Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T18:05:55.909Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A turbulence model study of separated 3D jet/afterbody flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

R. G. M. Hasan ,
J. J. McGuirk ,
D. D. Apsley  and
M. A. Leschziner
R. G. M. Hasan
Affiliation:
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
J. J. McGuirk
Affiliation:
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
D. D. Apsley
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, UMIST Manchester, UK
M. A. Leschziner
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three-dimensional RANS calculations and comparisons with experimental data are presented for subsonic and transonic flow past a non-axisymmetric (rectangular) nozzle/afterbody typical of those found in fast-jet aircraft. The full details of the geometry have been modelled, and the flow domain includes the internal nozzle flow and the jet exhaust plume. The calculations relate to two free-stream Mach numbers of 0-6 and 0-94 and have been performed during the course of a collaborative research programme involving a number of UK universities and industrial organisations. The close interaction between partners contributed greatly to the elimination of computational inconsistencies and to rational decisions on common grids and boundary conditions, based on a range of preliminary computations. The turbulence models used in the study include linear and non-linear eddy-viscosity models. For the lower Mach number case, the flow remains attached and all of the turbulence models yield satisfactory pressure predictions. However, for the higher Mach number, the flow over the afterbody is massively separated, and the effect of turbulence model performance is pronounced. It is observed that non-linear eddy-viscosity modelling provides improved shock capturing and demonstrates significant turbulence anisotropy. Among the linear eddy-viscosity models, the SST model predicts the best surface pressure distributions. The standard k -ε model gives reasonable results, but returns a shock location which is too far downstream and displays a delayed recovery. The flow field inside the jet nozzle is not influenced by turbulence modelling, highlighting the essentially inviscid nature of the flow in this region. However, the resolution of internal shock cells for identical grids is found to be dependent on the solution algorithm -specifically, whether it solves for pressure or density as a main dependent variable. Density-based time-marching schemes are found to return a better resolution of shock reflection. The paper also highlights the urgent need for more detailed experimental data in this type of flow.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1079 , January 2004 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

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. AGARD 1986, Aerodynamics of 3D aircraft afterbodies, AGARD Advisory Report, (226).Google Scholar
2. AGARD 1995, Aerodynamics of 3D aircraft afterbodies, AGARD Advisory Report, (318).Google Scholar
3. 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 00, 0.60 and 0.94, 1986, NASA TM-88990.Google Scholar
4. Apsley, D.D. and Leschziner, M.A, Advanced turbulence modelling of separated flow in a diffuser, 1999, Flow Turbulence and Combustion, 63, pp 81–112.Google Scholar
5. Apsley, D.D. and Leschziner, M.A. Investigation of advanced turbulence models for the flow in a generic wing-body junction, 2001, Flow Turbulence and Combustion (in press).Google Scholar
6. 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 17–31.Google Scholar
7. Carson, G.T. and Lee, E.E. Experimental and analytical investigation of axisymmetric supersonic cruise nozzle geometry at Mach numbers from 0.60 to 1.30, 1981, NASA TP 1953.Google Scholar
8. Reubush, D.E. Effects of finess and closure ratios on boattail drag on circular-arc-afterbody models with jet exhaust at Mach numbers up to 1.3, 1973, NASA TN D-7168.Google Scholar
9. Reubush, D.E. The effect of Reynolds number on boattail drag, AIAA Paper 75-63, AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, 1975.Google Scholar
10. Bachalo, W.D. and Johnson, D.A. Transonic turbulent boundary-layer separation generated on an axisymmetric flow model, 1986, AIAA J, 24, pp 437–443.Google Scholar
11. Baldwin, B.S. and Lomax, H. Thin layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows, 1978, AIAA Paper 78–257.Google Scholar
12. Goldberg, U.C., Separated flow treatment with a new turbulence model, AIAA J, 1986, 24, pp 1711–1713.Google Scholar
13. Peace, A.J., Turbulent flow predictions for afterbody/nozzle geometries including base effects, J Prop and Power, 1991, 7, (3), pp 396–403.Google Scholar
14. Newbold, C.M. Solution to the Navier-Stokes equations for turbulent transonic flows over axisymmetric afterbodies, 1990, Report ARA TR 90–16.Google Scholar
15. Carlson, J.R., Pao, S.P., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. and Jones, W.T. Aerodynamic performance predictions of single and twin jet afterbodies, AIAA Paper 95-2622, 1995.Google Scholar
16. Compton, W.B. Comparison of turbulence models for nozzle-afterbody flows with propulsive jets, NASA TP-3592, 1996.Google Scholar
17. Carlson, J.R., High Reynolds number analysis of flat plate and separated afterbody flow using non-linear turbulence models, AIAA Paper 95-2622 1996,.Google Scholar
18. 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
19. Batten, P., Clarke, N., Lambert, C. and Causon, D.M., 1997, On the choice of wave speeds for the HLLC Riemann solver, SIAM J Sci and Stat Comp, 1997, 18, (6), pp. 1553–1570.Google Scholar
20. Leschziner, M.A., Batten, P. and Craft, T.J. Reynolds-stress modelling of transonic afterbody flows, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, (1048), pp 297–306.Google Scholar
21. Barakos, G. and Drikakis, D. 2000, Investigation of non-linear eddyviscosity models in shock/boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J, 38, pp. 461–469.Google Scholar
22. Berrier, B.L. A selection of experimental test cases for the validation of CFD codes, Technical report, 1988, AGARD AR-303, 2.Google Scholar
23. Menter, F.R., Two-equation eddy-viscosity models for transonic flows, AIAA J, 1994, 32, pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
24. Compton, W.B., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. and Abeyounis, W.K. Comparison of algebraic turbulence models for afterbody flows with jet exhaust, 1992, AIAA J, 30, pp 2716–2722.Google Scholar
25. Compton, W.B., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. Navier-Stokes simulations of transonic afterbody flows with jet exhaust, 1990, AIAA Paper 90–3057.Google Scholar
26. Jones, W.P. and Launder, B. E. The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of turbulence, 1972, Int J Heat and Mass Transfer, 15, pp 301–314.Google Scholar
27. Wilcox, D. C., Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, pp 1299–1310.Google Scholar
28. Craft, T. J., Launder, B.E. and Suga, K. Prediction of turbulent transitional phenomena with a non-linear eddy-viscosity model, 1997, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 18, pp 15–28.Google Scholar
29. Apsley, D. D. and Leschziner, M.A. A new low-Re non-linear twoequation turbulence model for complex flows, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 1998, 19, pp 209–222.Google Scholar