collapse back to water vapor. At the critical state, non-equilibrium condensation process was described by the classical
known as supersaturation state, the liquid droplets reach the nucleation theory of Volmer-Frenkel-Zel’dovich [19,20] and the
critical size. A significant nucleation of water droplets is suddenly molecular droplet growth law of Hertz and Knudsen [19,20]. Thus,
initiated by spontaneous fluctuations in water vapor itself, known the governing equations are the unsteady compressible Navier–
as homogenous nucleation [11]. Further, the condensation of the Stokes equations and equations of droplet growth model. These can
vapor takes place on these nuclei (droplet growth). This conden- be written in two-dimensional coordinate system (x, y) as follows:
sation process releases latent heat to the surrounding gaseous @U @E @F @R @S
medium of moist air and considerably affects their thermody- þ þ ¼ þ þH þQ ð1Þ
@t @x @y @x @y
namic behavior as well as flow features.
The effect of non-equilibrium condensation over an airfoil was where U is the vector of conservative variables, E and F are inviscid
investigated by Rusak and Lee [11], Schnerr and Dohrmann flux vectors and R and S are viscous flux vectors. H and Q are the
[13,14] and Doerffer and Szumowski [15]. It was observed that source terms representing turbulence and condensation effects,
the shock wave structure and shock-induced separation were respectively.
sensitive to relative humidity variations. However, depending on The rate equation of condensate mass fraction generated by
the airfoil geometry and heat supply conditions, the pressure drag non-equilibrium condensation is written as [19]
around the airfoil can be reduced compared to the dry air drag at Z t
dg 4 IðtÞ IðtÞ @r l ðt, tÞ
given Mach number [13,14]. Recently, Huang et al. [16] studied ¼ rl r c ðtÞ3 þ 4prl r ðt, tÞ2 dt ð2Þ
dt 3 rm ðtÞ 1 rm ðtÞ @t l
transonic shock wave boundary layer interaction over a wall-
mounted bump experimentally under some humid conditions. In Eq. (2), g and t are condensate mass fraction and time,
The formation of a l-shape condensation shock wave upstream of respectively; r is the density and rc and I are critical droplet radius
the main shock was observed using schlieren method. The and nucleation rate per unit time and unit volume, respectively.
forward movement of the shock wave, the reduction of shock Subscript m and l refer to mixture and liquid, respectively. I, rc, dr/dt,
wave strength, and the flow separation were observed. and rl, surface tension, saturation vapor pressure of condensate
Moreover, in case of low pressure steam turbines, last stages of droplet with a radius of r, latent heat and coefficients are given in
the turbines may go through homogeneous nucleation, or near detail in Refs. [19–23]. The latent heat is given by a linear function of
equilibrium, controlled by heterogeneous particles such as parti- temperature
cles, aerosols or ions. Transonic, turbulent, unsteady two-phase LðtÞ ¼ L0 þL1 T J=kg ð3Þ
steam flows including homogeneously, homogeneously/hetero-
geneously and heterogeneously dominated condensation flow where the coefficients are given by
have been investigated in VKI-1 turbine stage [17]. Results L0 ¼ 3105913:39 J=kg, L1 ¼ 2212:97 J=kg=K ð4Þ
showed that the stator vortex shedding frequency decreases for
pure homogeneously condensing flow compared with the hetero- Validation of the condensation model using these equations
geneously dominated flow. In addition, it was found that in case and quantities can be found in [21–23].
of flows over turbine blades with supersonic outlet; the Mach To model the turbulence in the flow field, the modified k–R
numbers are lower and corresponding shock losses were smaller model [24,25] was employed in the present computation. The
in case of condensing (nucleating) steam flows. However, this turbulent kinetic energy and the undamped eddy viscosity are
condensation process incurs an entropy increase and hence a loss determined by the following transport equations:
in work potential [18]. Dðrm kÞ   ðr kÞ2
From the foregoing discussion, it can be concluded that the ¼ r ðml þ mt =sk Þrk þ P k  m ð5Þ
Dt rm R
non-equilibrium condensation has an obvious influence on the
aerothermodynamic behavior of transonic flow fields. However, Dðrm RÞ   R
¼ r ðml þ mt =sR ÞrR þ ð2C R1 Þ P k
till now there is no research considering condensing moist air as Dt k
working gas on unsteady shock induced oscillation (SIO) around Cm
ð2C R2 Þrm k2rm r Rr R ð6Þ
an airfoil in internal flows. Thus, in the present study, the effects sR
of condensing moist air with the occurrences of non-equilibrium
where Pk is the turbulence production modeled in term of the
condensation on unsteady shock induced oscillation (SIO) around
Boussinesq concept
a simple circular arc airfoil in internal flows are investigated    
numerically. The ratio of total back pressure to reservoir pressure is @ui @uj 2 @uk 2 @ui
Pk ¼ mt þ  dij  rm kdij ð7Þ
varied from 0.73 to 0.65 to obtain various modes of self sustained @xi @xi 3 @xk 3 @xj
shock induced oscillation around an airfoil. The numerical results
The undamped eddy viscosity R [24] is given by
are validated with the experiments. Furthermore, various aerody-
2
namic features of condensing moist air flows are discussed and k
R ð8Þ
compared with results of dry air. e
where k is the turbulent kinetic energy and e is its dissipation. In
Eqs. (5)–(7), ui are the Cartesian mean velocity components, xi are
2. Numerical analysis
the corresponding coordinates and D/Dt is the compressive material
derivative; and ml and mt are the molecular and eddy viscosities,
2.1. Governing equations
respectively.
In the present computations, a limiter function [26] is introduced
Assumptions used in the present computation of the two-
to suppress the numerical instability due to massive turbulence
phase compressible flows are as follows: both velocity slip and
production in the shock region and to adjust the results to experi-
temperature difference do not exist between condensate particles
mental data as
and gas mixture, and due to small amount of condensate particles,
the effect of particles on pressure field can be neglected within Pk ¼ min½P k ,C 2 C b rm eRe=C 1  ð9Þ
 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259 251

