Impact of Secondary Vortices on Separation Dynamics in 3D Asymmetric Diffusers

  • Hayder Schneider
  • Dominic von Terzi
  • Hans-Jörg Bauer
  • Wolfgang Rodi
Part of the ERCOFTAC Series book series (ERCO, volume 15)


The flow in two three-dimensional (3D) asymmetric diffusers with the same expansion but different aspect ratios was recently measured (Cherry et al., 2008). The results revealed complex 3D separation patterns with a severe sensitivity to the geometric variation. The setup served as a test case for two ERCOFTAC workshops (Jakirlić et al., 2010) that aimed at assessing the predictive capabilities of various turbulence modeling approaches. Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) models based on the eddy-viscosity assumption yielded qualitatively wrong results. These models cannot reproduce secondary vortices (SV) in the inlet duct. Methods that account for SV or even resolve these structures fared better. In particular Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) was able to compute the flow in both diffuser geometries within measurement uncertainty (Schneider et al., 2010). The hypothesis that SV have a strong impact on the separation dynamics was further corroborated by recent experiments (Grundmann et al., 2010). At the inlet of one of the diffusers, localized (steady and unsteady) perturbations were introduced. The authors conjectured that the forcing generated streamwise vortices and that these SV were responsible for the observed change in pressure recovery by up to 14%. In the present paper, the hypothesis is tested by controlled numerical experiments using LES and manipulation of (mean) SV in the inlet duct for both diffuser geometries.


Separation Bubble Streamwise Vortex Secondary Vortex Pressure Recovery Streamwise Vorticity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cherry EM, Elkins C, Eaton JK (2008) Geometric sensitivity of three-dimensional separated flows. Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 29(3):803–811 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jakirlić S, von Terzi D, Breuer M (2010) Lessons learned from the ERCOFTAC SIG 15 computational workshops on refined turbulence modelling: flow in a 3D diffuser as an example. In Proc. 5th ECCOMAS CFD 2010 (also to appear in ERCOFTAC Bulletin) Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schneider H, von Terzi DA, Bauer H-J, Rodi W (2010) Reliable and accurate prediction of three-dimensional separation in asymmetric diffusers using large-eddy simulation. J Fluids Eng, 132(3), doi:  10.1115/1.4001009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grundmann S, Sayles EL, Eaton JK (2010) Sensitivity of an asymmetric 3D diffuser to plasma-actuator induced inlet condition perturbations. Exp Fluids, doi:  10.1007/s00348-010-0922-0 Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Breuer M, Rodi W (1996) Large eddy simulation of complex turbulent flows of practical interest. In Notes on Numerical Fluid Mech., Flow Simulations with High Performance Computers II. Ed.: Hirschel, EH Vieweg, Braunschweig, pp. 258–274 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hayder Schneider
    • 1
  • Dominic von Terzi
  • Hans-Jörg Bauer
  • Wolfgang Rodi
  1. 1.Institut für Thermische StrömungsmaschinenKarlsruher Institut für TechnologieKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations