Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T21:47:49.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The formulation of the RANS equations for supersonic and hypersonic turbulent flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 October 2020

H. Zhang Open the ORCID record for H. Zhang [Opens in a new window] ,
T.J. Craft Open the ORCID record for T.J. Craft [Opens in a new window]  and
H. Iacovides Open the ORCID record for H. Iacovides [Opens in a new window]
H. Zhang*
Affiliation:
State Key Laboratory of Aerodynamics, Mianyang, China Computational Aerodynamics Institute, China Aerodynamic Research and Development Center, Mianyang, China Thermo-Fluids Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
T.J. Craft
Affiliation:
Thermo-Fluids Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
H. Iacovides
Affiliation:
Thermo-Fluids Group, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accurate prediction of supersonic and hypersonic turbulent flows is essential to the design of high-speed aerospace vehicles. Such flows are mainly predicted using the Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) approach in general, and in particular turbulence models using the effective viscosity approximation. Several terms involving the turbulent kinetic energy (k) appear explicitly in the RANS equations through the modelling of the Reynolds stresses in such approach, and similar terms appear in the mean total energy equation. Some of these terms are often ignored in low, or even supersonic, speed simulations with zero-equation models, as well as some one- or two-equation models. The omission of these terms may not be appropriate under hypersonic conditions. Nevertheless, this is a widespread practice, even for very high-speed turbulent flow simulations, because many software packages still make such approximations. To quantify the impact of ignoring these terms in the RANS equations, two linear two-equation models and one non-linear two-equation model are applied to the computation of five supersonic and hypersonic benchmark cases, one 2D zero-pressure gradient hypersonic flat plate case and four shock wave boundary layer interaction (SWBLI) cases. The surface friction coefficients and velocity profiles predicted with different combinations of the turbulent kinetic energy terms present in the transport equations show little sensitivity to the presence of these terms in the zero-pressure gradient case. In the SWBLI cases, however, comparisons show that inclusion of k in the mean flow equations can have a strong effect on the prediction of flow separation. Therefore, it is highly recommended to include all the turbulent kinetic energy terms in the mean flow equations when dealing with simulations of supersonic and hypersonic turbulent flows, especially for flows with SWBLIs. As a further consequence, since k may not be obtained explicitly in zero-equation, or certain one-equation, models, it is debatable whether these models are suitable for simulations of supersonic and hypersonic turbulent flows with SWBLIs.

Keywords

Hypersonic flowsSupersonic flowsSWBLIsTurbulent kinetic energyTurbulence Modelling
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 125 , Issue 1285 , March 2021 , pp. 525 - 555
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

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

REFERENCES

Coakley, T.J. A compressible Navier-Stokes code for turbulent flow modeling, NASA TM-85899, 1984.Google Scholar
Bedarev, I.A., Maslov, A.A., Sidorenko, A.A., Fedorova, N.N. and Shiplyuk, A.N. Experimental and numerical study of a hypersonic separated flow in the vicinity of a Cone-Flare model, J Apply Mech Tech Phys, 2002, 43, (6), pp 867–876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiadis, N.J., Rumsey, C.L. and Huang, P.G. Revisiting turbulence model validation for high-Mach number axisymmetric compression corner flows, 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, January 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rumsey, C.L. Compressibility considerations for kw turbulence models in hypersonic boundary-layer applications, J Spacecr Rockets, 2010, 47, (10), pp 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krist, S.L. CFL3D user’s manual (version 5.0). National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, 1998.Google Scholar
White, J. and Morrison, J. A pseudo-temporal multi-grid relaxation scheme for solving the parabolized Navier–Stokes equations, 14th Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, June 1999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 3rd ed, 2006, DCW Industries, Inc.Google Scholar
Settles, G. and Dodson, L. Hypersonic shock/boundary-layer interaction database, 22nd Fluid Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics and Lasers Conference, June 1991CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marvin, J.G., Brown, J.L. and Gnoffo, P.A. Experimental database with baseline CFD solutions: 2D and axisymmetric hypersonic shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions, NASA/TM No 216604, 2013.Google Scholar
Martin, M.P. Direct numerical simulation of hypersonic turbulent boundary layers. Part 1. Initialization and comparison with experiments, J Fluid Mech, 2007, 570, pp 347–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liang, X. and Li, X. DNS of a spatially evolving hypersonic turbulent boundary layer at Mach 8, Sci China Phys Math Astron, 2013, 56, (7), pp 1408–1418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritos, K., Kokkinakis, I.W., Drikakis, D. and Spottswood, S.M. Implicit large eddy simulation of acoustic loading in supersonic turbulent boundary layers, Phys. Fluid, 2017, 29, (4), p 046101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritos, K., Drikakis, D. and Kokkinakis, I.W. Acoustic loading beneath hypersonic transitional and turbulent boundary layers, J Sound Vib, 2019, 441, pp 50–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loginov, M.S., Adams, N.A. and Zheltovodov, A.A., Large-eddy simulation of shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction, J Fluid Mech, 2006, 565, pp 135–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pirozzoli, S. and Grasso, F. Direct numerical simulation of impinging shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction at M = 2.25, Phys. Fluids, 2006, 18, (6), p 065113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, M. and Martin, M.P. Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp, AIAA J, 2007, 45, (4), pp 879–889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sun, D., Guo, Q., Li, C. and Liu, P. Direct numerical simulation of effects of a micro-ramp on a hypersonic shock wave/boundary layer interaction, Phys. Fluids, 2019, 31, (12), p 126101.Google Scholar
Ritos, K., Drikakis, D. and Kokkinakis, I.W. Computational aeroacoustics beneath high speed transitional and turbulent boundary layers, Comput Fluids, 2020, 17, p 104520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K.H., Kim, C. and Rho, O.H. Methods for the accurate computations of hypersonic flows: I. AUSMPW+ scheme, J Comput. Phys, 2001, 174, (1), pp 38–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Launder, B.E. and Sharma, B.I. Application of the energy-dissipation model of turbulence to the calculation of flow near a spinning disc, Lett Heat Mass Transfer, 1974, 1, (2), pp 131–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yap, C.R. Turbulent heat and momentum transfer in recirculating and impinging flows, PhD Thesis, University of Manchester, 1987.Google Scholar
Menter, F.R., Kuntz, M. and Langtry, R. Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model, Turbulence Heat Mass Transfer, 2003, 4, (1), pp 625–632.Google Scholar
Craft, T.J., Iacovides, H. and Yoon, J.H. Progress in the use of non-linear two-equation models in the computation of convective heat-transfer in impinging and separated flows, Flow Turbul Combust, 2000, 63, (1–4), pp 59–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poling, B.E., Prausnitz, J.M. and O’Connell, J.P. The Properties of Gases and Liquids, McGraw–Hill, 2001, New York.Google Scholar
Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kussoy, M.I. and Horstman, K.C. Documentation of two-and three-dimensional shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction flows at Mach 8.2. NASA Ames Research Center Technical Report, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kussoy, M.I. Documentation of two-and three-dimensional hypersonic shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction flows, NASA/TM No 101075, 1989.Google Scholar
Priebe, S., Wu, M. and Martin, M.P. Direct numerical simulation of a reflected-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J, 2009, 47, (5), pp 1173–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Georgiadis, N. and Yoder, D. Recalibration of the shear stress transport model to improve calculation of shock separated flows, 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, February 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Zhang et al. supplementary material

Zhang et al. supplementary material

Download Zhang et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 145.3 KB