Professional Documents
Culture Documents
D. Lakehal1
e-mail: lakehal@iet.mavt.ethz.ch
Institute of Energy Technology,
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich,
ETH-Zentrum/CLT,
CH-8092, Zurich, Switzerland
The paper presents recent trends in modeling jets in crossflow with relevance to film
cooling of turbine blades. The aim is to compare two classes of turbulence models with
respect to their predictive performance in reproducing near-wall flow physics and heat
transfer. The study focuses on anisotropic eddy-viscosity/diffusivity models and explicit
algebraic stress models, up to cubic fragments of strain and vorticity tensors. The first
class of models are direct numerical simulation (DNS) based two-layer approaches transcending the conventional k model by means of a nonisotropic representation of the
turbulent transport coefficients; this is employed in connection with a near-wall oneequation model resolving the semi-viscous sublayer. The aspects of this new strategy are
based on known channel-flow and boundary layer DNS statistics. The other class of
models are quadratic and cubic explicit algebraic stress formulations rigorously derived
from second-moment closures. The stress-strain relations are solved in the context of a
two-layer strategy resolving the near-wall region by means of a nonlinear one-equation
model; the outer core flow is treated by use of the two-equation model. The models are
tested for the film cooling of a flat plate by a row of streamwise injected jets. Comparison
of the calculated and measured wall-temperature distributions shows that only the anisotropic eddy-viscosity/diffusivity model can correctly predict the spanwise spreading of the
temperature field and reduce the strength of the secondary vortices. The wall-cooling
effectiveness was found to essentially depend on these two particular flow features.
The non-linear algebraic stress models were of a mixed quality in film-cooling
calculations. DOI: 10.1115/1.1485294
Introduction
Film cooling is probably the most efficient blade-cooling
mechanism employed in gas-turbine technology. This technique,
in which the injected cooling air acts as a buffer between the hot
gas and the blade, was found to offer an excellent compromise
between the protection of end-walls and aerodynamic efficiency.
Since the cooling performance can be influenced by a variety of
parameters, i.e., the blade and discharge geometry, injection angle,
blowing ratio, freestream turbulence, reliable prediction methods
can be of great interest for turbine designers.
Turbulence models employed in film cooling calculations in
general do not go beyond the isotropic two-equation type; see
Lakehal et al. 1 for a review. However, recent contributions 2
report on calculations with selected Reynolds stress models, but
their results revealed that this approach is not systematically better
than traditional eddy-viscosity models. Garg and Ameri 3 reported on film-cooling calculations where they compared the
Baldwin-Lomax model with different eddy-viscosity models
EVMs. There too, no clear picture emerged from the calculations indicating which of the employed models is superior. Hoda
and Acharya 4 conducted a similar study where various closures
for turbulent stresses were applied for the prediction of coolant jet
in crossflow. The models employed ranged from high and low-Re
number k and k models to nonlinear eddy viscosity variants. Their contribution led to the conclusion that this type of
closure needs further improvements. The main conclusion to be
1
Formerly at the Institute for Hydromechanics, University of Karlsruhe, Germany.
Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute and presented at the International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, New York, NY, November
1116, 2001, of THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS. Manuscript received by the IGTI, September 2001; revised manuscript received April 15,
2002. Associate Editor: R. S. Bunker.
Turbulence Modelling
The Reynolds-stress tensor and the turbulent heat flux are approximated within the context of the k turbulence model, considering both its linear and nonlinear forms. The model is coupled
with a one-equation model resolving the near-wall viscosityaffected regions. In the linear context, the near-wall model was
employed with the conventional eddy viscosity/diffusivity approach as well as with a nonisotropic variant. In both cases, the
length and velocity scales were inferred from available DNS data.
For the sake of consistency, in the EASM context the same oneequation model was employed with an isotropic transport coefficient but with use of a nonlinear form. Note that as in most of the
available DNS-based near-wall turbulence models, the present
strategy has been developed for attached flows with no guarantee
on its validity for separated flows. But in the absence of direct
simulation data of jets in crossflow, the idea remains the sole
reliable alternative. Flow field data for this class of flow do indeed
exist 14,15, but give insufficient information about the viscous
sublayer where most of the transport mechanisms take place. The
best example is the investigation of Kaszeta and Simon 15 who
measured the turbulent shear stresses in film-cooling flows with
streamwise injection in order to estimate the eddy diffusivities of
momentum in both the lateral and wall-normal directions. Although the study brought in a valuable insight into this particular
aspect, the authors were not capable of providing a clear picture
on the rate of turbulence anisotropy which can be a support for
computational modelling. They arrived though at the conclusion
that the anisotropy of turbulent transport is too complex to be
represented with a simple model such as the one of Bergeles.
