smithEtAl streamVaneAnalysis 2018 PDF

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/322311771
Analysis of Duct Vortex Development with Low- and High-fidelity Models to

Support StreamVane™ Design
Conference Paper · January 2018

DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-1558
CITATION READS
1 310
3 authors, including:
K. Todd Lowe
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
140 PUBLICATIONS 479 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Supersonic jet noise reduction View project
Engine/airframe integration View project
All content following this page was uploaded by K. Todd Lowe on 13 January 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AIAA SciTech Forum 10.2514/6.2018-1558
8–12 January 2018, Kissimmee, Florida
2018 AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
Analysis of Duct Vortex Development with Low- and High-

fidelity Models to Support StreamVane™ Design
Katherine N. Smith*, Walter F. O’Brien†, and K. Todd Lowe‡
Turbomachinery and Propulsion Research Laboratory
Virginia Polytechnic and State University, Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA
With advancements in the design of new aircrafts, more emphasis has shifted to
research in the area of inlet distortion. Inlet distortion is present in new concepts such as the
Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) concept and Boundary Layer Ingestion (BLI) concept. Before the
new concepts can be usefully implemented, the engine operability effects of the inlet distortion
produced must be understood. The Virginia Tech Turbomachinery and Propulsion Research
Laboratory has ongoing research that studies how to model, measure, analyze, and
Downloaded by Kevin Lowe on January 13, 2018 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2018-1558
understand inlet flow distortions and their effect on engine-airframe integration. Virginia
Tech has developed a device named the StreamVane™ that creates a swirl distortion flow
pattern as well as a supporting predictive model for the device designated StreamFlow.
Streamflow is a fast low-fidelity computational model used for flow propagation. In this work,
the StreamFlow model’s use in place of a high-fidelity commercial flow propagation model is
investigated. This work is conducted on a fabricated vortical distortion profile, designated
TwinVort. The work compares the results of the downstream propagation of the TwinVort
flow profile from the low- and high-fidelity models and additional experimental wind tunnel
tests. This works finds that the StreamFlow low-fidelity model is suitable model to be used in
place of the higher-fidelity model, enabling the future utilization of StreamFlow’s fast
computational time benefits.
Nomenclature
𝑃 = pressure
𝑢 = flow velocity
𝑧 = stream-wise coordinate
𝑦 = vertical coordinate
𝑥 = horizontal coordinate
𝑟 = radial coordinate
𝜃 = circumferential coordinate
𝑡 = time coordinate
𝐷 = duct diameter
𝜌 = gas density
𝑛 = number of measurements
𝛽 = tangential flow angle
𝛼 = radial flow angle
I. Introduction
A dvancemments in the aviation industry are leading to new technologies that combine the airframe and
propulsion systems of the airplane to improve performance. One approach that utilizes this integration
*
Graduate Research Assistant, Virginia Tech, Mechanical Engineering
†
J. Bernard Jones Professor, Virginia Tech, Mechanical Engineering, AIAA Associate Fellow
‡
Assistant Professor, Virginia Tech, Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, AIAA Associate Fellow
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2018 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
All rights reserved.
of subsystems is the Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) concept. HWB airplanes use a blended wing body
configuration with high mounted engines installed above the body.1 Another approach is the Boundary
Layer Ingestion (BLI) concept. BLI airplanes use a blended wing body configuration where the engines
are located close to the body.2 In these configurations the engines experience severe non-uniformities in the
inlet flow to the fan, which can ultimately affect the operability of the engine. The inlet flow distortions
contain complex, coupled, total pressure and swirl distortions which researchers decouple with current
technologies in ground testing techniques for a focused analysis
The Virginia Tech Turbomachinery and Propulsion Research Laboratory has ongoing research that
