Abstract
The present paper evaluates two unsteady transition modelling approaches: the prescribed unsteady intermittency method PUIM, developed at Cambridge University and the dynamic unsteady intermittency method developed at Ghent University. The methods are validated against experimental data for the N3-60 steam turbine stator profile for steady and for unsteady inlet flow conditions. The characteristic features of the test case are moderately high Reynolds number and high inlet turbulence intensity, which causes bypass transition. The tested models rely both on the intermittency parameter and are unsteady approaches. In the prescribed method, the time-dependent intermittency distribution is obtained from integral relations. In the dynamic method, the intermittency distribution follows from time-dependent differential equations. For unsteady computations, self-similar wake profiles are prescribed at the inlet of the computational domain. Joint validation of the prescribed and the dynamic unsteady intermittency models against experimental data shows that both methods are able to reproduce the global features of the periodical evolution of the boundary layer under the influence of a periodically impinging wake. The overall quality of the dynamic method is better than that of the prescribed method.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