The Two-Layer DNS-Based k Turbulence Model. The
two-layer approach represents an intermediate modeling strategy
between wall functions and pure low-Re number models. It consists in resolving the viscosity-affected regions close to walls with
a one-equation model, while the outer core flow is treated with the
standard k model. In the outer core flow, the usual eddyviscosity hypothesis is used
Journal of Turbomachinery
u 1 u j 2/3 i j k2 j S i j ;
u j
j T
Pr x j
(1)
where i j is the Kronecker delta, ku i u i /2 is the turbulent kinetic energy, and S i j is the rate of strain tensor. For high-Re flows
the turbulent transport coefficient j is conventionally made isotropic and proportional to the square of a velocity scale (V2 k)
and a time scale (Tk/), characterizing the local state of turbulence
j t C k 2 /
(2)
j v 2 C k ,
k 3/2/ ,
C l y n f
Cly n
2C / C l R y f
(3)
(4)
1
0.116R 2y R y ;
32
R y ky n /
(5)
A close inspection of Eq. 4 reveals that the DNS-based distribution of is in effect different from the one originally proposed in
TLK 17; in which rises more steeply as the wall is approached. To determine t and the same transport equation for k
as in the standard model needs to be solved. The outer (k) and
the near-wall model can then be matched at a location where
viscous effects become negligible i.e., f 0.9.
Prior to further applications, the model was employed first for
calculating the fully turbulent channel flow in two dimensions at
Re211. Note that this flow as simulated by means of DNS
19 is homogeneous in the third direction and the only nonzero
shear stress is the u v component. The computational method is
outlined in the corresponding section. The DNS database of this
2
This model TLK employs the one-equation model of Norris and Reynolds 17,
where indeed V k.
3
The damping function f is used here as the only criteria for switching between
the two-equation model resolving the outer core flow and the one-equation model
resolving the viscosity-affected layer, i.e., whenever f 0.9. This is known as the
dynamic, zonal, two-layer strategy, which contrasts with other implementations in
which the grid is explicitly decomposed into near-wall and outer portions.
1
k
P i j i j P ii
(6)
u j
u i
u j u k
xk
xk
(7)
u
;
y
u w 3
u
z
(8)
k v 2
;
3 C s
kw 2
(9)
v 2 k 2
;
k
3 C s
v 2 k 2
(10)
reveals that 3 / 2 1, a result systematically violated in conventional EVMs, where w 2 / v 2 is always equal to unity.
In very much the same way the turbulent heat flux u i can be
approximated by the generalized gradient diffusion hypothesis
GGDH
4
It is vital to note that this is not the case of the channel flow 19 used previously
for validating the TLV approach. Indeed, in that particular flow the shear-stress
component u w is actually zero because the velocity gradient in the cross direction
u / z is zero. The only interest in using these channel-flow DNS data is to infer a
distribution for w 2 and v 2 which will serve developing appropriate anisotropic
distributions for the transport coefficient j .
also from the DNS data of Kim see Fig. 2 right, from which
the following approximate correlation is derived:5
y 0.00442 R 2y 0.294 R y 0.545
(16)
Relation 15 shows that very near the wall the rate of turbulence
anisotropy grows drastically so that reaches very high values; it
reaches the value of 8.5 at the edge of the viscous sublayer, at
y 11.6, whereas the isotropic state of turbulence ( 1) is recovered in the log-layer, at y 43.