studies how to model, measure, analyze, and understand inlet flow distortions and their effect on engine-
airframe integration.3-12Virginia Tech has developed a device named the StreamVane™ that creates a swirl
distortion flow pattern.5 Further development of the StreamVane™ design process yielded the creation of
a downstream flow profile predictive model, named StreamFlow. 12 StreamFlow is used as a computational
model to predict flow evolution and allows for iteration of upstream flow profiles which are used to generate
StreamVanes™ that produce desired downstream profiles.
A higher order computational method can be designed to predict the flow development through a
circular duct representing an engine inlet using ANSYS-CFX based Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD).
This high-fidelity model will have fewer assumptions and provide a better resolution of the fluid dynamics
associated with the flow than a lower order model. However, for the prediction of a StreamVane™ flow
profile as it moves through the duct, where flow is dominated by streamwise vortex dynamics, 13 a lower
fidelity model (StreamFlow) can reach comparable results to those of the high-fidelity model. The benefit
of using the StreamFlow model is in its ability to compute results on the order of seconds versus a higher
fidelity CFD which may complete on the order of hours. This allows the StreamFlow model to be used to
significantly reduce the time required for StreamVane™ design estimation schemes that may require
thousands of iterations with the model to converge to a desired flow pattern. When used as a design tool,
CFD has inherent limitations due to run times.
One large of benefit of using CFD is its ability to increase research efficiency. Researchers can
learn about a certain flow problem through CFD at relatively low time and monetary costs compared to a
full experiment of that same flow problem. However, as stated just before, CFD has limitations. Depending
on the complexity and physic involved with the flow problem, the time and cost involved with CFD
modeling can escalate. Not only can those complex problems take hours to days of run time but they can
also require facilities with expensive high computing capabilities. To avoid these escalating costs, it is
common for researchers to create lower order models that aim to produce comparable results to a high-
fidelity CFD simulation. StreamFlow aims to achieve that in the case of the propagation of vortical flow
through a circular duct. Vortex dynamic methods have been used to calculate the evolution of vortical flows
in unbounded fluid,14 cylinder flows,15 and biological flight of insects.16,17 When compared to higher-
fidelity CFD computations, those lower models based on vortex dynamics performed well. Low order
models based on vortex dynamics are able to capture most of the important aspects of the physics in these
types of vortical flows.
Previously, StreamFlow has been shown to produce flow prediction results that are comparable to
stereoscopic PIV experimental results for a tightly-wound vortex (Root-Mean-Square-Differences (RMSD)
within 2o − 4o for radial and tangential flow angles).12 The purpose of this paper is to compare StreamFlow prediction
model results to results from a high fidelity ANSYS-CFX based CFD flow prediction model, and additional wind
tunnel experiments. The comparison of these results help determine whether StreamFlow produces suitable results so
it can be used in place of the commercial high-fidelity CFD model.
II. Methods
Comparison of flow propagation results of a 2D flow profile are carried out across three different
measurement platforms: a high fidelity flow computational model (ANSYS-CFX Based CFD), a low fidelity
computational model (StreamFlow), and experimental low speed wind tunnel (6 Inch Wind Tunnel Facility at Virginia
Tech). This section will describe the theory, setup, and methods used to create the 2D flow profile and gather the flow
propagation results.
2
For the purpose of this paper, the 2D velocity profile generated in the next subsection will be set as the input
into both models and used for the design of the StreamVane™ for experimental testing. Downstream results of the
flow propagation from the three measurement platforms will be analyzed at three 2D planes, 1.00 duct diameters
downstream (1.00D), 1.50 duct diameters downstream (1.50D), and 2.00 duct diameters downstream (2.00D).
A. Generation of 2D Velocity Profile