where Cb is a limiting parameter determined by empirical approach

and
h i 9
C 2 ¼ 1:92  10:3 expðRt 2 Þ , C b ¼ 1:001, C 1 ¼ 1:44, =
ð10Þ
C m ¼ 0:09, sk ¼ 1:0, sR ¼ 1:0, C R1 ¼ 1:44, C R2 ¼ 1:92 ;

The eddy viscosity is given by

mt ¼ C m f m rm R ð11Þ

200c
where the near-wall damping function fm is given as
tanhða0 Rt Þ
fm ¼ 0 ð12Þ
tanhðb Rt Þ
where turbulence Reynolds number Rt is defined as follows: p01, T01 pb0
r S01
Rt ¼ m R ð13Þ
ml
and a0 ¼ 0.005, b0 ¼C3/4
m /k.

2.2. Numerical schemes Test section

The governing equation systems were normalized with refer- c (=48mm)

y/c
ence values at the inlet conditions of the test section and mapped
from the physical plane into a computational plane by a general 0.5
transformation. A third-order TVD finite difference scheme with Flow yA A′

t/c = 0.15
H/c = 1.25
MUSCL approach [27] was used to discretize the spatial deriva- y pb
0 x
tives and a second order-central difference scheme was employed

)
B′

mm
for the viscous terms. For time integration, a fractional step B
method was used, which consisted in splitting the discretized

81.8
-0.5
space operators into products of one-dimensional operators. To

maintain the second order accuracy, the split operators were
defined in a symmetric sequence as follows:
   