Two possibilities are now offered to model the various turbulent
transport terms using Eqs. 13 and 14: either one resorts to a
pure low-Re model or to a two-layer approach. In the first case,
Eq. 13 may be recast into the form of
v 2 /kC f /C s
(17)
k
T
u i C u i u j
x j
(11)
which, after having adopted the same simplifications for the flow,
yields
v C
v 2 k 2 T
;
k y
w C
v 2 k 2 T
k
z
(12)
Here again, the thermal diffusivity coefficients j C ku j 2 / acting in the normal and lateral directions are not equal, i.e., 3 / 2
. While Bergeles et al. 8 simplified their model by replacing
v 2 by k/3, yielding the conventional isotropic expressions 2
C k 2 / and 2 2 / Pr t , the present model bases the variation
of v 2 /k across the near-wall region on the channel-flow DNS
data of Kim, as reported in 16, and that of w 2 /k, as proposed
by Lakehal et al. 1
v 2 /k4.65105 R 2y 4.00104 R y
(13)
w 2 /k v 2 /k
(14)
Max
103 y 0.42
, 4.25
2.682 y 2 5.463
(15)
The DNS data for the parameter are plotted versus the nondimensional wall distance y in Fig. 2 left and compared to the
best fit given by Eq. 15. This approximation, which perfectly
reflects the strong increase in turbulence anisotropy as the wall is
approached is valid in the range 1.5y 43 only 1 at y
43. The lower bound of 4.25 appearing in the foregoing expression represents an average value for which replaces the
original distribution of Bergeles, up to the edge of the boundary
layer. This value is derived by examining the experimental data of
Ardey 14 and Kaszeta and Simon 15; the latter authors have
found the distribution of Bergeles not in accordance with their
data. Admittedly, there is no proof that this relation is valid for
separated flows as well. Without really expecting to obtain a general relationship for , there is at least one consistent way of using
Eq. 15: it consists of alleviating its dependence on the dimensionless wall distance y , which can be replaced by the near-wall
Reynolds number R y . The relation between y and R y follows
Journal of Turbomachinery
2 C f
k2
;
3 C f
k2
(18)
2 v 2 C k ;
3 w 2 C k
(19)
k
kj
2k
u j k P
x j
x j
x j
(20)
Fig. 3 Normalized profiles in developed channel flow at Re211; left turbulent kinetic energy k ; right shear stress u v
2
k2 t S i j
3 ij
CT
n
n n
ij
k 2 /
t C
(21)
where the T inj are the products of the strain and vorticity tensors,
S i j and i j . The available models differ in the way the coeffi are determined, and in the number of strain and
cients C n and C
vorticity-stress products, i.e., quadratic, cubic, etc. Four model
variants have been selected in the present work: three of them are
quadratic and one is cubic with respect to S i j and i j ; namely, the
quadratic models of Shih et al. 22 SZL93, Shih et al. 23
SZL95, and Gatski and Speziale 24 GS, and the cubic variant
of Craft et al. 25 CLS. While the details of each of these models can be found in the corresponding references, here we focus on
the GS model, in which
T i1j
k
S S jk k j ;
ik k j
T i2j
k
1
S S S S
ik k j 3 kl kl i j
and
C
C
2 2
1 1 S 22 2
The coefficients 1 , 2 , C 1 and C 2 , derived from the welldocumented SSG pressure-strain model c.f. 24, are all proportional to P k /, the ratio of production to dissipation of turbulent
kinetic energy. The implications of this dependence are discussed
below. The model is strongly dependent on the assumption of
weak-to-mild equilibrium of turbulence, greatly reducing its usefulness in practical situations. This constraint is generally incorporated by treating the production-to-dissipation ratio through the
equilibrium solution for homogeneous turbulence, i.e., P k /
1.89. However, the necessity to account for the changes in this
ratio is now fully accepted because the equilibrium value systematically drives the model into inconsistency when used away from
equilibrium. In a recent effort to make the GS model applicable to
a broad range of practical flows, Lakehal and Thiele 26 emphasized two important aspects: i the development of a generalized
relation for P k /, and ii the formulation of a better regulariza . Their proposed to model P k /, by
tion procedure for C
476 Vol. 124, JULY 2002
P k /
S2
4.81.3Max S,
(22)
C 1S 4
1S 4 1 22 2 21 S 2 22 2
(23)
Fig. 4 Normalized rms-velocity profiles in developed channel flow at Re211; Results obtained with various turbulence models
ergy k and shear stress u v with the DNS data of Gilbert and
Kleiser 19. Apart from the quadratic SZL95 model of Shih et al.