For this study, a Virginia Tech flow profile generation code was used to create a 2D flow profile (designated
“TwinVort”) to compare the high and low fidelity flow models. The TwinVort profile consists of two equally spaced
counter rotating vortices and was inspired by the SAE International S-16 Turbine Engine Inlet Flow Distortion
Committee characterization of a Paired Swirl. (SAE AIR5686) 18 TwinVort was generated using a Lamb-Oseen vortex
model which creates 2D velocity profiles by superimposing Lamb-Oseen Vortices within a 2D plane of a circular
duct. 12 The number of vortices and the designated vortex core radius, location, and circulation of each vortex defines
the profile. Parameter values for the model were selected to replicate a paired swirl distortion profile with a max swirl
angle of approximately 20˚. Figure 1 shows the initial TwinVort 2D velocity profile. The profile was first created on
a circular duct cross section with a diameter of 0.5 inches then scaled up to match the conditions of the Virginia Tech
6-Inch Wind Tunnel used in the experimental testing. The scaled profile is used as the initial 2D velocity profile input
for both the high and low fidelity models. Figure 2 shows the in-plane velocity, tangential flow angle, and radial flow
angle of the TwinVort scaled profile.
Figure 1. The SAE S-16 committee definition of a twin paired swirl (left) and the TwinVort 2D
velocity profile (right) designed to replicate the twin paired swirl profile.
3
Figure 2. In-plane velocity, tangential flow angle, and radial flow angle plots of the designed
TwinVort 2D velocity profile.
B. High Fidelity Model: ANSYS-CFX Based CFD

ANSYS-CFX (designated in figures as CFX) was used to create the high fidelity model for internal flow
through a circular duct. The geometry, shown in Figure 3, was modeled as a 6-inch diameter cylinder that was 30
inches long (5 duct diameters). An automatic method was used to create a refined mesh of triangles with an element
size of 0.125 inches, and 20 inflation layers with a 0.05 inches first layer height, resulting in 1014856 nodes. The
geometry consisted of an inlet, wall, and outlet. The inlet was set to a velocity inlet boundary condition, using the
TwinVort 2D velocity presented earlier. The wall boundaries conditions were set to no slip smooth wall condition,
and the outlet was set as a static pressure outlet to atmospheric pressure.
Figure 3. ANSYS-CFX Based CFD geometry and setup.
4
After completion of the CFD simulation, velocity data from the three measurement planes of interest
(1.00D, 1.50D, and 2.00D) were extracted. The velocity data was then post processed and used in the comparison
with data from StreamFlow and wind tunnel experiments.
C. Low Fidelity Model: StreamFlow 2D+t Model

As previously stated, Streamflow (designated in figures as SF) is a Virginia Tech-developed computational
model used to predict flow evolution. StreamFlow utilizes a 2D+t modeling technique with OpenFOAM that allows
for the estimation of secondary ‘in-plane’ flow under an assumed uniform bulk flow in the third dimension. 12 Due to
its purpose as a design tool which needs to compute as fast as practical, only the minimum necessary physics to
simulate this flow problem are used. Physics modeled by StreamFlow are based on incompressible, inviscid flow,
with slip wall boundary conditions. 12 StreamFlow takes a 2D Velocity field input to a circular duct, and propagates
the flow the desired distance downstream calculating the resulting 2D velocity field as the model steps down the duct
to the desired distance. Equations 1, 2, and 3 define the momentum equations (Eq. 1 and 2) and continuity equation
(Eq. 3) StreamFlow uses to calculate the velocity fields, and Table 1 defines the nondimensionalized variables used
in those equations.12
̃𝑦
𝜕𝑢 ̃𝑦
𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢̃𝑦 𝜕𝑃̃
𝑢̃𝑥 + 𝑢̃𝑦 + = − 𝜕𝑦̃ (1)
𝜕𝑥̃ 𝜕𝑦̃ 𝜕𝑡̃
̃𝑦
𝜕𝑢 ̃𝑦
𝜕𝑢 𝜕𝑢̃𝑦 𝜕𝑃̃
𝑢̃𝑥 + 𝑢̃𝑦 + = − 𝜕𝑦̃ (2)
𝜕𝑥̃ 𝜕𝑦̃ 𝜕𝑡̃
̃𝑥
𝜕𝑢 ̃𝑦
𝜕𝑢
+ =0 (3)
𝜕𝑥̃ 𝜕𝑦̃
Table 1. Nondimensionalized Variables used by StreamFlow12
𝑢̃𝑥 𝑢𝑥
𝑢𝑧
𝑢̃𝑦 𝑢𝑦
𝑢𝑧
𝑢̃𝑟 𝑢𝑟
𝑢𝑧
𝑢̃𝜃 𝑢𝜃
𝑢𝑧
𝑃̃ 𝑃
𝜌𝑢𝑧 2
𝑥̃ 𝑥
𝐷
𝑦̃ 𝑦
𝐷
𝑡̃ 𝑡𝑢𝑧
𝐷
For the purpose of this paper, the TwinVort velocity profile shown previously will be set as the input into
the StreamFlow model and downstream results of the flow propagation will be analyzed at the three 2D planes of
interest (1.00D, 1.50D, and 2.00D).
D. Experimental 6 Inch Wind Tunnel Test