Dt Dt n
U n þ 1 ¼ Ly Lx ðDtÞLy U ð14Þ
2 2
Here Lx and Ly are the split operators in x- and y-directions,
respectively. n and n þ1 are the successive states at time step of
Dt, respectively.
2.3. Computational conditions and boundary conditions
Fig. 1 shows the computational domain and details of test
section. Chord length c of the circular arc airfoil is 48 mm. The
leading edge of the airfoil is sharp along the span, which is machined
from a CNC machine with level of accuracy in the sharpness of 5 mm.
The thickness t and the radius of the circular arc R are 0.15c and 1.7c,
respectively. The height of the test section H is 1.25c. Computational
domain is discretized by structured mesh. The origin of (x, y)
coordinate is located at leading edge of the airfoil. Aerodynamic
and condensate properties were measured along lines A–A0 and
B–B0 , which are vertically 0.075c apart from the airfoil upper surface
and lower surface, respectively.
Working gas used in the present study is moist air, which is
assumed to be thermally and calorically perfect. The airfoil is kept
at zero angle of attack. The pressure ratio pb0/p01, where pb0 is
total back pressure and p01 reservoir pressure, was varied from
0.73 to 0.65. The inlet Mach numbers upstream of the airfoil are
0.61, 0.63, 0.64 and 0.65 for pb0/p01 ¼0.73, 0.70, 0.67 and 0.65,
respectively. The corresponding Reynolds numbers based on the
airfoil chord length are in the range from 5.5  105 to 5.8  105.
Initial degree of super-saturation S01 is 0 for dry air, and 0.6 for
moist air. The total temperature T01 and total pressure p01 in the
reservoir are 298.15 K and 101.3 kPa, respectively. The inlet
turbulence intensity level was 1%.
At inlet boundary, stagnation pressure and temperature were
imposed as physical boundary conditions and the other variables
were resulted from the numerical boundary treatment through
R (=
0 1
-1 2
x/c
x /c = 1.5c
Fig. 1. Computational domain (a) and details of test section (b).
Riemann invariant. The exit boundary was constrained with free
boundary condition. Non-slip and adiabatic wall conditions were
applied at the solid boundary. The pressure at the wall was
obtained from zero normal pressure gradient on the body surface.
Condensate mass fraction g was set to zero on the solid wall.
3. Experimentation
Together with the numerical simulation, experiments were con-
ducted using a transonic indraft wind tunnel where air at atmo-
spheric pressure was drawn into a vacuum tank. The test facility
consists of transonic wind tunnel, air storing tank (plenum chamber),
the test section and the vacuum tank. The detail experimental setup
are not shown here for brevity and can be found in Ref. [28].
Dehumidifier and heater controls the content of moisture or the
degree of supersaturation of the air. The flow field was visualized
using Schlieren optical method and for this reason the two side walls
of the test section were made transparent. The still and motion
pictures were taken by the digital camera (single-lens reflex type
from Fuji Pic. Ltd.) and the PHOTRON high-speed video camera of
model FASTCAM-ultra-UV3/IR3, respectively. Static pressure in the
flow field was measured using the pressure transducer model
‘TOYODA PMS-5 500K’ (resonant frequency of 40 kHz and the SNR
of 30 dB). This was connected to a pc through a DC amplifier to
complete the data acquisition system.
4. Results and discussion
To obtain a grid independent numerical solution, the present
transonic internal flow field around an airfoil is checked using a
252 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259
Table 1
Dominant frequency of flow oscillation in kHz at x/c¼ 0.833, y/c¼ 0.3125.
pb0/p01 0.73
Grid size 271  71 351  101
S01 ¼ 0 Computation 1.066 1.192
Experiment 1.187
S01 ¼ 0.6 Computation 0.477
Experiment 0.462
Fig. 2. Schlieren photographs (pb0/p01 ¼0.73), (a) S01 ¼ 0.16 and (b) S01 ¼0.61.
Fig. 3. Schlieren photographs (pb0/p01 ¼ 0.70), (a) S01 ¼ 0.16 and (b) S01 ¼ 0.61.
coarse mesh (271  71) and two fine meshes (351  101 and
351  131) for pb0/p01 ¼0.73 and 0.70. Table 1 shows the domi-
nant frequency of shock induced flow oscillation (at x/c ¼0.833,
y/c¼0.3125) obtained by a coarse mesh and two fine meshes. The
experimental results are also shown in this table. It is clear from
Table 1 that in case of dry air, the oscillation frequency varied
significantly depending on the mesh size. However, for finer mesh
sizes the deviation was less than 0.3% and the numerical result
agreed very well with the experiments for both pb0/p01 ¼0.73 and
0.70. For S01 ¼0.6, the agreement with the experiment is fair.
Further validation in respect to shock structures is described in
the following section.
Instantaneous schlieren photographs around an airfoil obtained
by experiments in cases without and with non-equilibrium con-
densation for pb0/p01 ¼0.73 are shown in Fig. 2(a) and (b), respec-
tively. Fig. 3 shows instantaneous schlieren photographs around an
airfoil obtained by experiments for pb0/p01 ¼0.70. In the present
experimental facilities, the atmospheric air can be dehumidified up
to S01 ¼0.16 and these results are shown in Figs. 2(a) and 3(a). In
these cases, the degree of supersaturation is so small that the air can
be considered to be almost dry [16]. At S01 ¼0.16, shock waves are
developed asymmetrically between upper and lower surfaces for
pb0/p01 ¼0.73 and 0.70. These asymmetric shock waves indicate the
alternate shock oscillation around airfoil surfaces (will be discussed
latter in detail). Moreover, the shock waves become stronger for
lower back pressure ratio. In case with non-equilibrium condensa-
tion (Figs. 2(b) and 3(b)), it seems that the configuration of the shock
0.70
351  131 271  71 351  101 351  131
1.195 1.213 1.356 1.357
1.348
0.538
0.514
Fig. 4. Computer numerical schlieren (pb/p01 ¼ 0.73), (a) S01 ¼0 and (b) S01 ¼ 0.6.
Fig. 5. Computer numerical schlieren (pb/p01 ¼ 0.70), (a) S01 ¼ 0 and (b) S01 ¼ 0.6.
wave changes largely and its strength becomes weaker compared to
those in Figs. 2(a) and 3(a).
Figs. 4 and 5 show computer generated schlieren images
(density gradient) corresponding to each figure in Figs. 2 and 3,
respectively. The flow structures are similar to the experimental
results. However, a slight difference between numerical shock
structure and experimental one is observable, which is obviously
created due to the complexities in real flows, the main flow non-
uniformity and the sidewall boundary layers, which are never
taken into account in usual 2D numerical simulations.
Fig. 6(a) and (b) shows sequential contour maps of Mach number
at pb0/p01 ¼0.73 during one cycle at time step of 1/4f for S01 ¼0 and
0.6, respectively. f is the shock induced oscillation (SIO) frequency at
the position of peak RMS value of pressure oscillation measured
along the line A–A0 (will be shown latter). In case of dry air (S01 ¼0)
and at t¼0.25/f, the shock wave appears around airfoil upper surface
at x/cE0.8. There is no shock around lower surface at this time. At
t¼ 0.50/f, the upper shock wave moves upstream at x/cE0.5 and it
becomes weaker. Meanwhile, a shock wave starts to develop at
x/cE0.8 from the lower surface. Its strength further increases and
the upper shock wave disappears at t¼0.75/f. At the next step, the
lower shock wave moves upstream and the upper one begins to
develop. Thus during the cycle the shock waves oscillate alternately
between upper and lower surfaces. This self-excited shock oscilla-
tion is solely induced by the initial conditions. For condensing moist
air flows (S01 ¼0.6), though similar shock oscillation exists around
the airfoil surfaces, the shock waves become weaker compared to
 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259 253

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c

y/c
y/c

y/c
0 0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c t = 0.25/f
x/c x/c x/c
t = 0.25/f

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c

y/c

y/c
0 y/c 0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c x/c x/c x/c
t = 0.50/f t = 0.50/f

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c
y/c
y/c

0 0
y/c

0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c x/c x/c x/c
t = 0.75/f t = 0.75/f

0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c

y/c
y/c

0
y/c

0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c x/c x/c x/c
t = 1.00/f t = 1.00/f

Fig. 6. Sequential contour maps of Mach number during one cycle (pb0/p01 ¼ 0.73), Fig. 7. Sequential contour maps of Mach number during one cycle (pb0/p01 ¼ 0.70),
(a) S01 ¼0 and (b) S01 ¼0.6. (a) S01 ¼ 0 and (b) S01 ¼0.6.