23, both the TLV and the other EASMs deliver results in accordance with the data. The shear stress, which can be seen in Fig. 3
right to be generally well predicted, is the only parameter affecting the mean flow. This is supported by Fig. 4, displaying the
normal stress components which clearly shows that only with
EASMs models can these components be separated, though not as
much as in the DNS data. Looking at Fig. 4 confirms the superiority of the TLV model over the TLK top left panel, but also
reveals that for this type of flow the EASMs do not deliver a
unique solution. It should be noted that the best results are obtained with the GS/LT quadratic model; the other two EASMs, do
not separate the normal and spanwise rms components sufficiently, in particular within the outer core flow region. As mentioned previously, although this behavior is not crucial for a
simple shear flow, its implications could be appreciable in the
presence of mainstream-induced secondary vortices. More importantly, this validation phase has shown that coupling a nonlinear
two-equation model with a nonlinear one-equation model resolving the viscosity-affected layer can be a viable and robust alternative to a pure low-Re scheme.6
Journal of Turbomachinery
appear in the cell-centered grid arrangement. The pressurevelocity coupling is achieved by using the well-known SIMPLEC
algorithm. The present computations were performed employing
the QUICK scheme for all variables applied in a scalar form by
means of a deferred-correction procedure and bounded by the
Van-Leer harmonic function as limiter. The diffusive fluxes are,
however, approximated using second-order central differences.
The resulting system of difference equations was solved using the
strongly implicit procedure SIP algorithm. Convergence was in
all cases determined based on a drop in normalized mass and
momentum residuals by four orders of magnitude at least. A global mass and energy balance algorithm was employed after each
iteration, consisting of a systematic readjustment of the mass
fluxes at the outflow.
greater for the dense jet than the unity-density jet. More details
about the effects of increasing jet density on the flow structure are
provided by Sinha et al. 11.
Mean Flow Field. Effects of weak compressibility in this example were accounted for by use of the equation of state. It is also
important to note that given the poor performance of the SZL95
model, the results were not included for comparison. Contours of
wall film-cooling effectiveness on the channel surface predicted
by the TLV model are compared in Fig. 6 with results delivered by
the anisotropic TLVA model and the GS/LT and SZL93 EASMs
CLS calculations are not included here; these were coupled with
the TLV employed in nonlinear form. For both blowing rates, M
0.5 and M 1, calculations with the TLVA model, illustrated on
top of each panel of Fig. 6, seem to considerably enhance the
lateral spreading of the scalar field compared to the TLV model,
although smaller values of are obtained at the centerline of the
surface. This indicates that the model shortens the reverse-flow
region, or, in other words, it anticipates the reattachment of the jet
after separating. Since the corresponding experimental data are
not available, this conclusion remains only tentative. Combining
now GS/LT and TLV improves only slightly the prediction of the
lateral spreading in comparison to the standard model alone, but
the values of at the centerline are now comparable.
The model variant of Shih et al. 22 SZL93 has little or no
advantage at all; the results are even suspected to be incorrect in
the centerline region. From this first analysis it clearly appears
that increasing the lateral turbulent transport by means of an anisotropic eddy viscosity has a very strong effect on the results,
much more so than any of the EASMs. Judging from the wall
temperature contours, increasing the blowing rate M lifts the sec-
Fig. 7 Streamlines at the midplane Z D 0 for M 0.5 and 1.0. Calculations with the TLV and TLVA
models.
ondary vortices further up from the wall. In other words, increasing the mass flux ratio leads to a deeper penetration of the jet into
the core flow.
In connection with these results, qualitative illustrations of the
flow behavior predicted with the isotropic and anisotropic models
TLV and TLVA for both blowing rates of M 0.5 and 1.0 are
shown in Fig. 7. This displays the flow streamlines in the immediate vicinity of the injection hole generated by following the
paths of tracers injected into the oncoming flow and the discharge
flow. The figure clearly shows the penetration of the jet into the
core flow. It also displays the way the jet is bent towards the
surface by the mainstream after injection. The extreme complexity
of the flow, especially in the direct interaction region, is well
illustrated, and the longitudinal vortices can clearly be seen to
partially develop already inside the pipe. The fluid-particle trajectories also show the shearing of the jet by the main stream on the
right side, looking in the downstream direction. Also, the figure
indicates that the jet initially detaches from the wall and then
reattaches downstream. For both blowing rates the TLVA model
predicts the jet separation over the plate surface well, although it
slightly shortens the recirculation compared to the TLV calculations. The implications of this behavior were already discussed in
connection with wall temperature contours.
