Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:50:08.575Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reynolds-stress modelling of transonic afterbody flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

M. A. Leschziner ,
P. Batten  and
T. J. Craft
M. A. Leschziner
Affiliation:
Aeronautics Department Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine London, UK
P. Batten
Affiliation:
Metacomp Technologies, USA
T. J. Craft
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering UMIST Manchester, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Several afterbody flows, involving shock-boundary-layer interaction, are used to evaluate recent developments in a realizable low-Reynolds-number, second-moment closure of turbulence. The model considered is a compressibility-adapted variant of the recent incompressible-flow form of Craft and Launder. This includes a tensorially cubic model for the influential pressure-strain process, ϕij, which satisfies the two-component-turbulence limit at the wall, is directly applicable to low-Reynolds-number flow regions and does not rely on or use surface-topography parameters, such as wall-normal distance or direction. Improved predictions for afterbody flows are demonstrated, relative to existing low-Reynolds-number two-equation models and the most elaborate form of Reynolds-stress closure incorporating a linear approximation for the pressure-strain process.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 105 , Issue 1048 , June 2001 , pp. 297 - 306
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. Craft, T.J. and Launder, B.E. A Reynolds-stress closure designed for complex geometries, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 1996, 17, pp 245–254.Google Scholar
2. AGARD. Aerodynamics of 3D aircraft afterbodies, AGARD Advisory Report No 318, 1995.Google Scholar
3. Benay, R., Coet, M.C. and Delery, J. A study of turbulence modelling in transonic shock-wave-boundary-layer interactions, Proc of 6th Turb Shear Flows, 1987. Toulouse, pp 8.2.1–8.2.6.Google Scholar
4. 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
5. Lien, F.S. and Leschziner, M.A. A pressure-velocity solution strategy for compressible flow and its application to shock-boundary-layer interaction using second-moment turbulence closure, J Fluids Eng, 1993, 115, pp 717–725.Google Scholar
6. Leschziner, M.A. ONERA Bumps A and C EUROVAL — A European initiative on validation of CFD codes, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, 1993, 42, pp 185–265.Google Scholar
7. Davidson, L. Reynolds stress transport modelling of shock induced separated flow, Computers & Fluids, 1995, 24, pp 253–268.Google Scholar
8. Loyau, H., Batten, P. and Leschziner, M.A. Modelling shock-boundary-layer interaction with nonlinear eddy-viscosity closures, J Flow, Turb and Combust, 1998, 60, pp 257–282.Google Scholar
9. Batten, P., Craft, T.J., Leschziner, M.A. and Loyau, H. Reynolds-stress-transport modelling for compressible aerodynamics applications, AIAA J, 1999, 37, (7), pp 785–797.Google Scholar
10. Vallet, I. and Gerolymos, G.A. Near-wall Reynolds-stress 3D transonic flow computation, Computational Fluid Dynamics 96, 1996, Wiley, pp 167–173.Google Scholar
11. Hasan, R.G.M. and Mcguirk, J.J. Assessment of turbulence model performance for transonic flow over an axisymmetric bump, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, (1043), pp 17–32.Google Scholar
12. Compton, W.B. Comparison of turbulence models for nozzle-afterbody flows with propulsive jets, Report NASA TP-3592, 1996 .Google Scholar
13. Compton, W.B. and Abdol-Hamid, K.S. Navier-Stokes simulations of transonic afterbody flows with jet exhaust. 1990, Paper AIAA 90-3057.Google Scholar
14. Compton, W.B. and Abdol-Hamid, K.S. Navier-Stokes simulation of nozzle-afterbody flows with jets at off-design conditions, 1991, Paper AIAA 91-3207.Google Scholar
15. Peace, A.J. Turbulent flow predictions for afterbody/nozzle geometries including base effect, J Propul and Power, 1991, 7, (3), pp 396–403.Google Scholar