those of S01 ¼0. The nonadiabatic phenomenon of non-equilibrium
condensation causes heat addition, retarding the flow, and because
of the condensation, the Mach number upstream of the shock wave
is reduced, which leads to a weakening of the shock wave strength.
As a result, the intensity of shock induced oscillation (as well as
shock induced separation) around the airfoil is significantly reduced
in case of condensing air flows.
Fig. 7 shows the contour maps of Mach number for the flow
condition of pb0/p01 ¼ 0.70. In case of no condensation, S01 ¼0
(Fig. 7(a)), the shock waves oscillate alternately around airfoil
surfaces during the cycle, 1/f. Here, the shock excursion zone is
shifted towards the airfoil trailing edge in the range of x/c¼0.8–1.0
and the shock waves become stronger compared to pb0/p01 ¼0.73
(Fig. 6). Moreover, shock waves are present around the upper and
lower surfaces at all times of the cycle as opposed from previous
case of pb0/p01 ¼ 0.73. However, some localized compression waves
are observed around the midchord position. In case with condensa-
tion, S01 ¼0.6 (Fig. 7(b)), the shock strength becomes weaker in
upper and lower passages. Further, the difference in streamwise
locations of upper and lower surface shock waves become larger
compared to those in Fig. 7(a). The reduced shock intensity reduced
the upper and lower wall boundary layer separation which was
prominent in case of no condensation.
Further reduction of back pressure ratio, pb0/p01 to 0.67 causes
the shock waves to be generated from the airfoil trailing edge for
S01 ¼0 as shown in Fig. 8(a). In this case, the height and strength
of shock waves around upper and lower passages change alter-
nately during the cycle at x/c ¼1.0. However, large scale axial
shock oscillation towards the airfoil leading edge is suppressed. In
case with condensation (S01 ¼0.6), a different flow structure is
observed compared to the previous two flow conditions
(Figs. 6 and 7) as shown in Fig. 8(b). In this case, due to large
amount of heat addition by non-equilibrium condensation, the
flow field becomes thermally chocked and as a result, a con-
densation shock/pressure wave (indicated by an arrow in the
Fig. 8(b)) can be observed upstream of the main shock. Thus, a
double-shock system is observed around airfoil upper surface at
t¼ 0.25/f, 0.50/f and 1.0/f. Similar shock structure can be found at
t¼ 0.25/f, 0.75/f and 1.0/f around airfoil lower surface. This
intermittency of double shock system is attributed to the degree
of flow expansion. Though an additional condensation shock is
seen in this case, the intensity of dominant shock wave is
significantly lower than that of S01 ¼0. As a consequence, upper
and lower test section walls boundary layer separation is
reduced.
Shock structures for pb0/p01 ¼0.65 are shown in Fig. 9. In case
of dry air, S01 ¼0 (Fig. 9(a)), shock waves are generated from the
airfoil trailing edge and travel periodically in the near wake region.
In this case, the shock waves from the upper and lower surfaces are
of similar strength and oscillate concurrently. Further, post shock
expansion in the wake is observed at t¼0.50/f, 0.75/f and 1.0/f.
However, non-equilibrium condensation of moist air causes to form
a condensation shock in the range of x/c¼0.8–0.9 as shown in
Fig. 9(b). For this flow condition, double shock system can be
observed all through the cycle and the position of condensation
shock wave (indicated by arrows in the Fig. 9(b)) changes during the
cycle. Furthermore, shock waves are bounded to oscillate up to the
airfoil trailing edge.
254 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259

0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c

y/c

y/c
0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c x/c x/c x/c
t = 0.25/f t = 0.25/f

0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c

y/c
y/c

0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c x/c x/c x/c
t = 0.50/f t = 0.50/f

0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c
y/c

y/c
0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c x/c x/c x/c
t = 0.75/f t = 0.75/f

0.5 0.5 0.5

y/c
y/c

y/c
0 0 0

-0.5 -0.5 -0.5

-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x/c x/c x/c x/c
t = 1.00/f t = 1.00/f

Fig. 8. Sequential contour maps of Mach number during one cycle (pb0/p01 ¼ 0.67), Fig. 9. Sequential contour maps of Mach number during one cycle (pb0/p01 ¼0.65),
(a) S01 ¼0 and (b) S01 ¼0.6. (a) S01 ¼ 0 and (b) S01 ¼ 0.6.

From the preceding discussion, it is found that the transonic

internal flow around an airfoil is characterized by a complex
shock system particularly for the case with condensing air. The
intensity of shock system can be quantified by the magnitude of
pressure rise, Dp/p1 as shown in Fig. 10. Here Dp is the pressure
rise through shock wave and p1 is the undisturbed pressure just
before it. The distribution of Dp/p1 corresponds to the self induced
shock oscillation around airfoil in the same manner as contour
maps of Mach number for all the flow conditions (Figs. 6–9). The
magnitude of Dp/p1 decreases about 35%, 37%, 43% and 45% for
condensing moist air flows around upper passage for pb0/
p01 ¼0.73, 0.70, 0.67 and 0.65, respectively. Similar reduction is
found for lower passage.
Non-equilibrium condensation of condensing moist air
involves with the generation of nucleation rate and the conden-
sate droplets in the zone of rapid expansion. Fig. 11 shows the
distributions of static pressure p/p01, nucleation rate I and con-
densate mass fraction g along the lines A–A0 during one cycle of
shock induced oscillation, 1/f for pb0/p01 ¼ 0.73. The distribution of
p/p01 indicates the periodic shock motion during the cycle and the
shock strength gradually decreases when it moves towards the
airfoil leading edge. With the occurrence of non-equilibrium
condensation (S01 ¼0.6), a nucleation zone is developed from x/
cE0.35, 0.3 and 0.4 at t¼0.25/f, 0.50/f and 1.0/f, respectively.
Nucleation rate I reaches the peak value and then decreases with
sharp gradient where static pressure falls to a minimum.
Condensate mass fraction g begins to increase approximately
from this position. After the initial development, g varies
unevenly further downstream. Condensate droplets are observed
at t ¼0.25/f and 1.0/f along A–A0 . The smaller magnitude of I fails
to generate condensate droplets at t ¼0.50/f. The maximum
of g values are about 0.003 along this line. The distributions of I
and g are in alternate manner along line B–B0 and are not shown
here for brevity. The formation of condensate droplet causes
to release the latent heat in the surrounding flow and modifies
the thermodynamics and flow properties ahead of the main
shock wave.
Fig. 12 shows the distribution of static pressure and conden-
sate properties for pb0/p01 ¼0.70. From the distribution of static
pressure p/p01, it is found that the degree of flow expansion
increases compared to that in Fig. 11. This causes an increase in
nucleation rate I. The peak of nucleation rate is located at x/
cE0.95, 0.90 and 0.90 at t¼ 0.25/f, 0.50/f and 1.0/f, respectively.
The condensate mass fraction starts to distribute from these
positions along A–A0 . However, g develop in the wake region at
t¼0.75/f due to large wake pressure fluctuations. The maximum
of g value is about 0.006.
Results for pb0/p01 ¼0.67 and S01 ¼0.6 are shown in Fig. 13. The
double shock structure is realized from the distribution of p/p01.
Nucleation rate begins to develop from x/c E0.4. However, the
condensation shock changes the shape of the nucleation rate zone
 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259 255