The secondary-flow velocity vectors and the corresponding
temperature contours for M 0.5 are plotted in Fig. 8 at a position
immediately behind the injection, X/D4. Each panel represents
half of the computational domain, since symmetry conditions
were applied at the midplane. Results obtained with the TLV
model are always shown on the left side of each panel. The system
of a pair of counter-rotating longitudinal vortices kidney vortices, typical to jets in crossflow, can be seen to establish itself in
all calculations. The two vortices cause the typical, symmetrical
kidney shape of the temperature contours. Near the wall the velocity is directed towards the middle of the jet (z0). Note, too,
that near the wall the velocity gradients dw
/dy i.e., the vorticity
are very strong, and the outer flow is directed away from the
surface. The SZL model considerably compresses the secondary
vortex, and the values of in the center of the vortex seem to be
much higher than those of the TLV model. This conforms to the
earlier results of wall temperature iso-contours obtained with this
model. The GS/LT model behaves almost like TLV. However, in
Journal of Turbomachinery
Fig. 8 Formation of the secondary vortices at cross-flow location X D 4. Calculations with various turbulence models for
M 0.5.
Fig. 9 Near-injection turbulence intensity T u contours normalized by U in the vertical plane Z D 0. Calculations with
various turbulence models and M 0.5. Experimental data lowest panel of Pietrzyk et al. 12.
ence between calculations and measurements which has been attributed to the length-to-diameter of the pipe. This means that the
shear stresses are not sensitive to changes in this parameter, at
least when in the presence of the plenum. Again, the SZL-TLV
predictions second panel fail totally in predicting the shear stress
levels in the entire region surrounding the injection and downstream. Also, downstream of the hole the other EASM model
GS/LT underestimates the shear-stress levels by about 50%,
0.003% compared to 0.006%. Another interesting observation is
that the shear stress level in this location is very well predicted by
both TLV and its anisotropic variant TLVA, even if the region
over which this maximum level occurs is much larger than in the
experiment, extending almost from X/D1.0.
From a physical standpoint, and conforming with the experiTransactions of the ASME
ments, the shear layer around the jet is generated locally and
dependent on the boundary layer thickness, in contrast to the turbulence intensity which has clearly been seen to persist from the
upstream region up to the hole. Higher magnitudes of shear stress
and turbulence intensity were found to persist far downstream of
the hole, up to X/D20 results not included here. This was also
observed by Pietrzyk 12 and later by Sinha et al. 11.
Mean Thermal Field. In Fig. 11 upper panels, the filmcooling effectiveness at the centerline of the channel is displayed as a function of downstream distance. Results of various
turbulence models are compared with the data of Sinha et al. 10.
Using the standard TLV model without correction, is predicted
too high at the centerline. However, close to the injection the
agreement is good, which in itself is a major improvement comJournal of Turbomachinery
Fig. 11 Comparison of at the centerline upper two panels and the laterally averaged film-cooling
effectiveness lower panels
Fig. 12 Distributions of the spanwise film-cooling effectiveness for M 0.5 at four cross-flow locations
Fig. 13 Distributions of the spanwise film-cooling effectiveness for M 1.0 at two cross-flow locations
Conclusions
Streamwise injection of film coolant over a flat plate has been
simulated for density ratio of two and mass flux ratios of 0.5 and
1.0. The calculations were extended to the injection pipe and to
the plenum. A flexible, three-dimensional, finite-volume method
using multi-block curvilinear grids was employed, and high-order
discretization schemes were used to reduce numerical errors. Various versions of the k turbulence model were employed to
simulate the turbulent exchange processes. These include an isotropic two-layer version resolving the viscous sublayer with a
DNS-based one-equation model, a second model variant accounting for the anisotropy of turbulent exchange, also based on the
same DNS data, and various quadratic and cubic explicit algebraic
stress models combined with the DNS-based near-wall oneequation model.