A 6-inch diameter StreamVane was also designed using the TwinVort flow profile. The StreamVane was
tested at the 6-Inch Wind Tunnel Facility at Virginia Tech. Results were collected with a 5-hole three-dimensional
flow probe at the three measurement planes of interest (1.00D, 1.50D, 2.00D). Figure 4(a) shows the low speed wind
tunnel facility and experimental setup. It consists of a blower connected to a settling chamber, 6-inch circular duct test
section, and automatic rotator and traverse system. The data collection, probe positioning, and StreamVane™
positioning are all automated using a LabVIEW driven DAQ and automation system. Figure 4(b) shows a closer look
5
at the rotator and traverse system used to position the pressure probe and StreamVane™. At each measurement plane,
pressure data at was collected at 1,368 measurement locations. The pressure probe was attached to a radial traverse
and the StreamVane was mounted in a rotator so that measurements could be made across the entire duct.
(a) low speed wind tunnel setup
(b) low speed wind tunnel rotator and traverse system.
Figure 4. 6-Inch Low Speed Wind Tunnel Facility at Virginia Tech.
The pressure data collected was used to extract information about the flowfield including the flow angle results
of the distortion produced by the StreamVane™ at the three measurement planes. The measured distortion is compared
with the high and low fidelity model predictions in the experimental result section.
III. Computational Results and Discussion

First, the flow data was analyzed for both models at the three measurement planes of interest. Figure 5
displays the tangential and radial flow angle results collected at the first measurement plane (1.00D). The StreamFlow
and ANSYS-CFX tangential (β) and radial (α) flow angle downstream predictions are plotted in the contour lots. The
6
difference between the tangential and radial flow angle results from StreamFlow and CFX are also plotted for ease of
comparison. The CFD solution is considered as the reference in the following discussion. The contour plots show that
StreamFlow slightly under predicts the magnitude of tangential flow in the lower side regions. However, throughout
the rest of the tangential flow angle profile and across the radial flow angle profile both models match within ±1.5˚.
Figure 5. The plots show the tangential and radial flow angle plots from StreamFlow and CFX at
the 1.00D measurement plane. The plots on the far right show the point difference of the
StreamFlow and CFX flow angle results.
Figure 6 shows the same flow angle results from the two models at the next measurement plane (1.50D).
As the flow profile moves downstream, the StreamFlow is still slightly under predicting the magnitude of the
tangential flow angle. At this distance downstream, the shape of the angles flow regions between the two models
begins to differ as well. The side lobe regions of the CFX tangential flow migrate lower along the duct wall than
they do in the StreamFlow results. The radial flow angle starts to shows some minor differences as well, as the
shapes of the distorted regions begin to differ more between the models.
7
The differences between the StreamFlow and ANSYS-CFX results can most clearly be seen at the last
measurement plane (2.00D), shown in Figure 7. Again, overall, StreamFlow is slightly under predicting the magnitude
of the flow angles. In addition, the shape of the angled flow regions between the two models begins to differ more
than previously seen. In the CFX results, the side lobe regions of the tangential flow continue to condense and migrate
lower along the duct wall. The tangential flow regions from the StreamFlow results begin to migrate as well but not
to the extent shown by the CFX results. The shape of the positive radial flow region results from StreamFlow also
continue to slightly elongate more than the ANSYS-CFX results.
8
Without considering the slight underestimation of flow angle magnitude and feature migration, the profiles
from each model match very well. For all measurement planes, the profiles from each model match within ±1.5˚ of
each other. Visually, the low fidelity StreamFlow model produces results that are very comparable to high-fidelity
ANSYS-CFX model in the propagation of the TwinVort profile.
Lastly, the Root-Mean-Square Deviation was calculated using Equation 4 for both the tangential and radial
flow angles at each of the measurement planes. Table 2 lists those calculated quantities. Quantitatively, the results are
showing that again the low-fidelity StreamFlow model results are very comparable to those of the high-fidelity CFD.
∑(𝜷𝑪𝑭𝑿 −𝜷𝑺𝑭 )𝟐
𝑹𝑴𝑺𝑫 = √ (4)
𝒏
9
Table 2. RMSD results between the two models for the tangential and radial flow angles at the
three different measurement planes.
RMSD 1.00D 1.50D 2.00D