1 1 1 1

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Δp/p1
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Δp/p1
Δp/p1
Δp/p1

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 0 0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
t×f t×f t×f t×f

: A-A/(S01 = 0), : B-B/(S01 = 0), : A-A/(S01 = 0.6), : B-B/(S01 = 0.6)

Fig. 10. Amplitude of pressure rise around an airfoil during one cycle of flow oscillation, 1/f; (a) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.73, (b) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.70, (c) pb0/p01 ¼0.67 and (d) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.65.

1 1030 0.01
0.008
0.8 1025
0.006
p/p01

1020

g
I

0.6 0.004
1015 0.002
0.4
1010 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x /c x /c x /c

: t =0.25/f, : t =0.50/f, : t =0.75/f, : t =1.00/f

Fig. 11. Distributions of (a) static pressure (p/p01), (b) nucleation rate (I) and (c) condensate mass fraction (g) during one cycle of flow oscillation, 1/f along line A–A0 (pb0/
p01 ¼ 0.73, S01 ¼ 0.6).

1 1030 0.01
0.008
0.8 1025
0.006
p/p01

1020
g
I

0.6 0.004
1015 0.002
0.4
1010 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x/c x/c x/c

Fig. 12. Distributions of (a) static pressure (p/p01), (b) nucleation rate (I) and (c) condensate mass fraction (g) during one cycle of flow oscillation, 1/f along line A–A0 (pb0/
p01 ¼ 0.70, S01 ¼ 0.6).

1 1030 0.01
0.008
0.8 1025
0.006
p/p01

1020
g
I

0.6 0.004
1015 0.002
0.4
1010 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x/c x/c x/c

Fig. 13. Distributions of (a) static pressure (p/p01), (b) nucleation rate (I) and (c) condensate mass fraction (g) during one cycle of flow oscillation, 1/f along line A–A0 (pb0/
p01 ¼ 0.67, S01 ¼ 0.6).

compared to the previous two flow cases. In this case, g generates
at all instants during the cycle. g develops from x/c E0.75, 0.8,
0.85 and 0.85 at t¼ 0.25/f, 0.50/f, 0.75/f and 1.0/f, respectively. The
maximum of g value is about 0.009.
Due to maximum degree of expansion, the condensate proper-
ties are the highest at pb0/p01 ¼0.65 for the cases studied here and
the results are shown in Fig. 14. In this case, g develops from
x/cE0.9, 0.8, 0.70 and 0.8 at t ¼0.25/f, 0.50/f, 0.75/f and 1.0/f,
respectively. In addition, the g magnitudes are more uniform
throughout the cycle and the value is about 0.009.
The unsteady RMS of pressure oscillation are discussed to
evaluate the level of unsteadiness produced by the shock induced
256 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259

1 1030 0.01
0.008
0.8 1025
p/p01 0.006
1020

g
I
0.6 0.004
1015 0.002
0.4
10 0
10
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x /c x /c x /c

Fig. 14. Distributions of (a) static pressure (p/p01), (b) nucleation rate (I) and (c) condensate mass fraction (g) during one cycle of flow oscillation, 1/f along line A–A0 (pb0/
p01 ¼ 0.65, S01 ¼ 0.6).

0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
prms/q0

prms/q0
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
x/c x/c

0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
prms/q0

prms/q0

0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
x/c x/c
: S01=0, : S01=0.6

Fig. 15. Distribution of RMS values of shock induced pressure oscillation around an airfoil; (a) pb0/p01 ¼0.73, (b) pb0/p01 ¼0.70, (c) pb0/p01 ¼0.67 and (d) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.65.

