Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) has an important role in current research. While large eddy simulations (LES) are now common practice in academia, Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulations are still very common in the industry. Using RANS allows faster simulations, however, the choice of the turbulence model has a bigger impact on the results. An important influence of the turbulence modeling is the description of turbulent mixing. Experience has shown that often inaccurate simulations of combustion processes originate from an inadequate description of the mixing field. A simple turbulent flow and mixing configuration of major theoretical and practical importance is the jet in crossflow (JIC). Due to its good fuel-air mixing capability over a small distance, JIC is favored by gas turbine manufacturers. As the design of the mixing process is the key to creating stable low $NOx$ combustion systems, reliable predictive tools and detailed understanding of this basic system are still demanded. Therefore, the current study has re-investigated the JIC configuration under engine relevant conditions both experimentally and numerically using the most sophisticated tools available today. The combination of planar particle image velocimetry and laser induced fluorescence was used to measure the turbulent velocity and concentration fields as well as to determine the correlations of the Reynolds stress tensor $ui′uj′¯$ and the Reynolds flux vector $ui′c′¯$. Boundary conditions were determined using laser Doppler velocimetry. The comparisons between the measurements and simulation using RANS and LES showed that the mean velocity field was well described using the SST turbulence model. However, the Reynolds stresses and more so, the Reynolds fluxes deviate substantially from the measured data. The systematic variation of the turbulent Schmidt number reveals the limited influence of this parameter indicating that the basic modeling is amiss. The results of the LES simulation using the standard Smagorinsky model were found to provide much better agreement with the experiments also in the description of turbulent mixing.

1.
Holdeman
,
J. D.
,
Liscinsky
,
D. S.
,
Oechsle
,
V. L.
,
Samuelsen
,
G. S.
, and
Smith
,
C. E.
, 1997, “
Mixing of Multiple Jets With a Confined Subsonic Crossflow: Part I—Cylindrical Duct
,”
ASME J. Eng. Gas Turbines Power
0742-4795,
119
(
4
), pp.
852
862
.
2.
Alvarez
,
J.
,
Jones
,
W. P.
, and
Seoud
,
R.
, 1993, “
Predictions of Momentum and Scalar Fields in a Jet in Cross-Flow Using First and Second Order Turbulence Closures
,”
AGARD, Computational and Experimental Assessment of Jets in Cross Flow
, Winchester, UK, Paper No. AGARD CP-534.
3.
Margason
,
R. J.
, 1993, “
Fifty Years of Jet in Cross Flow Research
,”
AGARD, Computational and Experimental Assessment of Jets in Cross Flow
, Winchester, UK, Paper No. AGARD CP-534.
4.
Su
,
L. K.
, and
Mungal
,
M. G.
, 2004, “
Simultaneous Measurements of Scalar and Velocity Field Evolution in Turbulent Crossflowing Jets
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
0022-1120,
513
, pp.
1
45
.
5.
Cárdenas
,
C.
,
Suntz
,
R.
,
Denev
,
J.
, and
Bockhorn
,
H.
, 2007, “
Two-Dimensional Estimation of Reynolds-Fluxes and -Stresses in a Jet-in-Crossflow Arrangement by Simultaneous 2D-LIF and PIV
,”
Appl. Phys. B: Lasers Opt.
0946-2171,
88
(
4
), pp.
581
591
.
6.
Lischer
,
T.
,
Donnert
,
G. D.
,
Galeazzo
,
F. C. C.
,
Habisheuther
,
P.
,
Zarzalis
,
N.
,
Valdes
,
R.
, and
Krebs
,
W.
, 2008, “
Simultaneous Velocity and Concentration Measurements Using Laser-Optical Measurement Methods in Comparison With Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes Models
,”
Proceedings of the 12th Internation Symposium on Transport Phenomena and Dynamics of Rotating Machinery, ISROMAC
, Paper No. ISROMAC12-2008-20112.
7.
Andreopoulos
,
J.
, and
Rodi
,
W.
, 1984, “
Experimental Investigation of Jets in a Crossflow
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
0098-2202,
138
, pp.
93
127
.
8.
Gulati
,
A.
, and
Warren
,
R.
, 1994, “
NO2-Based Laser-Induced Fluorescence Technique to Measure Cold-Flow Mixing
,”
J. Propul. Power
0748-4658,
10
(
1
), pp.
54
61
.
9.
ANSYS Europe, Ltd.
, 2006, ANSYS CFX Release 11.0.
10.
OpenCFD, Ltd.
, 2008, OPENFOAM User Guide, Version 1.5.
11.
Jones
,
W. P.
, and
Launder
,
B. E.
, 1972, “
The Prediction of Laminarization With a Two-Equation Model of Turbulence
,”
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
0017-9310,
15
, pp.
301
314
.
12.
Menter
,
F. R.
, 1994, “
Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Models for Engineering Applications
,”
AIAA J.
0001-1452,
32
, pp.
1598
1605
.
13.
Vieser
,
W.
,
Esch
,
T.
, and
Menter
,
F.
, 2002, “
Heat Transfer Predictions Using Advanced Two-Equation Turbulence Models
,” CFX Technical Memorandum, Technical Report No. CFX-VAL10/0602.
14.
Smagorinsky
,
J.
, 1963, “
General Circulation Experiments With the Primitive Equations. I. The Basic Experiment
,”
Mon. Weather Rev.
0027-0644,
91
, pp.
99
164
.
15.
Muppidi
,
S.
, and
Mahesh
,
K.
, 2005, “
Study of Trajectories of Jets in Crossflow Using Direct Numerical Simulations
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
0022-1120,
530
, pp.
81
100
.
16.
Klein
,
M.
,
,
A.
, and
Janicka
,
J.
, 2003, “
A Digital Filter Based Generation of Inflow Data for Spatially Developing Direct Numerical or Large Eddy Simulations
,”
J. Comput. Phys.
0021-9991,
186
, pp.
652
665
.
17.
Kempf
,
M. A.
, 2008, “
LES Validation From Experiments
,”
Flow, Turbul. Combust.
1386-6184,
80
, pp.
351
373
.
18.
Wilcox
,
D. C.
, 1998,
Turbulence Modeling for CFD
,
DCW
,