β 0.89˚ 1.12˚ 1.33˚
α 0.62˚ 0.82˚ 1.02˚
As the distortion flows downstream and develops the differences between the StreamFlow results and
ANSYS-CFX results grows. However, the differences between models is relatively small when considering the
maximum magnitude of the flow angle produced, approximately 20˚ in both tangential and radial flow angles.
Therefore, quantitatively, the low-fidelity model produces very similar results to the high-fidelity model.
IV. Experimental Results and Discussion

Using the TwinVort 2D velocity profile presented in the Methods section and the StreamVane™ Design
Method created by Hoopes,5 a 6-Inch StreamVane™ was designed and manufactured. Figure 8 displays the 3D printed
6 Inch TwinVort StreamVane™ that was tested at Virginia Tech in the low speed wind tunnel facility previously
described.
Figure 8. 3D printed 6 Inch TwinVort StreamVane™ used in the wind tunnel experiments.
10
As mentioned earlier, the experimental distortion was measured at the three planes of interest using the three-
dimensional flow pressure probe. Figure 9 shows the experimental tangential and radial flow angle results for all
measurement planes. As the distortion propagated down the duct it begins to develop. The two vortices within the
profile slowly start to migrate down along the wall of the duct to the bottom, almost starting to collapse on each other.
Figure 9. Experimental flow angle results from the TwinVort StreamVane at the three
measurement planes of interest.
The computational results presented in the previous section were compared to the experimental results to
assess the performance of both the low and high fidelity models. Table 3 shows the flow angle RMSD values (Equation
4) for the StreamFlow and ANSYS-CFX results versus the experimentally measured results. The RMSD values show
that the models match each other more than they do the experimental results. The values also show that the StreamFlow
results match the experimental results better than the ANSYS-CFX results when comparing tangential flow angle and
the opposite occurs when comparing the radial flow angle.
11
Table 3. Flow angle RMSD values between the two models and the experimental results at the
three different measurement planes.
RMSD 1.00D 1.50D 2.00D