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

p/p01

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
t (ms) t (ms) t (ms) t (ms)

Fig. 16. Static pressure–time histories in the flow field around an airfoil for S01 ¼0; (a) pb0/p01 ¼0.73, (b) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.70, (c) pb0/p01 ¼0.67 and (d) pb0/p01 ¼0.65.

oscillation (SIO) around the airfoil. RMS of pressure oscillation, x/cE0.65 in both the cases of S01 ¼0 and 0.6. Then the RMS values
prms is calculated as are reduced in case of S01 ¼0.6. However, in case of S01 ¼0.6, peak
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi RMS position is moved upstream (x/c¼0.65) compared to that of
u n
uX X
n
S01 ¼0 (x/c¼0.75). In case of pb0/p01 ¼0.70 (Fig. 15(b)), the peak prms
prms ¼ t ðpi pÞ2 =n where p ¼ pi =n ð15Þ
i¼1 i¼1
values are reduced from 0.38q0 to 0.30q0 and peak positions are
shifted from x/cE0.95 to x/cE0.70 in case with condensation. In
In the above equation, pi and p are the instantaneous and mean cases of pb0/p01 ¼0.67 and 0.65 (Fig. 15(c) and (d)), though single
static pressures, respectively. Results are calculated for the number peak is observed for S01 ¼0, formation of condensation shock
of sampling points, n of 1.5  105 from 30 cycles. Fig. 15 shows the upstream of the main shock provides one additional peak for
distribution of prms/q0 (prms: RMS of pressure oscillation; q0: S01 ¼0.6. However, the second peak is more dominating than the
upstream dynamic pressure) along the line A–A0 in cases without first for S01 ¼0.6. The peak prms values are 0.40q0 and 0.22q0 for
and with non-equilibrium condensation. For all the flow conditions, S01 ¼0 and 0.6, respectively for pb0/p01 ¼0.67. For pb0/p01 ¼0.65,
it is found that the RMS values increase from the leading edge these values are 0.48q0 and 0.26q0, respectively. Moreover, the peak
and reaches the peak and then decreases. The peak is the position RMS values are shifted further upstream for both the cases. How-
where shock interacts intensively with the flow. For pb0/p01 ¼0.73 ever, a significant unsteadiness of SIO is observed upstream of the
(Fig. 15(a)), the peak prms values are 0.35q0 and 0.30q0 for S01 ¼0 condensation shock (up to x/c¼0.70) in the lowest pressure ratio
and S01 ¼0.6, respectively. The RMS values are comparable up to case (pb0/p01 ¼0.65) for condensing air flow.
 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259 257

Fig. 16 shows time histories of static pressure measured at the dominant frequency is considered to be due to the decrease of
position of peak RMS values of SIO (Fig. 15) in case without non- turbulent fluctuation energy by the relaxation process of con-
equilibrium condensation (S01 ¼0). Time t is defined as zero as an densation of vapor molecules on small condensate droplet sur-
arbitrary number when the shock waves oscillate uniformly faces. Furthermore, the peaks of PSDs are reduced in case of moist
around the airfoil, which correspond to a numerically stable air compared to those of dry air.
solution after initial transients. Solid line and dotted line show Fig. 19 shows distributions of total pressure loss (1 p0/p01) (p0:
the pressure fluctuations along upper and lower passages of test local total pressure) along y-direction at the position of x/c¼1.5 in
section, respectively. The amplitude of flow oscillation becomes case without non-equilibrium condensation during one cycle of flow
large with a decrease of back pressure ratio. For pb0/p01 ¼0.73– oscillation, 1/f (S01 ¼0). For all conditions, total pressure loss changes
0.67, the upper and lower passages SIO are at about 1801 out of largely corresponding to the shock structures in the flow fields
phase. However, at pb0/p01 ¼0.65, there is no phase difference of during the cycle. However, unsteadiness of total pressure losses
SIO around the airfoil. In case with condensation (S01 ¼0.6), the increases with a decrease of back pressure ratio. For pb0/p01 ¼0.65
pressure amplitude of SIO reduced for all the flow conditions as (Fig. 19(b)), much variation of total pressure losses are observed in
shown in Fig. 17. In addition, at pb0/p01 ¼0.65, the SIO character- the region close to the test section walls compared with other case
istics change to 1801 out of phase with condensation due to pb0/p01 ¼0.73 (Fig. 19(a)). This is due to the boundary layer separa-
reduction of shock Mach number. tion induced by shock wave at the walls.
Fig. 18 shows the distributions of power spectrum densities Total pressure losses in case with non-equilibrium condensa-
(PSDs) for the pressure fluctuations due to SIO around the airfoil. tion along y-direction during one cycle of flow oscillation, 1/f are
The dominant frequencies of SIO for S01 ¼0 are 1.19, 1.36, 1.40 shown in Fig. 20 (x/c ¼1.5, S01 ¼0.6). It is found from this figure
and 0.80 kHz for pb0/p01 ¼0.73, 0.70, 0.67 and 0.65, respectively. that values of total pressure loss become larger compared with
The drastic reduction of SIO frequency at pb0/p01 ¼0.65 is due to case of dry air in Fig. 16. This is considered to be due to the
the reduction of shock induced separated flow from the airfoil generation of condensate droplets and therefore the addition of
surfaces and as a result its interaction with the downstream wake irreversible heat transfer to the flow induced by non-equilibrium
vortices is reduced which play the key role for self sustained SIO. condensation.
In case of condensing moist air flows (S01 ¼0.6), the correspond- Total pressure losses were integrated from the lower wall to the
ing frequencies are 0.48, 0.54, 0.56 and 0.50 kHz. This reduction of upper wall at x/c¼1.5 and the time averaged value b is shown for all

0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

p/p01

0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
t (ms) t (ms) t (ms) t (ms)

Fig. 17. Static pressure–time histories in the flow field around an airfoil for S01 ¼0.6; (a) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.73, (b) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.70, (c) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.67 and (d) pb0/p01 ¼0.65.
P ((kPa/kPa)2/kHz)

0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

: S01 = 0 : S01 = 0 : S01 = 0 : S01 = 0
: S01 = 0.6 : S01 = 0.6 : S01 = 0.6 : S01 = 0.6
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0 0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
f (kHz) f (kHz) f (kHz) f (kHz)

Fig. 18. Distributions of PSDs of shock induced oscillation around an airfoil; (a) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.73, (b) pb0/p01 ¼0.70, (c) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.67 and (d) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.65.

