Measurements of a Swirling Turbulent Boundary

Layer Developing in a Conical Diffuser

P. D. Clausen • Measurements were made of the swirling boundary layer developing in a
S. G. Koh conical diffuser with a 20° included angle and an area ratio of 2.84. The
D. H. Wood inlet swirl was close to solid-body rotation and was of sufficient magnitude
Department of Mechanical Engineering, to prevent boundary layer separation but just insufficient to cause recircu-
University of Newcastle, lation in the core flow. A single hot-wire was traversed from the wall to the
New South Wales, Australia centerline to determine the mean velocities. All six Reynolds stresses were
measured within the boundary layer using a rotatable X-probe. The discus-
sion concentrates on the complex response of the turbulence to the
numerous perturbations imposed by the swirl and the geometry, of which
the dominant ones appear to be the axial pressure gradient and the
streamline curvature.

Keywords: diffuser, recirculation, separation, swirl, turbulence

INTRODUCTION stabilizing effect of streamwise curvature near the diffuser

inlet, and lateral divergence--the circumferential strain-
Many of the closure models used in calculating turbulent ing of the fluid as the flow area increases. If the flow is
flows have been developed and tested using measurements also swirling, as is often the case in practice, then to this
in geometrically simple laboratory flows. These are often list must be added three-dimensionality and the destabiliz-
self-preserving in the sense of Townsend [1], and either ing transverse curvature. (With any swirl, there will also
two-dimensional or axisymmetric. Most practical flows, be a radial pressure gradient, but it is not important in the
however, occur in much more complex geometries even if present flow. In the remainder of this paper, therefore,
the fluid remains nonreacting, isothermal, and of single the term "pressure gradient" will imply the axial pressure
phase. To develop and test closure models for such flows, gradient.) Not all these perturbations are independent of
it is necessary to perform experiments that reproduce the each other, but the list is long enough to suggest that the
essential features of the complexity. This is because the flow will not behave as a simple superposition of the
perturbations by which complex flows may be considered independent perturbations.
to arise from simpler ones often have a much greater It has been known for some time (eg, McDonald et al.
effect on the turbulence structure than would appear [5]) that moderate levels of swirl will delay boundary layer
possible from the additional terms they activate in the separation and so aid pressure recovery, which is usually
Reynolds stress equations. Examples include the im- the reason for installing a diffuser in the first place. Large
position of longitudinal curvature on nominally two- amounts of swirl, however, can degrade performance by
dimensional boundary layers (eg, Smits et al. [2]) and the forming recirculation regions within the core flow. Never-
formation of three-dimesional boundary layers, (eg, Brad- theless, in many combustion applications, pressure recov-
shaw [3]). In addition, it is becoming clear that a working ery is not important, and swirl is deliberately introduced
knowledge of a flow with multiple perturbations cannot to provide a stable recirculation zone for combustion. This
always be obtained by superposing our knowledge of the subject has a substantial literature, which is reviewed in
individual perturbations. A recent demonstration of this detail by Sloan et al [6]. Subsequent to that review, Weber
was the finding by Baskaran et al [4] that the angular and Visser [7] describe measurements in, and calculations
momentum instability associated with concave longitudi- for, a geometry similar to the one used here. The abun-
nal curvature was prevented from having its usual large dance of information on recirculating swirling flows con-
effect on a turbulent boundary layer by the simultaneous trasts strongly with the paucity of knowledge about the
presence of the crossflow instability associated with the use of swirl to auoid separation and recirculation. For
advent of three-dimensionality. It seems that the need to example, we know of no published turbulence measure-
predict turbulent flows in complex geometries and the ments in a swirling diffuser boundary layer. There are,
nonlinearity of the Navier-Stokes equations will continue however, a number of studies of unswirled flow through
to keep experimentalists employed for a considerable conical diffusers, such as the data of Pozzorini (test cases
period. 0142 and 0143 in Ref. 8) and Azad and Kassab [9].
The boundary layer turbulence in an axisymmetric dif- Swirl delays separation by causing the axial velocity at
fuser is complicated by the axial pressure gradient, the the boundary layer edge to decrease more slowly that R -2,

Address correspondence to Dr. D. H. Wood, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Newcastle, NSW, 2308, Australia.
Experimental Thermaland Fluid Science 1993; 6:39-48
© 1993 by Elsevier Science Publishing Co., Inc., 655 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10010 0894-1777/93/$5.00
39
40 P.D. Clausen et al.

where R is the wall radius, which would be expected from dependence" of the mean velocities was shown
a simpleminded application of conservation of mass. A to contribute to some of the conventionally measured
much more rapid decrease must therefore occur near the Reynolds stresses. Prior to that work, phase-locked aver-
centerline, and this eventually leads to the formation of age measurements were obtained downstream of the hon-
recirculation zones (eg, So [10]). The mechanism involved eycomb made from straws. (These measurements were not
is the inviscid skewing of the initial axial vorticity (associ- published.) It was expected that replacement by the alu-
ated with the swirl) into circumferential vorticity as the minum honeycomb, which has a much better dimensional
flow expands (eg, Batchelor [11, sec. 7.3]). The dominant uniformity, would significantly reduce the phase depend-
component of the circumferential vorticity is c~U/3r, and ence, but this turned out not to be the case. Wood et al
in a diffuser this term is always positive. In any e~panding [19] extended the phase-locked average measurements to
flow, therefore, the introduction of swirl will act to delay the mixing layer formed downstream of the end of the
separation, but increasing the level will eventually cause swirl generator. No longitudinal vortices were found, al-
recirculation. Preliminary measurements with a pulsed- though the mixing layer was affected by the instability
wire anemometer (which can detect velocity reversals) at over a much larger fraction of its width than was the
the outlet of the present diffuser showed there was only a boundary layer. In addition, the absolute magnitude of the
small range of swirl number (the ratio of maximum cir- phase-dependent contributions to the Reynolds stresses
cumferential to average axial velocity) that avoided both had not changed from the levels measured by Koh et al
recirculation and separation. These measurements were [18] in the upstream boundary layer, indicating that the
reported by Clausen [12] and Clausen and Wood [13], and phase dependence was caused by the swirl generator and
a simple approximate criterion for the onset of recircula- not by the instability. This is not equivalent to saying that
tion was proposed in Ref. 14. The swirl number used for the instability has no effect on the turbulence, because it
the present measurements was chosen to avoid both sepa- is associated with additional generation terms in the
ration and recirculation. Reynolds-averaged equations. (Conversely, in a stable flow,
There have been a number of studies of swirling ax- these terms act to inhibit turbulence production.) Mehta
isymmetric flows. The most common experiments involve et al [20] documented the effects of varying the swirl on
the flow over a rotating cylinder (see Driver and Hebbar the mean velocities and conventional Reynolds stresses in
[15] and references contained therein). Most swirling dif- the same mixing layer.
fuser experiments have used annular diffusers (eg, The main aim of the present experiment was to meas-
Lohmann et al [16]) and so are not of direct relevance ure the mean velocities and Reynolds stresses in a swirling
here. A considerable computational literature exists for diffuser flow that was close to separation and recirculation
swirling flow, of which we note that Armfield et al [17] in order to investigate the effects of the multiple pertur-
have calculated the flow described here. bations and to provide a test case for the development of
Figure 1 shows the swirl generator used for the present turbulence models for complex flows. The experimental
experiment and a number of previous experiments: in the techniques are described in the next section, which is
first of these [12, 13], the same diffuser was used, but the followed by the presentation of the results. A statement of
honeycomb was made from plastic drinking straws. Koh the practical significance of the results and the conclu-
et al [18] obtained "phase-locked" averages in the bound- sions follow.
ary layer downstream of the present aluminum honey-
comb. These averages approximate the mean flow field as EXPERIMENTAL T E C H N I Q U E S
seen by a rotating observer, and so allow an investigation
of the effects of the angular momentum instability that is The swirl generator, shown schematically in Fig. 1, con-
inevitably activated by the no-slip boundary condition on tained a 20 mm long section of aluminum honeycomb,
the circumferential velocity. (We show below that the which, in turn, had a cell diameter of 3.2 mm and a wall
present boundary layer also contains a region where this thickness of 0.025 mm, giving an open area ratio of
instability is active.) In a nominally two-dimensional con- approximately 0.97. Nearly solid body rotation was pro-
cave boundary layer, the instability leads to the formation duced in conjunction with a reasonably uniform axial
of streamwise vortices similar to the Taylor-Gortler vor- velocity in the core region (outside the boundary layer).
tices in laminar flow. However, no significant longitudinal When the experiment was planned, the included angle of
vorticity was found in the boundary layer, but the "phase the conical diffuser was chosen serendipitously to be 20°;

S~atiorlar} I)~rt of swirl generator

" Diffuser ~
Rotating pa~t of sw rJ gener,~tor / ~ A ~ I

{ ]0 m.- ~'
Ol

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of swirl

generator and diffuser. All dimensions
Hol~ey(o[nl) - ;)10 in millimeters.
 Swirling Turbulent Boundary Layer 41

