Numerical and experimental analyses are performed on a supersonic air ejector to evaluate the effectiveness of commonly-used computational techniques when predicting ejector flow characteristics. Three series of experimental curves at different operating conditions are compared with 2D and 3D simulations using RANS, steady, wall-resolved models. Four different turbulence models are tested: k–ε, k–ε realizable, k–ω SST, and the stress–ω Reynolds Stress Model. An extensive analysis is performed to interpret the differences between numerical and experimental results. The results show that while differences between turbulence models are typically small with respect to the prediction of global parameters such as ejector inlet mass flow rates and Mass Entrainment Ratio (MER), the k–ω SST model generally performs best whereas ε-based models are more accurate at low motive pressures. Good agreement is found across all 2D and 3D models at on-design conditions. However, prediction at off-design conditions is only acceptable with 3D models, making 3D simulations mandatory to correctly predict the critical pressure and achieve reasonable results at off-design conditions. This may partly depend on the specific geometry under consideration, which in the present study has a rectangular cross section with low aspect ratio.

Computational and experimental analysis of supersonic air ejector: Turbulence modeling and assessment of 3D effects / Mazzelli, Federico; Little, Adrienne B; Garimella, Srinivas; Bartosiewicz, Yann. - In: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEAT AND FLUID FLOW. - ISSN 0142-727X. - ELETTRONICO. - 56:(2015), pp. 305-316. [10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2015.08.003]

Computational and experimental analysis of supersonic air ejector: Turbulence modeling and assessment of 3D effects

MAZZELLI, FEDERICO;
2015

Abstract

Numerical and experimental analyses are performed on a supersonic air ejector to evaluate the effectiveness of commonly-used computational techniques when predicting ejector flow characteristics. Three series of experimental curves at different operating conditions are compared with 2D and 3D simulations using RANS, steady, wall-resolved models. Four different turbulence models are tested: k–ε, k–ε realizable, k–ω SST, and the stress–ω Reynolds Stress Model. An extensive analysis is performed to interpret the differences between numerical and experimental results. The results show that while differences between turbulence models are typically small with respect to the prediction of global parameters such as ejector inlet mass flow rates and Mass Entrainment Ratio (MER), the k–ω SST model generally performs best whereas ε-based models are more accurate at low motive pressures. Good agreement is found across all 2D and 3D models at on-design conditions. However, prediction at off-design conditions is only acceptable with 3D models, making 3D simulations mandatory to correctly predict the critical pressure and achieve reasonable results at off-design conditions. This may partly depend on the specific geometry under consideration, which in the present study has a rectangular cross section with low aspect ratio.
2015
56
305
316
Mazzelli, Federico; Little, Adrienne B; Garimella, Srinivas; Bartosiewicz, Yann
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Mazzellietal2015_IJHFF.pdf

Accesso chiuso

Descrizione: articolo
Tipologia: Pdf editoriale (Version of record)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati
Dimensione 2.22 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.22 MB Adobe PDF   Richiedi una copia
Mazzellietal2015_IJHFF_preprint.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: preprint
Tipologia: Preprint (Submitted version)
Licenza: Open Access
Dimensione 2.69 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.69 MB Adobe PDF

I documenti in FLORE sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificatore per citare o creare un link a questa risorsa: https://hdl.handle.net/2158/1022728
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 123
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 100
social impact