0.75 Upper wall 0.75 Upper wall

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25
: t = 0.25/f : t = 0.25/f
y/c

y/c

0 : t = 0.50/f 0 : t = 0.50/f
: t = 0.75/f : t = 0.75/f
: t = 1.00/f : t = 1.00/f
-0.25 -0.25

-0.5 -0.5 Lower wall

Lower wall
-0.75 -0.75
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
1-p0/p01 1-p0/p01

Fig. 19. Total pressure losses during one cycle of flow oscillation; (a) pb0/p01 ¼0.73 and (b) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.65 (x/c ¼1.5, S01 ¼0).
258 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259

0.75 Upper wall 0.75 Upper wall

0.5 0.5

0.25 0.25
: t = 0.25/f : t = 0.25/f

y/c

y/c
0 : t = 0.50/f 0 : t = 0.50/f
: t = 0.75/f : t = 0.75/f
: t = 1.00/f : t = 1.00/f
-0.25 -0.25

-0.5 Lower wall -0.5 Lower wall

-0.75 -0.75
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
1-p0/p01 1-p0/p01

Fig. 20. Total pressure losses during one cycle of flow oscillation; (a) pb0/p01 ¼0.73 and (b) pb0/p01 ¼ 0.65 (x/c ¼1.5, S01 ¼0.6).

Table 2 (5) The level of unsteadiness produced by the shock induced

Time averaged integrated total pressure loss, b at x/c¼ 1.5. oscillation (SIO) around the airfoil was evaluated by the RMS
pressure distribution. The RMS values were reduced signifi-
S01 pb0/p01
cantly in case with non-equilibrium condensation of moist air
0.73 0.70 0.67 0.65 compared to no condensation case. However, the position of
peak RMS value was shifted further upstream in case with
0 0.0491 0.0753 0.130 0.251 condensation.
0.6 0.0522 0.0847 0.163 0.277
(6) The dominant shock induced oscillation frequency and the
[-] peaks of power spectrum densities were reduced considerably
flow conditions in Table 2. The magnitude of this parameter indicates (7) for condensing moist air flows.
qualitatively the energy or power requirement for flow over an airfoil However, generation of condensate mass fraction and thus
in internal aeronautics. It is found that, with a decrease of back irreversible heat transfer in the flow field increased the total
pressure ratio, b increases in cases without and with non-equili- pressure loss in case of condensing moist air.
brium condensation. In case of the occurrence of non-equilibrium
condensation, values of b increase approximately by 7%, 13%, 25%
and 10% for pb0/p01 ¼0.73, 0.70, 0.67 and 0.65, respectively compared
to the case of no condensation. Appendix

Notation
5. Conclusions
c chord length of the airfoil (mm)
A numerical study is carried out to investigate the effects of C various constants in turbulence model
condensing moist air on shock induced oscillation around an airfoil E, F inviscid flux vector
in transonic internal flows. The total pressure ratio is varied from f frequency (kHz)
0.73 to 0.65, which correspond to the Mach number range from 0.61 fm wall damping function
to 0.65. Results are also shown for the case of dry air without g condensate mass fraction
condensation and computational results are validated with the H turbulence source term
experiments. The results obtained are summarized as follows: H height of the test section (mm)
I nucleation rate per unit volume and time (1/m3 s)
(1) In case of dry air, self sustained shock oscillated alternately k turbulent kinetic energy (m2/s2)
around upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil for pb0/ L latent heat of condensation (J/kg)/split operator
p01 ¼0.73 and 0.70. At pb0/p01 ¼0.67, shock wave oscillated M Mach number
alternately at the trailing edge. However, the alternate shock P power spectrum density ((kPa/kPa)2/kHz)
oscillation disappeared and shock waves developed concur- Pk turbulence production term (m2/s3)
rently at the trailing edge for pb0/p01 ¼0.65. p local static pressure (kPa)
(2) In cases of rapid flow expansion where shock waves were pi instantaneous static pressure (kPa)
observed around the airfoil trailing edge (pb0/p01 ¼0.67 and p mean static pressure (kPa)
0.65), the non-equilibrium condensation process generated a p01 reservoir total pressure (kPa)
condensation shock/pressure wave upstream of the main pb back pressure (kPa)
shock. However, such condensation induced waves were not pb0 total back pressure (kPa)
observed for pb0/p01 ¼0.73 and 0.70. Q condensation source term
(3) The reduction of shock Mach number for the condensation r droplet radius (m)
process reduced the shock strength for all the flow conditions. rc critical droplet radius (m)
As a result, the shock induced oscillation around the airfoil R, S viscous flux vector
decreased with condensing moist air flows. R undamped eddy viscosity (m2/s)
(4) The condensate nuclei and droplets were observed around the Re Reynolds number
airfoil upper and lower passages including downstream range. Rt turbulence Reynolds number
These properties generated in the same manner as shock S degree of supersaturation
waves oscillation. However, the properties are maximum at t time (ms)/thickness (mm)
pb0/p01 ¼0.65. T01 reservoir total temperature (K)
 A.B.M.T. Hasan et al. / International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 54 (2012) 249–259 259