this was large enough to cause separation in the absence servation of mass and angular momentum, and the bound-
of swirl, and a larger angle would have required a reduc- ary layer, where errors can result from the turbulence
tion in the area ratio, A, of 2.84. The diffuser discharged model, was a small fraction of the total flow. Our approxi-
to the atmosphere. Even with the swirl, the metal screen mate checks on the conserved quantities are described in
shown in Fig. 1 was necessary to prevent separation in the the next section. Angular momentum is approximately
diffuser (presumably by thinning the boundary layer)--a conserved because the only external torque acting on the
further indication of the fine balance between the compet- flow is due to the circumferential component of the wall
ing tendencies to separation and recirculation that al- shear stress and it is easy to show that this is far too small
lowed this experiment to be performed. The measurement to seriously decrease the angular momentum over the
locations are given in Table 1, and the conical coordinate length of the diffuser. During the subsequent X-probe
system used is defined in Fig. 1. The thin shear layer traverses of the boundary layer, the measurements were
forms of the Reynolds stress equations in this system are obtained after yawing the probe to the mean flow angle.
given by Koosinlin and Lockwood [21]: within the con- This was done mainly to minimize contamination of the
stant-diameter swirl generator, they reduce to the well- results by any velocity transverse to the plane of the wires
known cylindrical polar equations. All measurements were [22]. The results were then transformed (by rotation) to
taken in traverses normal to the wall. U0, the average axial the coordinates shown in Fig. 1. All the turbulence mea-
velocity (at the inlet) used for normalization, was 11.6 surements presented here were obtained using the X-
m/s, and the swirl number Wmax//Uo, where Wmax is probe.
the maximum circumferential velocity in the inlet flow, It is difficult to assess the overall accuracy of the
was 0.59. turbulence measurements because of the many possible
Both single wires and X-probes were used for measure- sources of error. The very careful error analysis of Ander-
ment. The probes, anemometers, and data acquisition son and Eaton [23] for an X-probe very similar to the one
systems are described in detail by Clausen [12] and Mehta used here, and similar data acquisition techniques, indi-
et al [20], to which the reader is referred for details. (The cated an accuracy of around 10% for the Reynolds stresses.
only major difference was that the diffuser measurements The repeatability of the present measurements was within
were obtained first using a manually operated traverse that value. Using the same apparatus and techniques as
system rather than the automated one in Ref. 20.) Briefly, here, Mehta et al [20] obtained Reynolds stresses in an
all measurements were made using tungsten hot wires of 5 (unswirled) axisymmetric mixing layer that were close to
/xm diameter with an active length of about 1.2 mm. the consensus levels for that flow; in particular they found
Copper-plated stubs of about 20 /xm diameter separated -uv to be almost identical to that determined from
the active portion of the wires from the prongs of the integrating the mean momentum equation using the em-
Dantec 55P51 probes. The total anemometer signals were pirical mean velocity distributions. Of particular difficulty
acquired by a PC-based data acquisition system, and the in three-dimensional flows is the determination of - v'w'
instantaneous velocities were found digitally by inverting (where the primes denote probe coordinates). We used
King's law and assuming the "effective cosine cooling law" the standard technique of rolling the wires + 45° and then
described, for example, by Clausen and Wood [22]. All the finding - v ' w ' as described in Ref 23. Since our yaw
results were obtained by sampling hot wires at lkHz for 30 angles near the wall were in the range 30-60 ° , the errors
s. The initial traverse at each measuring position used in - v'w' are roughly shared by the resultant - uv and
single wires to determine the mean velocity and /3 =tan-1
- v w . Unfortunately, we could not obtain reasonable
( W / U ) , the flow angle. These results are shown in Figs.
stress distributions for comparison by applying the mo-
3-6 in the Results and Discussion section. We estimate
mentum integral equation to the measured mean veloci-
the error in the mean velocities at approximately 2%. This
ties in the diffuser, presumably because of the rapid
estimate is supported by the good agreement between the
streamwise changes in the relevant quantities. The only
measurements over the whole flow and the calculations of
way left to validate the Reynolds stress measurements is
Armfield et al [17], because the computations satisfy con-
to use the estimates of the wall shear stresses provided by

Table 1. Measurement Positions and Main Parameters

X (mm) Symbol rh ~;I A~('I "rwx/ U2 "rwz/ U2 flw (deg)

- 25 [] 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00282 0.00190 34
(inlet)
25 x 0.98 0.88 1.02 0.00215 0.00187 41
60 + 1.00 0.85 0.97 0.00127 0.00123 44
100 A 1.03 0.82 1.02 0.00096 0.00115 50
175 O 1.00 0.66 1.02 0.00049 0.00088 61
250 v 1.00 0.58 0.97 0.00039 0.00073 62
330 O 0.95 0.45 0.94 0.00038 0.00061 58
405 • 0.99 0.45 1.02 0.00052 0.00064 51
th = 2~rpfU2(r/cos 10° ) dy divided by mass flux at inlet;
h/I = 27rpfU2(r/cos 10° ) dy divided by momentum flux at inlet;
AM = 27rpfUW(r2/cos 10° ) dy divided by angular momentum flux at inlet.
All integrals are from the wall (y = O) to the centerline.
42 P.D. Clausen et al.

