Introduction

The 3D (Stanford) Diffuser is a well documented case with complex internal corner flow and 3D separation while having a relatively simple geometry. It has an inlet section, an expansion section and an outlet section (see Figure 1). The flow at the inlet is assumed to be a fully developed rectangular channel flow. At the outlet, standard Dirichlet condition for the pressure is prescribed. An inflow Reynolds number of 10000 is considered based on the duct height and the flow is considered to be incompressible. The following DNS data has been obtained using the in-house Finite Element Method (FEM) code Alya developed at BSC.

Review of previous studies

This diffuser configuration has already been investigated in the framework of two ERCOFTAC-SIG15 Workshops and in the European ATAAC project. They studied both 3D diffuser configurations (denoted as SIG15 Case 13.2-1 and SIG15 Case 13.2-2, respectively) and were held in Austria (September, 2008) and Italy (September, 2009). Both in the workshops and in the ATAAC project a wide range of turbulence models in both LES and RANS frameworks as well as some novel Hybrid LES/RANS formulations have been employed.

The workshop reports are published in the ERCOFTAC Bulletin Issues, see Steiner et al. (2009), Jakirlić et al. (2010b) and the CFD methods section of UFR4-16. The ATAAC reports can be found through the links through the links ATAAC_D3-2-36_excerpt3DDiffuser.pdf (excerpt from an ATAAC report) and ATAAC_finalWorkshop_ST04-Diffuser-ANSYS.pdf (PowerPoint presentation at ATAAC final workshop).

The only high-fidelity data available is the DNS performed by Ohlsson et al. (2010). As with the present case, this DNS had a Re=10000 and was computed using a spectral element code with 11th order polynomials. Their calculations were performed on the Blue Gene/P at ALCF, using 32768 cores and 8 million core hours. Another computation was performed on the cluster “Ekman” at PDC, Stockholm, Sweden, using 2048 cores and a total of 4 million core hours. The flow was computed for 13 flow-through-times (based on the bulk inlet velocity and diffuser length) before gathering statistics, which were gathered over an additional 21 flowthrough-times.

Description of the test case

The diffuser studied is the UFR4-16 Test Case, diffuser 1, provided in the ERCOFTAC database.

Geometry and flow parameters

The diffuser shape, dimensions and the coordinate system are shown in Fig. 1 (reproduced from UFR4-16 Test Case).

Figure 1: Geometry of the 3-D diffuser 1 considered (not to scale), Cherry et al. (2008); see also Jakirlić et al. (2010a).

Computational Domain

For the current diffuser, the upper-wall expansion angle is 11.3° and the side-wall expansion angle is 2.56°. The flow in the inlet duct (height h=1, width B=3.33) corresponds to fully-developed turbulent rectangular duct flow. The origin of coordinates is set at the entrance of the diffuser. The $L=15h$ long diffuser section is followed by a straight outlet part (12.5h long). Downstream of this the flow goes through a 10h long contraction followed by a 5h straight duct in order to minimize the effect of the outlet to the diffuser.

A difference from the experiment of Cherry et al. (2008) and the DNS of Ohlsson et al. (2010) is that the present geometry does not have any smoothing (by means of a fillet or curvature radius) on the walls transitioning between diffuser and the straight duct parts. The geometry also includes a long inlet duct of 65h long in order to allow the flow in the inlet duct to fully develop. Before this, there is a section of 5h long with a small chevron at 3h from the inlet for 0.1h in order to trigger the turbulent transition on the square duct. An overview of the computational geometry with details on the square duct is shown on Fig. 2.

Figure 2: Detail of the computational domain used for this test case (left) and detail of the inlet roughness element (right).

The bulk velocity in the inflow duct is ${U_{\textrm {bulk}}=U_{\textrm {inflow}}=1\ m/s}$ in the x-direction resulting in the Reynolds number based on the inlet channel height of 10000.

Boundary conditions

The inflow is set to $U=1$ at the inlet of the diffuser (x=-65h). As aforementioned, turbulence is triggered by creating a small discontinuity in the form of a small chevron in the duct. The entrance to the diffuser section at x=5h corresponds to that of a fully developed square duct.

Figure 3: Profile of the fully-developed turbulent inlet flow compared with the DNS of Ohlsson et al. (2010) and the experimental data of Cherry et al. (2008).

Figure 4: Axial velocity profile in semi-log coordinates corresponding to the fully-developed flow in the inflow duct compared with the DNS of Ohlsson et al. (2010).

Figure 5: Evolution of the Reynolds number based on the wall friction for the long inlet duct.

The outlet at x=47.5h is set to $dU/dn=0$ while the walls of the duct and the diffuser are set to no slip.

References

Ohlsson, J., Schlatter, P., Fischer P.F. and Henningson, D.S. (2009): DNS of three-dimensional separation in turbulent diffuser flows. In Advances in Turbulence XII, Proceedings of the 12th EUROMECH European Turbulence Conference, Marburg. Springer Proceedings in Physics, Vol. 132, ISBN 978-3-642-03084-0
Ohlsson, J., Schlatter, P., Fischer P.F. and Henningson, D.S. (2010): DNS of separated flow in a three-dimensional diffuser by the spectral-element method. J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 650, pp. 307–318
Steiner, H., Jakirlić, S., Kadavelil, G., Šarić, S., Manceau, R. and Brenn. G. (2009): Report on 13^th ERCOFTAC Workshop on Refined Turbulence Modelling. September 25–26, 2008, Graz University of Technology, ERCOFTAC Bulletin, No. 79, pp. 24–29
Jakirlić, S., Kadavelil, G., Sirbubalo, E., von Terzi, D., Breuer, M. and Borello, D. (2010b): 14th ERCOFTAC SIG15 Workshop on Turbulence Modelling: Turbulent Flow Separation in a 3-D Diffuser. "Sapienza" University of Rome, September 18, 2009, ERCOFTAC Bulletin, December Issue, No. 85, pp. 5–13
Cherry, E.M., Elkins, C.J. and Eaton, J.K. (2008): Geometric sensitivity of three-dimensional separated flows. Int. J. of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 29(3), pp. 803–811