U conservative vector [9] Lepicovsky J, McFarland ER, Chima RV, Capece VR, Hayden J. Intermittent flow
u,v Cartesian velocity components (m/s) regimes in a transonic fan airfoil cascade, NASA TM-2002-211375; 2002.
[10] Cheng W, Luo X, X., van Dongen MEH. On condensation-induced waves. J
x, y Cartesian coordinates (m) Fluid Mech 2010;651:145–64.
b integrated total pressure loss [11] Rusak Z, Lee J-C. Transonic flow of moist air around a thin airfoil with non-
ml laminar viscosity (Pa s) equilibrium and homogeneous condensation. J Fluid Mech 2000;403:173–99.
[12] Bakhtar F, Young JB, White AJ, Simpson DA. Classical nucleation theory and
mt turbulent viscosity (Pa s)
its application to condensing steam flow calculations. Proc Inst Mech Eng,
r density (kg/m3) Part C: J Mech Eng Sci 2005;219:1315–33.
t shear stress (Pa) [13] Schnerr G, Dohrmann U. Transonic flow around airfoils with relaxation and
^ relative humidity (%) energy supply by homogeneous condensation. AIAA J 1990;28:1187–93.
[14] Schnerr G, Dohrmann U. Drag and lift in nonadiabatic transonic flow. AIAA J
k Kolmogorov time scale ( ¼0.41) 1994;32:101–7.
[15] Doerffer P, Szumowski A. Numerical analysis of shock induced separation
delay by air humidity. J Therm Sci 2005;14:120–5.
Subscripts
[16] Huang JC, Gault RI, Benard E, Raghunathan S. Effect of humidity on transonic
flow. J Aircr 2008;45:2092–100.
l liquid phase/lower [17] Winkler G, Schnerr GH. Nucleating unsteady flows in low pressure steam
turbine stages. In: Proceedings of fourth European conference on turboma-
m mixture chinery, fluid dynamics and thermodynamics. Italy; 2001. p. 793–802.
s saturation state [18] Bakhtar F, White AJ, Mashmoushy H. Theoretical treatments of two-dimen-
u upper sional two-phase flows of steam and comparison with cascade measure-
ments. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mech Eng Sci 2005;219:1335–55.
0 local stagnation state
[19] Sislian JP. Condensation of water vapor in rarefaction waves. I—Homogeneous
01 reservoir state nucleation. AIAA J 1976;14:1761–7.
t turbulent quantity [20] Adam S. Numerische und Experimentelle untersuchung Instationärer
v vapor Düsenströmungen mit Energiezufuhr durch Homogene Kondensation. PhD
thesis. Fakultät für Maschinenbau. Germany: Universität Karlsruhe (TH);
N freestream condition/infinite flat-film surface 1996 [in German].
[21] Matsuo S, Tanaka M, Setoguchi T, Kaneko K. Effect of non-equilibrium
condensation of moist Air on flow fields in a Ludwieg tube (case without
condensation upstream of nozzle). JSME J Ser B 2003;69:1163–70. [in
References Japanese].
[22] Hasan ABMT, Matsuo S, Setoguchi T, Kim H-D. Transonic moist air flow
[1] Lee BHK. Self-sustained shock oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds. Prog around a symmetric disc butterfly valve with non-equilibrium condensation.
Aerosp Sci 2001;37:147–96. Proc IMechE, Part C: J Mech Eng Sci 2010;224:2165–79.
[2] Deck S. Numerical simulation of transonic buffet over a supercritical airfoil. [23] Otobe Y, Yasunobu T, Kashimura H, Matsuo S, Setoguchi T, Kim H-D.
AIAA J 2005;43:1556–66. Hysteretic phenomenon of underexpanded moist air jet. AIAA J 2009;47:
[3] Xiao Q, Tsai H, Liu F. Numerical study of transonic buffet on a supercritical 2792–9.
airfoil. AIAA J 2006;44:620–8. [24] Goldberg UC. Toward a pointwise turbulence model for wall-bounded and
[4] Chen LW, Xu CY, Lu XY. Numerical investigation of the compressible flow free shear flows. ASME J Fluids Eng 1994;116:72–6.
past an aerofoil. J Fluid Mech 2010;643:97–126. [25] Goldberg UC. Exploring a three-equation R–k–e turbulence model. ASME J
[5] Tijdeman H, Seebass R. Transonic flow past oscillating airfoils. Annu Rev Fluid Fluids Eng 1996;118:795–9.
Mech 1980;12:181–222. [26] Yamamoto S, Daiguji H. Unsteady Navier-Stokes simulation of turbulent
[6] Weber A, Schreiber HA, Fuchs R, Steinert W. 3-D Transonic flow in a flows through a supersonic compressor cascade. In: Proceedings of first
compressor cascade with shock-induced corner stall. ASME J Turbomach ASME–JSME fluids engineering conference on numerical simulation in
2002;124:358–66. turbomachinery. Oregon FED120, 1991. p. 73–9.
[7] Benini E, Biollo R. Aerodynamics of swept and leaned transonic compressor- [27] Yee HC. A class of high-resolution explicit and implicit shock capturing
rotors. Appl Energy 2007;84:1012–27. methods, NASA TM-89464; 1989.
[8] Weitao H, Weiyang Q, Hualing L. Shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction in a [28] Alam MMA, Matsuo S, Setoguchi T. Effect of non-equilibrium homogeneous
transonic turbine cascade. Proc IMechE, Part G: J Aerosp Eng 2011;225: condensation on the self-induced flow oscillation of supersonic impinging
77–85. jets. Int J Therm Sci 2010–11;49:2078–92.