the logarithmic law. However, this check is also not with-

1"0
out difficulties, as discussed in the next section. A further I I I L I
uncertainty, this time in the initial location of the probes, []
was caused by the combination of the diffuser curvature,
the large flow angles near the surface, and the opaqueness
of the diffuser wall. Consequently, it was difficult to accu- 0"75
rately locate the probes and to estimate the resulting
uncertainty. The uncertainty was greatest at the inlet and
then steadily decreased to the exit. A digital height gauge,
[]
accurate to 0.01 mm, was used for the traverses, so no Cp 0"50
further significant errors were introduced into the probe []
coordinates.
Detailed checks of the circumferential uniformity of the []
conventional mean flow before replacement of the straw []
0"25 []
honeycomb showed the wall shear stress at the inlet to be
uniform to within + 5 % and, generally, only slightly less E][]
l
uniform at the outlet [12]. Four radial traverses taken at [] []][]
90 ° intervals at the outlet indicated that the axial velocity 0 I t I S[]~[]
was uniform to within 5% [12]. 0 SO0 200 500 400 5OO
All the results presented here are available on floppy
disk from the authors. x (ram)
Figure 2. Wall pressure distribution in diffuser.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The details of the measuring positions are given in Table
1 along with most important parameters. In the discus- in the mass and angular momentum fluxes; the other main
sion, the measurements at x = - 25 mm will be taken to causes, are measurement error and nonaxisymmetry in the
be representative of the inlet flow to the diffuser (so these flow, as the swirl guarantees that different mean stream-
data would be used as the input for a calculation of the lines are encountered as the measurement position
flow). Figure 2 shows the wall pressure distribution in changes. The monotonic decrease in the momentum flux
terms of the pressure coefficient Cp; the axial pressure is due to the pressure gradient.
gradient is very large in the vicinity of the inlet but The region where OW/Oy is positive is initially much
decreases rapidly with increasing x. The mean streamwise smaller that the corresponding region for OU/Oy. As
velocity, U, is plotted in Fig. 3a for all the measured range explained in Koh et al [18], this is due to the circumferen-
of y and in Fig. 3b for the wall region. Note that the tial "boundary layer" developing only from the beginning
streamwise velocity is the dominant component of the of the stationary downstream section of the swirl genera-
axial velocity, so the results near the centerline for large x tor. The position of maximum W (measuring from the
Fig. 3a indicate the closeness to recirculation. At the wall) then increases rapidly, approaching that of maximum
inlet, the axial velocity has a slight peak just outside U around x = 1 7 5 mm. After this, the W profile flattens
the boundary layer that is caused by the proximity to out, leading to large values of c~W/c~y near the wall. The
the diffuser inlet; there is no peak in the corresponding region where c~W/Oy is positive is also, approximately,
measurements without the diffuser. For the same reason, the unstable region where the angular momentum de-
the inlet circumferential velocity, W, in Fig. 4 differs creases away from the center of curvature. This leads to
slightly from the solid-body distribution of W = ~ r . Gen- extra production of turbulent energy, but not necessarily
erally, W passes through zero close to the centerline, to the existence of mean streamwise vorticity.
which is indicated for each x by the vertical arrows in the The "total" mean velocity Q = ( U 2 -~- W 2 ) I/2 is com-
figure. (Note that U does not have to have an extreme pared to the law of the wall in Fig. 5, using a Karman
value at the centerline, which is why the centerline is not constant, K, of 0.41, and an additive constant, C, of 5.2.
indicated on Fig. 3a.) The decrease in maximum W be- The wall shear stresses in Table 1 were determined from
tween inlet and outlet is close to R - I as expected from these results. It is possible that the dip below the log law
conservation of circulation. A similar decrease toward the for the smallest y + at the inlet (for which y = 1 mm) is a
outlet occurs in the maximum U because of the redis- consequence of the uncertainty in locating the probe that
tributive effects of the swirl, rather than the R 2 decrease was mentioned in the previous section, as the dip did not
that might be expected from conservation of mass. Near occur in the measurements of Koh et al [18] obtained
the axis, the decrease in U is much more rapid, approxi- without the diffuser when it was possible to locate the
mately R -4, although no particular significance can be probe more accurately. With increasing streamwise dis-
attached to the exponent. The mass, momentum, and tance the uncertainty in y decreases, as does the axial wall
angular momentum fluxes estimated from these results shear stress. Both these changes contribute to the exten-
and normalized by the inlet values are shown in Table 1. sive logarithmic region at the last two measurement posi-
All integration was by the trapezoid rule. The fluxes in the tions. It is likely that the flow immediately downstream of
diffuser were determined by assuming that the streamlines the inlet is so strongly perturbated by the pressure gradi-
lie on stream surfaces that are conical and begin at the ent and streamline curvature in the xy plane that the wall
point of origin for the diffuser cone. This simplification is region is not in energy equilibrium. The log law would
probably responsible for part of the deviations from unity then be inappropriate [eg, 24], but it should become
 Swirling Turbulent Boundary Layer 43

1.25 [ I I

1.0
i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ INLET

0"75
n °

0-5

0.25
- LS

0 I I L
0 5O 100 150 200

y (ram)
(a)

1 "25 I I L I i

L ~ ~ = ° ~ = ~ ~ B - -c> - ~ B
1.0

0.75 ,d.** F - _z_gn - - - + . . . . .

