Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T06:21:03.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparisons between low Reynolds number two-equation models for computation of a shockwave-turbulent-boundary layer interaction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

B. K. Yoon ,
M. K. Chung  and
S. O. Park
B. K. Yoon
Affiliation:
Examination Bureau II, Korea Industrial Property Office Kangnam-ku, Seoul, Korea
M. K. Chung
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Yusong-ku, Taejon, Korea
S. O. Park
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology Yusong-ku, Taejon, Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A comparative study is made on the performance of several low Reynolds number k-ε models and the k-ω model in predicting the shockwave-turbulent-boundary layer interaction over a supersonic compression ramp of 16°, 20° and 24° at a Mach numbers of 2.85, 2.79 and 2.84, respectively. The model equations are numerically solved by a higher order upwind scheme with the 3rd order MUSCL type TVD. The computational results reveal that all of the low Reynolds number k-ε models, particularly those employing y+ in their damping functions give erroneously large skin friction in the redeveloping region. It is also interesting to note that the k-ε models, when adjusted and based on DNS data, do not perform better, as expected, than the conventional low Reynolds number k-ε models. The k-ω model which does not adopt a low Reynolds number modification brings about reasonably accurate skin friction, but with a later onset of pressure rise. By recasting the ω equation into the general form of the ε equation, it is inferred that the turbulent cross diffusion term between k and ε is critical to guarantee better performance of the k-ω model for the skin friction prediction in the redeveloping region. Finally, an asymptotic analysis of a fully developed incompressible channel flow, with the k-ε and the k-ω models, reveals that the cross diffusion mechanism inherent in the k-ω model contributes to the better performance of the k-ω model.

Type
Technical Note
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 101 , Issue 1007 , September 1997 , pp. 335 - 345
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1997 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Viegas, J.R. and Horstman, C.C. Comparison of multi-equation models for several shock boundary layer interaction flows, AIAA J, 1979, 17, (8), pp 811–820.Google Scholar
2. Viegas, J.R., Rubesin, M.W. and Horstman, C.C. On the use of wall functions as boundary conditions for two dimensional separated compressible flows, AIAA Paper 85-0180, 1985.Google Scholar
3. Jones, W.P. and Launder, B.E. The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of turbulence, Int J Heat Mass Transfer, 1972, 15, (2), pp 301–314.Google Scholar
4. Sahu, J. and Danberg, J.E. Navier-Stokes computations of transonic flows with a two-equation turbulence model, AIAA J, 1986, 24, (11), pp 1744–1751.Google Scholar
5. Chien, K.Y. Predictions of channel and boundary layer flows with a low Reynolds number turbulence model, AIAA J, 1982, 20, (1), pp 33–38.Google Scholar
6. Leschziner, M.A., Dimitriadis, K.P. and Page, G. Computational modeling of shock wave/boundary layer interaction with a cell-vertex scheme and transport models of turbulence, Aeronaut J, February 1993, 97, (962), pp 43–61.Google Scholar
7. Gorski, J.J., Chakravarthy, S.R. and Goldberg, U.C. High accuracy TVD schemes for the k-ε equations of turbulence, AIAA Paper 85-1665, 1985.Google Scholar
8. Champney, J. Modeling of turbulence for compression corner flows and internal flows, AIAA Paper 89-2344, 1989.Google Scholar
9. Marshall, T.A. and Dolling, D.S. Computation of turbulent, separated, unswept compression ramp interactions, AIAA J, 1992, 30, (8), pp 2066–2072.Google Scholar
10. Wilcox, D.C. Supersonic compression-corner applications of a multiscale model for turbulent flows, AIAA J, 1990, 28, (7), pp 1194–1198.Google Scholar
11. Wilcox, D.C. Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, (11), pp 1299–1310.Google Scholar
12. Goldberg, U.C. Towards a pointwise turbulence model for wall- bounded and free shear flows, ASME JFE, 1994, 116, pp 72–76.Google Scholar