16. Carlson, J.R., Pao, S.P., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. and Jones, W.T. Aerodynamic performance predictions of single and twin jet afterbodies, 1995, Paper AIAA 95-2622.Google Scholar
17. Carlson, J.R. High Reynolds number analysis of flat plate and sepa rated afterbody flow using non-linear turbulence models, 1996, Paper AIAA 96-2544.Google Scholar
18. Baldwin, B.S. and Lomax, H. Thin layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows, 1978, Paper AIAA 78-257.Google Scholar
19. Goldberg, U.C. Separated flow treatment with a new turbulence model, AIAA J, 1986, 24, pp 1711–1713.Google Scholar
20. Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity models for transonic flows, AIAA J, 1994, 32, pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
21. Jakirlic, S. and Hanjalic, K. A second-moment closure for non-equilibrium and separating high- and low-Re-number flows, Proc of 10th Turb Shear Flows, 1995, Pennsylvania State University, pp 23.25– 23.30.Google Scholar
22. Fu, S., Launder, B.E. and Tselepidakis, D.P. Accommodating the effects of high strain rates in modelling the pressure-strain correlation, Rep TFD/87/5, 1985, UMIST, Mech Eng Dept, Manchester.Google Scholar
23. Launder, B.E. and Tselepidakis, D.P. Contribution to the modelling of near-wall turbulence, Turbulent Shear Flows 8, Springer, 1993, pp 81–96.Google Scholar
24. Launder, B.E. and Li, S-P. On the elimination of wall-topography parameters from second-moment closure. Physics of Fluids, 1994, 6, pp 999–1006.Google Scholar
25. Craft, T.J. Developments in a low-Reynolds-number second-moment closure and its application to separating and reattaching flows, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 1998, 19, pp 541–548.Google Scholar
26. Lee, M.J. and Reynolds, W.C. Numerical experiments on the structure of homogeneous turbulence, Report TF/24, 1985, Dept of Mech Eng, Stanford University.Google Scholar
27. Iacovides, H. and Raisee, M. Computation of flow and heat transfer in 2D rib roughened passages, Proc of 2nd Int Symp on Turb, Heat and Mass Transfer, 1997, Hanjalic, K. and Peters, T.W.J. (Eds), Delft Univ Press, pp 21–30.Google Scholar
28. Cooper, D., Jackson, D.C., Launder, B.E. and Liao, G.X. Impinging jet studies for turbulence model assessment, Part 1: Flow-field experiments, Int J Heat and Mass Transfer, 1993, 36, pp 2675–2684.Google Scholar
29. Launder, B.E. and Sharma, B.I. Application of 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
30. Batten, P., Leschziner, M.A. and Goldberg, U.C. Average state Jacobians and implicit methods for compressible viscous and turbulent flows, J Comp Phys, 1997, 137, pp 38–78.Google Scholar
31. Huang, P.G. and Leschziner, M.A. Stabilization of recirculating-flow computations performed with second-moment closures and third-order discretization, Proc of 5th Symp Turb. Shear Flow, 1995, Cornel, 20.7–20.12.Google Scholar
32. Batten, P., Clarke, N., Lambert, C. and Causon, D.M. On the choice of wave speeds for the HLLC Riemann solver, SIAM J Sci & Stat Comp, 1997, 18, (6), pp 1553–1570.Google Scholar
33. Perthame, B. and Shu, C-W. On positivity preserving finite volume schemes for the Euler equations, Numer Math, 1996, 73, pp 119–130.Google Scholar
34. Reubush, D.E. Effects of finess and closure ratios on boattail drag circular-arc afterbody models with jet exhaust at Mach numbers up to 1-3. 1973, NASA TND-7163. 33.Google Scholar
35. Carson, G.T., and Lee, E.E. Technical report, 1981, NASA TP 1953.Google Scholar
36. Newbold, C.M. Solution to the Navier-Stokes equations for turbulent, transonic flows over axisymmetric afterbodies, 1990, ARA TR 90-16 (Unpublished).Google Scholar
37. Putnam, L.E. and Mercer, C.E. Pitot pressure measurements in flow fields behind a rectangular nozzle with exhaust jet for free-stream Mach numbers of 0,0-6, 1-2. 1986, NASA TM88990.Google Scholar
38. VoTMATA: Validation of turbulence models for aerospace and turbo- machinery applications, http://sgp.me.umist.ac.uk/∼mcjtsda/votmata/vot- mata.htm. Google Scholar
39. Berrier, B.L. A selection of experimental test cases for the validation of CFD codes, Technical report, 1988, AGARD-AR-303, 2.Google Scholar