βSF 1.71˚ 1.75˚ 1.95˚
βCFX 1.86˚ 1.84˚ 2.05˚
αSF 2.12˚ 2.40˚ 2.50˚
αCFX 1.93˚ 2.10˚ 2.05˚
Although the StreamVane™ distortion generator device is needed to create a distortion, the presence of the
device in the flow can also have other undesirable effects. Unfortunately, the turning vanes can disrupt the flow and
produces unwanted losses. In both models, these disruptions and losses are not present and therefore do not affect the
development of the distortion as it travels downstream. In addition, the RMSD values are easily affected by
misalignment and experimental uncertainties inherent in the experimental setup. Therefore, some differences between
the models and experimentally measured data are expected.
The differences presented in Table 3 are still relatively small when compared to the maximum flow angle
produced and are within or below to the RMSD values presented in previous work by Schneck et al. 12 Therefore it is
more important to consider the differences in calculated RMSD for the two different models. As stated before,
StreamFlow predicts the tangential flow angle slightly better than the ANSYS-CFX model and the opposite is true for
the for the radial flow angle. However, ultimately, the RMSD values from the StreamFlow model are all within 0.5 ̊
of their corresponding RMSD values from the ANSYS-CFX model. This small difference between the model RMSD
results quantitatively indicate that StreamFlow is suitable for use in place of the higher fidelity ANSYS-CFX model.
V. Conclusions
Preliminary findings are that the StreamFlow low fidelity model predicts duct flow development that matches
well with the high fidelity model results. When compared to the ANSYS-CFX based CFD, StreamFlow slightly under
predicts the magnitude of the flow angles and does not resolve the shapes of the regions of flow in the same manner.
This may be due to numerical diffusion which introduces error each time step of the Streamflow 2D+t method. Errors
from numerical diffusion can be slightly lowered by increasing the mesh size used in StreamFlow, but increasing its
mesh size slows down its computational run time. Even with a lower grid size and numerical diffusion effects,
StreamFlow produces comparable results as the flow profile moves downstream in the duct resulting in a max RMSD
across all measurement planes at 1.33˚ and 1.02˚ for tangential and radial flow angles, respectively.
In comparison to the results from the experimental StreamVane tests, both models produce a similar RMSD
values across all measurement planes for both flow angles. The corresponding RMSD values from each model are
within 0.5 ̊ of each other for both flow angles at all measurement planes. Therefore, it is confirmed that StreamFlow
is a suitable model to be used in plane of a high-fidelity ANSYS-CFX model. This work proves that the StreamFlow
model benefit of faster computational speed can be utilized without compromising the accuracy of the flow prediction
results.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the help and support from the Virginia Tech Turbomachinery and
Propulsion Laboratory. This work would not have been possible without their help and support. Further thanks are
extended to AFRL for their close collaboration on and funding for the various inlet distortion research projects at the
Virginia Tech Turbomachinery and Propulsion Laboratory.
References
1
Greitzer, E., Bonnefoy, P., De la Rosa Blanco, E., Dorbian, C., Drela, M., Hall, D., Hansman, R., Hileman,
J., Liebeck, R., Lovegren, J., Mody, P., Pertuze, J., Sato, S., Spakovszky, Z., Tan, C., Hollman, J., Duda, J., Fitzgerald,
N., Houghton, J., Kerrebrock, J., Kiwada, G., Kordonowy, D., Parrish, J., Tylko, J., Wen, E., and Lord, W., “N+3
Aircraft Concept Designs and Trade Studies, Final Report, Volume 1,” NASA Contractor Report, No. NASA/CR-
2010-216794/VOL1, December 2010.
12
Kawai, R. T., Friedman, D. M., and Serrano, L., “Blended Wing Body (BWB) Boundary Layer Ingestion
2
(BLI) Inlet Configuration and System Studies,” NASA Contractor Report, No. NASA/CR-2006-214534, December
2006, Boeing Phantom Works, Huntington Beach, California.
3
Ferrar, A. M., “Measurement and Uncertainty Analysis of Transonic Fan Response to Total Pressure Inlet
Distortion,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Mechanical Engineering Department, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, 2015.
4
