A Comparison of Turbulence Levels From Particle Image Velocimetry and Constant Temperature Anemometry Downstream of a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade at High-Speed Flow Conditions
A Comparison of Turbulence Levels From Particle Image Velocimetry and Constant Temperature Anemometry Downstream of a Low-Pressure Turbine Cascade at High-Speed Flow Conditions
复制标题
高速流动条件下低压涡轮叶栅下游粒子图像测速和恒温风速测量湍流水平的比较
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
R. Niehuis
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Silvio Chemnitz;R. Niehuis
基于reynolds -average Navier-Stokes （RANS）方程的数值方法的新湍流模型的开发和验证需要可靠的实验数据和对潜在湍流机制的深刻理解。高精度湍流测量通常仅限于在最佳实验条件下的简化测试用例。本文提供了全面的三维湍流流量数据，并在实际测试条件下比较了先进的恒温风速测量（CTA）和立体粒子图像测速（PIV）方法。实验是在发动机相关高速工况下，在线性低压涡轮叶栅下游进行的。高亚音速马赫数和低雷诺数的特殊组合导致了低密度测试环境，对所有应用的测量技术都具有挑战性。详细讨论了各种具体测量技术对测量结果的影响。给出的时间平均场和总湍流数据表明，三传感器热线探头与2D3C-PIV装置的结果非常吻合，平均偏差ΔTu<0.4%， ΔC/Cref<0.9%。PIV和CTA之间的大多数差异可以用有限的探针尺寸和单个几何形状来解释。
The development and verification of new turbulence models for Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equation-based numerical methods require reliable experimental data with a deep understanding of the underlying turbulence mechanisms. High accurate turbulence measurements are normally limited to simplified test cases under optimal experimental conditions. This work presents comprehensive three-dimensional data of turbulent flow quantities, comparing advanced constant temperature anemometry (CTA) and stereoscopic particle image velocimetry (PIV) methods under realistic test conditions. The experiments are conducted downstream of a linear, low-pressure turbine cascade at engine relevant high-speed operating conditions. The special combination of high subsonic Mach and low Reynolds number results in a low density test environment, challenging for all applied measurement techniques. Detailed discussions about influences affecting the measured result for each specific measuring technique are given. The presented time mean fields as well as total turbulence data demonstrate with an average deviation of ΔTu<0.4% and ΔC/Cref<0.9% an extraordinary good agreement between the results from the triple sensor hot-wire probe and the 2D3C-PIV setup. Most differences between PIV and CTA can be explained by the finite probe size and individual geometry.