S
0" 5 - -( -@e~3@ 4 ~ ~~ - -- - ....

0"25- 2s x 175 0 405 •

60 + 250 V
0 I t I I Figure 3. Profiles of the streamwise mean
0 10 20 50 40 50 velocity for the values of x indicated in
figure. (a) Measurements for all values of
y. Experimental points omitted for clarity.
y (ram) (b) Near-wall measurements. Lines join
(b) experimental points for visual aid only.

appropriate again at some larger x as the wall region through the point closest to the wall, can yield only
responds rapidly to the decreasing perturbations and re- approximate values o f / 3 w. These values are given in Table
turns to the equilibrium. Nevertheless, there is some evi- 1. The wall shear results in that table emphasize the
dence at x = 330 m m of another dip, this time around closeness to separation. The axial wall stress r w x , falls to
y + = 150-200, which is indicative of boundary layer re- around 10% of its inlet value by x = 175 before increas-
sponse to curvature in the xy plane [eg, 2]. ing slightly. Associated with this is the increase in /3w, as
The partition of r w into its components %x and z~z the pressure gradient does not directly influence the cir-
requires the wall streamline angle,/3~ = t a n - l ( W / U ) l y = o . cumferential motion.
/3w was determined from the plots of W against U shown Figure 7 shows the development of all six Reynolds
in Fig. 6. In the absence of a significant pressure gradient, stresses within the boundary layer. At the inlet, the maxi-
it is likely that energy equilibrium can occur only if the m u m values of all stresses, except perhaps - u-w, should
wall region is collateral, that is, /3 is independent of y, or occur very close to the wall. Within the diffuser, the peak
W is linear in U. It appears that collaterality may hold at values generally increase and the location of the peak
the inlet and exit although the log region for x = 405 is moves outwards. There are probably two main reasons for
clearly larger than the region of collaterality. Presumably this behavior. First, as in two-dimensional flows, the initial
as a consequence of the pressure gradient and lack of influence of an imposed streamwise pressure gradient on
equilibrium, collaterality does not hold at the other values a swirling conical boundary layer is confined to the wall
of x, and the straight lines in Fig. 6, which were drawn region [eg, 14, 24]. The effects then propagate outwards,
44 P . D . Clausen et al.

0-75 ] 1 [
x (ram)
inlet []
0"5 i

lOO A
250 V
3
0"25

0 Figure 4. Profiles of circumferential

mean velocity for the values of x indi-
cated in figure. Lines join experimental
points for visual aid only. Note that the
-0-25 1 [ [] v results for x = 25, 60, 175, and 330 mm
have been omitted for clarity. The ar-
0 50 100 150 200 rows indicate the centerline position for
the profile symbol shown. At x = 405
y (ram) mm, the centerline is y = 203 mm.

m
confined always to an "internal" boundary layer that sepa- shear stress, - v w , is not constrained by the pressure
rates the affected part of the boundary layer from the gradient or directly affected by the xy plane curvature.
unaffected. Second, the xy plane curvature directly im- There is little c h a n g e between the inlet and x = 25, but
posed by diffuser junction is stabilizing, and this reduces eventually, - vw must be affected by the outward propa-
- uv in the outer layer without necessarily affecting__the gation of the other stresses as its main generation term is
near-wall region [eg, 2]. There is a reduction in - uv at U 2 O W / O y . Generally, the values of ~-~ and 8rwx/Oy at
x = 25, as a result of the curvature, but this is followed by the wall, the latter determined from the m o m e n t u m equa-
a fairly rapid recovery. The other dynamically important tion and the pressure distribution in Fig. 2, are in reason-
able agreement with the measurements of - u v . (For
clarity, only O~'wx/Oy at x = 250 is shown in Fig. 7d. In
2or / ' I ' ' nlmm•l contrast, - uw reaches levels considerably higher than the
circumferential wall stress for x between 60 and 405. This

4 ~ ~05 _~ L I
//I / // [ "

..7, ~ 2 . ' J × × ~
w/ / / ~ / / t ++~d u- -~
/ / " ~ ' / ~ ;~ L J []
° 0"5 ~.~t~/1/~1~3//Q inlet ['