13. Shuen, J.S. Upwind differencing and LU factorization for chemical non-equilibrium Navier-Stokes equations, J of Comp Phys, 1992, 99, pp 233–250.Google Scholar
14. Yee, H.C. A class of high-resolution explicit and implicit shock-capturing methods, NASA TM 101088, 1989.Google Scholar
15. Yoon, B.K., Chung, M.K. and Park, S.O. A computational study on shockwave/Turbulent-boundary layer interaction with two-equation turbulence models, AIAA Paper 94-2276, 1994.Google Scholar
16. Visbal, M. and Knight, D.D. Generation of orthogonal and nearly orthogonal coordinates with grid control near boundaries, AIAA J, 1982, 20, (3), pp 305–306.Google Scholar
17. Ong, C. and Knight, D. Hybrid MacCormack and implicit beam-warming algorithms for a supersonic compression corner, AIAA J, 1987, 25, (3), pp 401–407.Google Scholar
18. Baldwin, B. and Lomax, H. Thin layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows, AIAA Paper 78-257, 1978.Google Scholar
19. Launder, B.E. and Sharma, B.I. Application of the energy dissipation model of turbulence to the calculation of flows near a spinning disk, Letters in Heat Mass Transfer, 1974, 1, pp 131–138.Google Scholar
20. Lam, C.K.G. and Bremhorst, K. A modified form of the k-ε model for predicting wall turbulence, ASME JFE, 1981, 103, pp 456–460.Google Scholar
21. Nagano, Y. and Tagawa, M. An improved k-ε model for boundary layer flows, ASME JFE, 1990, 112, pp 33–39.Google Scholar
22. Yang, Z. and Shih, T.H. New time scale based k-ε model for near wall turbulence, AIAA J, 1993, 31, (7), pp 1191–1198.Google Scholar
23. Park, T.S. and Sung, H.J. A nonlinear low Reynolds number k-ε model for turbulent separated and reattaching flows, Int J of Heat Mass Transfer, to be published.Google Scholar
24. Settles, G.S., Fitzpatrick, T.J. and Bogdonoff, S.M. Detailed study of attached and separated compression corner flow fields in high Reynolds number supersonic flow, AIAA J, 1979, 17, (6), pp 579–585.Google Scholar
25. Marvin, J.G. and Coakley, T.J. Turbulence modeling for hypersonic flows, NASA TM-101079, 1989.Google Scholar
26. Smits, A.J. and Muck, K.C. Experimental study of three shockwave/turbulent boundary layer interactions, J of Fluid Mecha, 1987, 182, pp 291–314.Google Scholar
27. Muck, K.C. and Smits, A.J. The behaviour of a compressible turbulent boundary layer under incipient separation conditions, Proceedings of Turbulent Shear Flow 4, Bradbury, et al(eds), 1983, pp 235–245.Google Scholar
28. Settles, G.S. and Dodson, L.J. Hypersonic shock/boundary layer interaction data base, NASA CR 177577, April 1991.Google Scholar
29. Morrison, J.H., Gatski, T.B., Sommer, T.P., Zhang, H.S. and So, R.M.C. Evaluation of a near-wall turbulent closure model in predicting compressible ramp flows, in near-wall turbulent flows, So, R.M.C. et al (Eds), Elsevier, , 1993, pp 239– 250.Google Scholar
30. Lee, S.S., Lele, S.K. and Moin, P. Direct numerical-simulation of isotropic turbulence interacting with a weak Shockwave, J of Fluid Mech, 1993, 251, pp 533–562.Google Scholar
31. Smith, D.R., Fernando, E.M., Donovan, J.F. and Smits, A.J. Conven tional skin friction measurement techniques for strongly perturbed supersonic turbulent boundary layer, Eur J Mech B/Fluids, 1992, 11, (6), pp 719–740.Google Scholar
32. Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, 1993.Google Scholar
33. Dolling, D.S. and Murphy, M.T. Unsteadiness of the separation shock wave structure in a supersonic compression ramp flowfield, AIAA J, 1983, 21, (12), pp 1628–1634.Google Scholar
34. Speziale, C.G., Abid, R. and Anderson, E.C. Critical evaluation of two-equation models for near-wall turbulence, AIAA J, 1992, 30, (2), pp 324–331.Google Scholar
35. Wilcox, D.C. Comparison of two-equation turbulence models for boundary layers with pressure gradient, AIAA J, 1993, 31, (8), pp 1414–1421.Google Scholar
36. Takemitsu, N. An analytical study of the standard fc-e model, ASME JFE, 1990, 112, (2), pp 192–198.Google Scholar
37. Hussain, A.K.M.F. and Reynolds, W.C. Measurements in fully developed turbulent channel flow, ASME JFE, 1975, 97, pp 568–580.Google Scholar
38. Laufer, J. Investigation of turbulent flow in a two-dimensional channel, NACA Report 1053, 1951.Google Scholar
39. Yoon, B.K. and Chung, M.K. Computation of compression ramp flow with a cross-diffusion modified fc-e model, AIAA J, 1995, 33, pp 1518–1521.Google Scholar