The flow field and its dependence on the blowing rate appear to
be reasonably well predicted, and most of the pertinent physical
mechanisms associated with jets in crossflow were also well predicted, including the injection-induced secondary-flow vortices.
Calculations of the film cooling of the channel show that the thermal field is more difficult to predict and is very sensitive to numerical details. The basic evolution is however simulated correctly, and so is the influence of the blowing rate. The isotropic
two-layer k model was found to underpredict the lateral
spreading of the temperature field, together with an exaggerated
size of the kidney vortices. Consequently, the laterally averaged
film-cooling effectiveness is generally too low.
The nonlinear algebraic models, which were of a mixed quality,
underpredict the lateral spreading of the jet as much as the isotropic TLV model. Furthermore, except for the quadratic GS/LT variant, the other nonlinear models were found to exaggerate the size
of the jet and its lifting-off from the wall, leading to a counter
effect in terms of wall cooling effectiveness. This was clearly seen
in the distributions of local lateral film-cooling effectiveness on
the plate surface, where the deviations between calculations and
measurements become more evident with increasing distance
Journal of Turbomachinery
from the hole. The EASM version of Gatski and Speziale has
indeed met with some success compared to the linear isotropic
model, but the best results are obtained in connection with the
DNS-based anisotropy TLVA model. This model variant has been
shown to better predict the secondary vortices associated with the
jet, while considerably enhancing the lateral spreading of the scalar field. It was also found that with this approach, turbulence
characteristics including intensity and shear stresses are well predicted in the region surrounding the injection location; the latter
quantity has shown insensitive to changes in the length-todiameter of the discharge hole. However, it is important to caution
from extending this approach to other more complex flows since
the empirical relations for turbulence anisotropy on which the
method is based were inferred from DNS data of a channel attached flow. Finally, since the model directly depends on the wall
distance, it has to be employed with grids with near-wall resolutions of at least y 1.5.
Acknowledgments
This work was achieved when the first author was in short stay
at the Institute of Energy Technology of ETH Zurich, kindly invited by Prof. G. Yadigaroglu.
Nomenclature
D
k
M
Prt
Sij
S
Ry
T u
Tu
u i
Uh
U
yn
y
j / j
/
t /
t
ij
w
u
irreducible invariant of i j k/ i j i j
general dependent variable
density
Prandtl nos.
fluctuating temperature
wall friction
friction velocity w /
Subscripts
c
h
pln
w
freestream
centerline
jet
plenum
wall
References
1 Lakehal, D., Theodoridis, G., and Rodi, W., 2001, Three Dimensional Flow
and Heat Transfer Calculations of Film Cooling at the Leading Edge of a
Symmetrical Turbine Blade Mode, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 22, pp. 113122.
2 Ferguson, D. J., Walters, K. D., and Leylek, J. H., 1998, Performance of
Turbulence Models and Near-Wall Treatments in Discrete Jet Film Cooling
Simulations, ASME paper No 98-GT-438.
3 Garg, V. K., and Ameri, A. A., 1997, Comparison of Two-Equation Turbulence Models for Prediction of Heat Transfer on Film-Cooled Turbine Blades,
Numer. Heat Transfer, Part A, 31, pp. 347371.
4 Hoda, A., and Acharya, S., 2000, Predictions of a Film Cooling Jet in Crossflow with Different Turbulence Models, ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 558
569.
5 Lakehal, D., Theodoridis, G., and Rodi, W., 1998, Computation of Film
Cooling of a Flat Plate by Lateral Injection from a Row of Holes, Int. J. Heat
Fluid Flow, 19, pp. 418 430.
6 Theodoridis, G., Lakehal, D., and Rodi, W., 2001, 3D Calculations of the
Flow Field Around a Turbine Blade with Film Cooling Injection Near the
Leading Edge, Flow, Turbul. Combust., 66, pp. 57 83.
7 Rodi, W., 1991, Experience with Two-Layer Models Combining the k
Model with a One-Equation Model Near the Wall, AIAA J., Paper No. 910216.
8 Bergeles, G., Gosman, A. D., and Launder, B. E., 1978, The Turbulent Jet in
a Cross Stream at Low Injection Rates: a Three-Dimensional Numerical Treatment, Numer. Heat Transfer, 1, pp. 217242.
9 Quarmby, A., and Quirk, R., 1974, Axisymmetric and Non-Axisymmetric
Turbulent Diffusion in a Plain Circular Tube at High Schmidt Number, Int. J.
Heat Mass Transf., 17, p. 143.
10 Sinha, A. K., Bogard, D. G., and Crawford, M. E., 1991, Film-Cooling Effectiveness Downstream of a Single Row of Holes with Variable Density Ratio, ASME J. Turbomach., 113, pp. 442 449.
11 Sinha, A. K., Bogard, D. G., and Crawford, M. E., 1991, Gas Turbine Film
Cooling: Flowfield due to a Second Row of Holes, ASME J. Turbomach.,
113, pp. 450 456.
12 Pietrzyk, J. R., Bogard, D. G., and Crawford, M. E., 1990, Effect of Density
Ratio on the Hydrodynamics of Film Cooling, ASME J. Turbomach., 113, pp.
442 449.
13 Leylek, J. H., and Zirkle, R. D., 1994, Discrete-Jet Film Cooling: A Comparison of Computational Results with Experiments, ASME J. Turbomach.,
116, pp. 358 368.
14 Ardey, S. 1998, 3D-Messung des Stroemungsfeldes um die filmgekuehlte
Vorderkante einer Referenzschaufel, Abschlussbericht zum TURBOTHERM
II-Verbundvorhaben 2.1.8.4 der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Hochtemperatur Gasturbine, Report LRT-Inst. 12-98/02, Universitat der Bundeswehr Munich, Germany.
15 Kaszeta, R. W., and Simon, T. W., 2000, Measurement of Eddy Diffusivity of
Momentum in Film Cooling Flows with Streamwise Injection, ASME J. Turbomach., 122, pp. 178 183.
16 Rodi, W., Mansour, N. N., and Michelassi, V., 1993, One-Equation Near-Wall
Turbulence Modeling with the Aid of Direct Simulation Data, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 115, pp. 196 205.
17 Norris, L. H., and Reynolds, W. C. 1975, Turbulent Channel Flow with a
Moving Wavy Boundary, Report No. FM-10, Stanford University, Departement of Mechanical Engineering.
18 Kim, J., Moin, P., and Moser, R., 1987, Turbulence Statistics in Fully Developed Channel Flow at Low Reynolds Number, J. Fluid Mech., 177, pp. 133
166.
19 Gilbert, N., and Kleiser, L. 1991, Turbulence Model Testing with the Aid of
Direct Numerical Simulation Results, Proc., 8th Symposium on Turbulent
Shear Flows, Paper No 26-1, Munich, Germany, September 911.
20 Launder, B. E., Reece, G., and Rodi, W., 1975, Progress in the Development
of a Reynolds Stress Turbulence Closure, J. Fluid Mech., 68, pp. 537566.
21 Launder, B. E., 1988, On the Computation of Convective Heat Transfer in
Complex Turbulent Flows, ASME J. Heat Transfer, 110, pp. 10351306.
22 Shih, T. H., Zhu, J., Lumley, J. L., 1993, A Realizable Reynolds Stress
Algebraic Equation Model, Technical Report, NASA TM-105993.
23 Shih, T. H., Zhu, J., and Lumley, J. L., 1995, A New Reynolds Stress Algebraic Equation Model, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 125, pp. 287
302.
24 Gatski, T. B., and Speziale, C. G., 1993, On Explicit Algebraic Stress Models
for Complex Turbulent Flows, J. Fluid Mech., 254, pp. 5978.
25 Craft, T. J., Launder, B. E., and Suga, K., 1996, Development and Application of a Cubic Eddy-viscosity Model of Turbulence, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow,
17, pp. 108 118.
26 Lakehal, D., and Thiele, F., 2001, Sensitivity of Turbulent Shedding Flows
Past Cylinders to Non-Linear Stress-Strain Relations and Reynolds Stress
Models, Comput. Fluids, 30, pp. 135.
27 Majumdar, S., Rodi, W., and Zhu, J., 1992, Three-Dimensional FiniteVolume Method for Incompressible Flows With Complex Boundaries, ASME
J. Fluids Eng., 114, pp. 496 503.