W.C. Schneck, A.M. Ferrar, J. B. K. H. W. O., “Improved Prediction Method for the Design of High-
Resolution Total Pressure Distortion Screens,” 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons
Forum and Aerospace Exposition, No. AIAA 2013-1133, AIAA, Grapevine, Texas, January 2013.
5
Hoopes, K., A New Method for Generating Swirl Inlet Distortion for Jet Engine Research, Master’s thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2013.
6
Lucas, J., Effect of BLI-Type Inlet Distortion on Turbofan Engine Performance, Master’s thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2013.
7
Nelson, M., Stereoscopic Particle Image Velocimetry Measurements of Swirl Distortion on a Full-Scale
Turbofan Engine Inlet, Master’s thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2014.
8
T. Guimares, K.T. Lowe, M. N. W. O. C. K., “Stereoscopic PIV measurements in a turbofan engine inlet
with tailored swirl distortion,” 31st AIAA Aviation 2015, No. AIAA 2015-2866, AIAA, Dallas, Texas, June 2015.
26Frohnapfel, D., Experimental Investigation of Fan Rotor Response to Inlet Swirl Distortion, Master’s thesis,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2016.
9
T. Guimares, K.T. Lowe, W. O., “An overview of recent results using the StreamVane method for generating
tailored swirl distortion in jet engine research,” 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, No. AIAA 2016-534, AIAA,
San Diego, California, January 2016.
10
Bucalo, T. G., Copenhaver, W. W., Schneck, W. C., Lowe, K. T., and Obrien, W. F., “Swirling Flow
Evolution Part 1: Design and Stereo PIV Measurements at Select Planes,” 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
January 2017.
11
Frohnapfel, D. J., Obrien, W. F., and Lowe, K. T., “Fan Rotor Flow Measurements in a Turbofan Engine
Operating with Inlet Swirl Distortion,” 55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 2017.
12
Schneck, W. C., Bucalo, T. G., Frohnapfel, D. J., Lowe, K. T., Obrien, W. F., and Copenhaver, W. W.,
“Swirling Flow Evolution Part 2: StreamFlow 2D t Model Validated with Stereo PIV Measurements,” 55th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 2017.
13
D.D. Sanders, C.A. Nessler, T. J. W. C., “Computational and Experimental Evaluation of a Complex Inlet
Swirl Pattern
Generation System,” 52nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA, Salt Lake City, Utah, July
2016.
14
Knio, O. M., and Ghoniem, A. F., “Numerical study of a three-dimensional vortex method,” Journal of
Computational Physics, vol. 86, 1990, pp. 75–106.
15
Baranyi, L., and Lewis, R. I., “Comparison of a grid-based CFD method and vortex dynamics predictions
of low Reynolds number cylinder flows,” The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 110, 2006, pp. 63–71.
16
Eldredge, J., and Wang, C., “High-Fidelity Simulations and Low-Order Modeling of a Rapidly Pitching
Plate,” 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, 2010.
17
Eldredge, J. D., “Numerical simulation of the fluid dynamics of 2D rigid body motion with the vortex
particle method,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 221, 2007, pp. 626–648.
18
“A Methodology for Assessing Inlet Swirl Distortion,” Aerospace Information Report, SAE AIR5686, SAE
Aerospace, November 2010.
13
View publication stats

smithEtAl streamVaneAnalysis 2018 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

smithEtAl streamVaneAnalysis 2018 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

smithEtAl streamVaneAnalysis 2018 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Analysis of Duct Vortex Development with Low- and High-ﬁdelity Models to

Conference Paper · January 2018

Supersonic jet noise reduction View project

Engine/airframe integration View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Analysis of Duct Vortex Development with Low- and High-

A. Generation of 2D Velocity Profile

B. High Fidelity Model: ANSYS-CFX Based CFD

Figure 3. ANSYS-CFX Based CFD geometry and setup.

C. Low Fidelity Model: StreamFlow 2D+t Model

Table 1. Nondimensionalized Variables used by StreamFlow12

D. Experimental 6 Inch Wind Tunnel Test

(a) low speed wind tunnel setup

(b) low speed wind tunnel rotator and traverse system.

Figure 4. 6-Inch Low Speed Wind Tunnel Facility at Virginia Tech.

III. Computational Results and Discussion

RMSD 1.00D 1.50D 2.00D

IV. Experimental Results and Discussion

RMSD 1.00D 1.50D 2.00D

View publication stats

You might also like