I 00 -+
,, / / / , ' / , / " loo ±
0"25 '///.//7," " ~Ts o

f'///// 25o 7

' / / 405 •

0 [
O.5 1.0
101 i i I J J J
10 2 10s U/Uo
y+ Figure 6. Profiles of W vs U for values of x indicated in
figure. Except for the inlet and x = 405 mm, many outer
Figure 5. Logarithmic law for total mean velocity for the layer points have been omitted for clarity. The straight lines
values of x indicated. Solid lines show Q + = (l/K)ln y + + C, indicate the estimate for the wall streamline angle, flw, as
with successive profiles displaced by five Q ÷ units. given in Table 1.
 Swirling Turbulent Boundary Layer 45

may be partly a result of the p e a k in v 2 moving away from been a significant fall from the levels at x = 330. The
the wall; in a two-dimensional b o u n d a r y layer with other stresses, particularly u 2, have also fallen from their
C~rwx/8Y = 0, u 2, which appears in the main generation levels at x = 330. The reduction seems genuine because,
term for - uv, has its maximum very close to the wall. It at all values of x, u '2 (in probe coordinates) agrees well
is worth noting that A n d e r s o n and E a t o n [23] found good with the single-wire values obtained during the measure-
agreemen__t between %x and - u v but not between r ~ m e n t of the mean velocities. The comparison must be
and - vw; in their flow the latter were usually lower than done in probe coordinates, as there is no ind__ependent
the former. means of rotating the single-wir__e results, but u 2 receives
A t x = 405, however, - v w has fallen sufficiently to
its largest contribution from u '2. T h e documentation of
give a smooth extrapolation to %z, but the results in Fig. 2
the Reynol__ds stresses in completed by Fig. 7f, which
imply that c 7 % J S y is small. Thus, - uv is now consider-
shows - uw. This stress does not a p p e a r in any of the
ably higher than its wall value, even though there has

2.0 0.75 [ ~ 1 I I
I I I [
X (rnm)
~> X (ram)
inlet []
1.5 ~ ~> inlet []

i2 t'
0
,r--
x 1~ _ ~ \ ~oo~ x° 0.5 • 0o + -
1.0
C4 o
k ~ ~ 2X 1750

,.\ 0-25 ~+ ~ ,, \ ~ \ 3~o o

0-5 I> -5<+ k - '~ \ ~,~os •
-%+4 fl
+ ..

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
y (~) y (ram)
(a) (b)

1.0 ] l I / 0.5 I~1 I I

x (~)
/ gL <~ Tnlet n
inlet [j 0.4 -- ~ \\ X (mm) 25 X
r. 0.75 0
0-3 , 0o +
x ~- ..'&~r k k, \\
x .~ lOO A .:.~ ~ \ ~+ ~oo~
0.5 - ~,\~, 17~o
0.2
~o
./. 17+ V
t\+,\ 4os. 0.1 ':' ,D ', & ® \ "~\
I~ 0-25 []
E I
0

0 -0-1 I I I I
0 10 20 30 40 50 10 20 30 40 50
y (~) y (mrn)
(c) (d)
Figu___~7. Profiles of Reynolds stresses for values of x indicated in figure. Lines join experimental points for visual aid only: (a) u2;
(b) re; (c) wZ; (d) - uv. The symbols at y = 0 indicate estimates for rwx obtained from Figs. 5 and 6 as explained in text. The
straight dotted line in (d) is O % x / a y obtained from wall pressure distribution for x = 250. (e) - uw. The symbols at y = 0
indicate estimates for rwz obtained from Figs. 5 and 6 as explained in the text. ( f ) - uw.
46 P.D. Clausen et al.

0.2 I --7 . . . . . [ T 0.3 I I I

Z ~ X (mm) x (ram) inlet [ ]

~.. inlet E] 25 X
60 +
~-
,~x 0"1
[] £
/
9\
~\
~
sx
so+
~°°n t
$
x
0.2
:% c~
100 A

175 O
\
O4 0
¢'4 o 250 V
250 V
m 0.1 >
330 O i

I
-@i
I 0 ~ ~ --
[]
0
I I I ] ] ] ]
10 20 30 40 50 0 0 20 50 40 50
y (ram)
(e) d)
Figure 7. (Continued)

generation terms in the boundary layer approximation to tum instability, due to the increase in the circumferential
the Reynolds stress equati__ons, but its magnitude is still velocity away from the wall, is known to increase turbu-
comparable to that of - vw. lence levels [20]. However, a comparison of Fig. 4 with Fig.
As an example of a turbulence structure parameter, Fig. 7 for large x shows that the unstable region is much closer
8 shows the behavior of A 1, defined by to the wall than the peak in the Reynolds stresses, sug-
gesting that the stress levels are not set by the extra
- - 2 1 1/2 generation terms activated by the instability.
AI = [~2+ vwl /c' (l)
PRACTICAL SIGNIFICANCE
where k = 2(U 1 2 + V2 + W2) is the turbulent kinetic en-
ergy. A 1 is the generalization of Townsend's two-dimen- Aside from providing a test case for turbulence modeling
sional stress/energy ratio [1] and is invariant to rotations in complex flows, the present results highlight the interac-
in the xy plane. Close to the wall at the inlet, A 1 ap-
proaches the two-dimensional value of around 0.15. Im-
mediately after the inlet, A 1 decreases significantly in the 0'25
outer layer, even though Fig. 3b shows that there is no X (turn) Tnlet Z 100 /', 530 ~
corresponding change in the boundary layer thickness.
25 X 175 0 4bO •
This reduction can only be due to the stabilizing curva- 0'2
ture, because, as pointed out previously, a change in 60 + 250 \.z
pressure cannot immediately affect the turbulence in the
outer layer. A~ then recovers slowly in the outer layer but
0.15
finally decreases slightly near the wall. This might be a -- [] X

