Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T05:35:12.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of turbulence model performance for transonic flow over an axisymmetric bump

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

R. G. M. Hasan  and
J. J. McGuirk
R. G. M. Hasan
Affiliation:
Dept of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, Loughborough University, UK
J. J. McGuirk
Affiliation:
Dept of Aeronautical and Automotive Engineering, Loughborough University, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A computational study has been performed to evaluate the predictive capabilities of some existing eddy-viscosity (both linear, LEVM, and non-linear, NLEVM) and Reynolds stress transport turbulence models (RSTM) by reference to a transonic shock-induced separated flow over a 10% axisymmetric bump. The calculations have been carried out during the course of a collaborative research programme including both UK universities and industry. The findings of the project demonstrate that improved results can be obtained for such flows by using more advanced turbulence models. For linear eddy-viscosity models, only the SST approach gave good predictions of shock location, recirculation size and pressure recovery, although this was accompanied by deficiencies in the prediction of post-shock velocity profile shape. Non-linear eddy-viscosity models, particularly at the cubic level, provided a more consistent level of agreement with experiments over the range of shock location, wall pressure and velocity profile parameters. Some improvement was also seen in the prediction of turbulence quantities, although only a move to an RSTM closure model reproduced the measured peak stress levels accurately. It was notable that the use of low-Re variants of the models (instead of wall functions) produced no significant improvement in predictions. There are, however, some shortcomings in all models, particularly in the development of flow after reattachment, which was always predicted to be too slow.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 105 , Issue 1043 , January 2001 , pp. 17 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2001 

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. Launder, B.E. and Spalding, D.B. The numerical computation of turbulent flows, Computer Methods in App Mech and Engg, 1974, 3, pp 269–289.Google Scholar
2. Launder, B.E. and Sharma, B.I. Application of the energy-dissipation model of turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc, Letters in Heat and Mass Transfer , 1974, 1, pp 131–138.Google Scholar
3. Wilcox, D.C. Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, pp 1299–1310.Google Scholar
4. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, pp 1,598–1,605.Google Scholar
5. Kalitzin, G., Gould, A.R.B. and Benton, J.J. Application of two- equation turbulence models in aircraft design, AIAA 96-0327, 1996.Google Scholar
6. Gibson, M.M. and Launder, B.E. Ground effects on pressure fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer, J Fluid Mech, 1978, 86, pp 491–511.Google Scholar
7. Hanjalic, K., Jakirlic, S. and Hadzic, I. Expanding the limits of ‘equilibrium’ second-moment turbulence closures, Fluid Dynamics Research, 1997, 20, pp 25–41.Google Scholar
8. Wilcox, D.C. Multiscale model for turbulent flows, AIAA J, 1988, 26, pp 1,311–1,320.Google Scholar
9. Speziale, C.G. On nonlinear K-] and K-ε models of turbulence, J Fluid Mech, 1987, 178, pp 459–475.Google Scholar
10. Suga, K. Development and Application of a Non-linear Eddy-Viscosity Model Sensitised to Stress and Strain Invariants, PhD thesis, UMIST, 1995.Google Scholar
11. Apsley, D.D. and Leschziner, M.A. A new low-Re non-linear two-equation turbulence model for complex flows, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 1998, 19, pp 209–222.Google Scholar
12. Gatski, T.B. and Speziale, C.G. On explicit algebraic stress models for complex turbulent flows, J Fluid Mech, 1993, 254, pp 59–78.Google Scholar
13. Craft, T.J., Launder, B.E., and Suga, K. Prediction of turbulent transitional phenomena with a non-linear eddy-viscosity model, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 1997,18, pp 15–28.Google Scholar
14. Agard AR–318. Aerodynamics of 3D aircraft afterbodies, 1995.Google Scholar
15. Delery, J.M. Experimental investigation of turbulence properties in transonic shock-boundary-layer interactions, AIAA J, 1983, 21,pp 180–185.Google Scholar
16. Leschziner, M.A., Dimitriadis, K.P. and Page, G. Computational modelling of shock wave/boundary layer interaction with a cell-vertex scheme and transport models of turbulence, Aeronaut J, 1993, 97, (962), pp 43–61.Google Scholar
17. Bachalo, W.D. and Johnson, D.A. Transonic turbulent boundary-layer separation generated on an axisymmetric flow model, AIAA J, 1986, 24, pp 437–443.Google Scholar
18. Johnson, D.A. Transonic separated flow predictions with an eddy-viscosity/Reynolds-stress closure model, AIAA J, 1986, 25, pp 252–259.Google Scholar
19. Barakos, G. and Drikakis, D. Assessment of various low-Reynolds number turbulence models in shock-boundary layer interaction, Computer Methods in App Mechs and Engg, 1998, 160, pp 155–174.Google Scholar
20. Chuang, C.C. and Chieng, C.C. Transonic turbulent separated flow predictions using a two-layer turbulence model, AIAA J, 1993, 31, pp 816–817.Google Scholar
21. Loyau, H., Batten, P. and Leschziner, M.A. Modelling shock/boundary-layer interaction with nonlinear eddy-viscosity closures, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, 1998, 60, pp 257–282.Google Scholar
22. Batten, P., Craft, T.J., Leschziner, M.A. and Loyau, H. Reynolds-stress-transport modeling for compressible aerodynamics applications, AIAA J, 1999, 37, pp 785–796.Google Scholar
23. Huang, P.G. Validation of turbulence models — uncertainties and measures to reduce them, ASME Fluids Engg Div Summer Meeting, 22–26 June, 1997.Google Scholar
24. Bardina, J.E., Huang, P.G. and Coakley, T.J. Turbulence modelling validation, testing, and development, NASA TM 110446, 1997.Google Scholar
25. Lien, F.S. and Leschziner, M.A. Assessment of turbulence-transport models including non-linear RNG eddy-viscosity formulation and second-moment closure for flow over a backward-facing step, Computers and Fluids, 1994, 23, pp 983–1,004.Google Scholar