consequence of the prolonged effect of the pressure gradi- A,

ent on the "inactive" motion_ in__the wall region__, which
0"1
contributes to k through u 2 and w 2 but not to t; 2 or the
shear stresses [1].
It appears from the results, particularly the large reduc-
tion in rw, and the outward propagation of the stress 0"05 ....
peaks, that the pressure gradient is a major perturbation
to the turbulence. This is not surprising because the
boundary layer would separate if there were no swirl. Of 0 ',
the other perturbations, it is shown if Refs. 12 and 13 that 0 10 20 30 40 50
the effect of the lateral divergence--the circumferential
straining of the boundary layer as its typical radius in- y (mm)
creases--is likely to be small. The reduction in the
Reynolds stresses and A 1 in the outer layer immediately Figure 8. Profiles of the stress/energy ratio A~ for the values
downstream of the inlet indicates the importance of the of x indicated in the figure. Lines join experimental points
stabilizing curvature in the xy plane. The angular momen- for visual aid only.
 Swirling Turbulent Boundary Layer 47

tion between the tendency toward boundary layer separa- U0 reference velocity, see Fig. 1, m / s
tion and the advent of recirculation in the core flow. The u, v fluctuating velocities in direction of U and V,
former is a general, viscous-dominated effect whereas the respectively, m / s
latter is essentially inviscid and occurs only in swirling W, w circumferential mean and fluctuating velocities,
flow. Both, however, are likely to be important in many m/s
diffuser flows. For example, many axial fans have exit max maximum value of W at inlet, m / s
diffusers that must expand an inlet flow containing swirl, X, y coordinate directions defined in Fig. 1, m
which, in turn, is determined by the energy absorbed from Z circumferential coordinate (orthogonal to x and
the blades. Since both separation and recirculation must y), m
be avoided for good performance, the diffuser design Greek Symbols
needs to account for these competing phenomena. /3 mean flow angle, [= tan I(W/U)], deg
/3w wall streamline angle, [tan--l(W/U)ly~o], deg
CONCLUSIONS K Karman constant in logarithmic law ( = 0.41),
dimensionless
The mean velocity measurements of the swirling flow in a kinematic viscosit,/, m2/s
V
conical diffuser emphasize the subtle interaction between
the tendency of the boundary layer to separate, which P air density, k g / m ~
% total wall shear stress, m 2 / s 2
increases the mean velocity near the centerline, and the
tendency of the swirling flow to recirculate, which in- ~wx, rwz axial and circumferential components of the wall
shear stress, m Z / s 2
creases the velocity near the boundary layer edge. Both angular velocity of swirl generator, s 1
must be avoided if the diffuser is to perform efficiently.
For the 20 ° diffuser studied here, the flow would have + Superscripts
separated without the swirl. Even so, the minimum axial denotes normalization with wall parameters,
wall shear stress in the diffuser is a factor of 10 smaller (~-w)1/2, y, and c
than the inlet stress, which indicates the closeness to ' denotes measurements in probe coordinates
separation. On the other hand, Fig 3a shows that the
centerline velocity at outlet has fallen to around 10% of
the inlet value. REFERENCES
In terms of the effects on the turbulence structure of 1. Townsend, A. A., The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flow, 2nd ed.
the boundary layer, the most important perturbations Cambridge Univ. Press, London, 1976.
appear to be the pressure gradient and the stabilizing 2. Smits, A. J., Young, S. T. B., and Bradshaw, P., The Effect of
longitudinal curvature at the inlet. This conclusion is Short Regions of High Surface Curvature on Turbulent Bound-
based on the outward propagation of the perturbations-- ary Layers, J. Fluid Mech., 94, 209-242, 1979.
say, in terms of the peak levels of the normal 3. Bradshaw, P., Turbulent Secondary Flows, Ann. Rel,. Fluid Mech.,
stresses--which is typical of the response t__oan imposed 19, 53-74, 1987.
pressure gradient and the reduction in - uv in the outer 4. Baskaran, V., Pontikis, Y. G., and Bradshaw, P., Experimental
layer immediately after the inlet, which can only be due to Investigation of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Boundary Layers
the curvature. Somewhat surprisingly, the swirl on its own on "Infinite" Swept Curved Wings, J. Fluid Mech., 211, 95 122,
1990.
does not appear to have a strong influence on the turbu-
5. McDonald, A. T., Fox, R. W., and Dewoestine, R. V., Effects of
lence.
Swirling Inlet Flow on Pressure Recovery in Conical Diffusers,
This work was supported by the Australian Research Council. Most AIA,4 J., 9, 2014-2018, 1971.
of the data reduction software was written by Mr. J. Smith. Mr. I. 6. SIoan, D. G., Smith, P. J., and Smoot, L. D., Modeling of Swirl in
Miller helped considerably with the electronic equipment. Some very Turbulent Flow Systems, Prog. Energy Combust. Sci., 12, 163 250,
useful comments from the reviewers have been incorporated into the 1986.
text. 7. Weber, R., and Visser, B. M., Assessment of Turbulence Model-
ing for Engineering Prediction of Swirling Vortices in the Near
Burner Zone, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 11, 225-235, 1990.
NOMENCLATURE 8. Proceedings of the AFOSR-HTTM-Stanford Conference on Com-
plex Turbulent Flows, S. J. Kline, B. J. Cantwell, and G. M. Lilley,
A diffuser area ratio, dimensionless Eds., Vol 2, pp. 253-267, Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, Calif.,
Ai stress/energy ratio, defined in Eq. (!), dimen- 1981.
sionless 9. Azad, R. S., and Kassab, S. Z., Turbulent Flow in a Conical
C additive constant in logarithmic law of the wall Diffuser: Overview and Implications, Phys. Fluids A, 1, 564-573,
( = 5.2), dimensionless 1989.
Cp wall pressure coefficient 10. So, K. L., Vortex Phenomena in a Conical Diffuser, A/AA J., 5,
{= [P(x) - Po]/(1/2)pU~2~}, dimensionless 1072-1078, 1967.
turbulent kinetic energy 11. Batchelor, G. K., An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge
[ = ( 1 / 2 ) ( u 2 + V2 + w2), m2/s 2 Univ. Press, London, 1967.
P wall static pressure, kPa 12. Clausen, P. D., Ph.D. Thesis, Measurements and Predictions of
P,, atmospheric pressure, kPa Swirling Flow Behind Wind Turbine Blades and Through an
Q "total" velocity [= (U 2 + W2)1/2], m / s Axisymmetric Diffuser, Univ. Newcastle, 1988.
R wall radius, m 13. Clausen, P. D., and Wood, D. H., Some Measurements of the
r radial direction defined in Fig. 1, m Swirling Flow Through an Axisymmetric Diffuser, Proc. 6th Symp.
U,V mean velocities defined in Fig. 1, m / s Turb. Shear Flows, Toulouse, 1.3.1-1.3.5, 1987.
U' mean velocity along probe axis, m / s 14. Clausen, P. D., and Wood, D. H., A Possible Recirculation Limit
48 P . D . Clausen et al.

for Expanding, Swirling Flows, Tenth Australasian Fluid Mech. 20. Mehta, R. D., Wood, D. H., and Clausen, P. D. Some Effects of
Conf., Melbourne, pp. 11.33 11.35, December 1989. Swirl on Turbulent Mixing Layer Development, Phys. Fluids A, 3,
15. Driver, D. M., and Hebbar, S. K., Experimental Study of a 2716-2724, 1991.
Three-Dimensional Shear-Driven, Turbulent Boundary Layer, 21. Koosinlin, M. L., and Lockwood, F. C., The Prediction of Ax-
AIAA J. 25, 35 42, 1987. isymmetric Turbulent Swirling Boundary Layers, A/AA J., 12,
16. Lohmann, R. P., Markowski, S. J., and Brookman, E. T., Swirling 547-554, 1974.
Flow Through Annular Diffusers with Conical Walls, J. Fluids 22. Clausen, P. D., and Wood, D. H., The Correction of X-Probe
Eng., 101,224-229, 1979. Results for Transverse Contamination, J. Fluids Eng., 111,
17. Armfield, S. W., Cho, N. H., and Fletcher, C. A. J., Prediction of 226-229, 1989.
Turbulence Quantities for Swirling Flows in Conical Diffusers, 23. Anderson, S. D., and Eaton, J. K., Reynolds Stress Development
AIAA J., 28, 453-460, 1990. in Pressure-Driven Three-Dimensional Turbulent Boundary Lay-
18. Koh, S. G., Clausen, P. D., and Wood, D. H., The Phase-Depen- ers, J. Fluid Mech., 202, 263-294, 1989.
dence of a Swirling, Turbulent Boundary Layer, Tenth Aus- 24. Smits, A. J., and Wood, D. H., The Response of Turbulent
tralasian Fluid Mech. Conf., Melbourne, pp, 7.5-7.8, December Boundary Layers to Sudden Perturbations, Ann. Rec. Fhdd
1989. Mech., 17, 321-358, 1985.
19. Wood, D. H., Mehta, R. D., and Koh, S. G., Structure of a
Swirling Turbulent Mixing Layer, Exp. Thermal FluM Sci., 5,
196-202, 1992. Received March 27, 1992; revised June 29, 1992