Turbulence modelling techniques for aeroelastic problems: results and comments from the Second AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop

Purpose The quality of aeroelastic predictions strongly depends on the quality of aerodynamic predictions. At the boundary of a typical flight envelope, special flow conditions may arise, which challenge the conventional Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) approach beyond reasonable limits. Design/methodology/approach Test Case 3 of the Second AIAA Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop is a representative test case, where the flow over a supercritical wing separates downstream of the shock waves and generates large turbulent lengthscales. Findings In this study, RANS predictions are compared to those obtained in this particular test case with the more sophisticated hybrid RANS–large eddy simulation (LES) approach, in particular with the Spalart–Allmaras–delayed detached eddy simulation model. Results are indeed closer to experimental data. Originality/value However, the costs associated with this approach are much higher. It is argued that adopting hybrid RANS–LES modelling is not a simple model switch.

[1]  Robert M. Bennett,et al.  The benchmark aeroelastic models program: Description and highlights of initial results , 1992 .

[2]  Daniella E. Raveh Numerical Study of an Oscillating Airfoil in Transonic Buffeting Flows , 2009 .

[3]  J. Alonso,et al.  SU2: An Open-Source Suite for Multiphysics Simulation and Design , 2016 .

[4]  Christer Fureby,et al.  Towards the use of large eddy simulation in engineering , 2008 .

[5]  J. Fröhlich,et al.  Hybrid LES/RANS methods for the simulation of turbulent flows , 2008 .

[6]  Arne V. Johansson,et al.  An explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model for incompressible and compressible turbulent flows , 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[7]  Adam Jirasek,et al.  Progress and Plans for the 2nd Aeroelastic Prediction Workshop (AePW-2) , 2015 .

[8]  Adam Jirasek,et al.  Overview and Data Comparisons from the 2ndAeroelastic Prediction Workshop , 2016 .

[9]  S. Deck Numerical Simulation of Transonic Buffet over a Supercritical Airfoil , 2005 .

[10]  Marcello Righi,et al.  A modified gas-kinetic scheme for turbulent flow , 2013, 1308.3082.

[11]  M. Righi A Gas-Kinetic Scheme for Turbulent Flow , 2016 .

[12]  Sébastien Deck,et al.  Large eddy simulation for aerodynamics: status and perspectives , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[13]  O. Bendiksen Review of unsteady transonic aerodynamics: Theory and applications , 2011 .

[14]  A. Jameson Time dependent calculations using multigrid, with applications to unsteady flows past airfoils and wings , 1991 .

[15]  Jack R. Edwards,et al.  Numerical simulations of shock/boundary layer interactions using time-dependent modeling techniques: A survey of recent results , 2008 .

[16]  Philippe R. Spalart,et al.  Philosophies and fallacies in turbulence modeling , 2015 .

[17]  S. Deck Recent improvements in the Zonal Detached Eddy Simulation (ZDES) formulation , 2012 .

[18]  Philippe R. Spalart,et al.  An Enhanced Version of DES with Rapid Transition from RANS to LES in Separated Flows , 2015 .

[19]  Initial Investigations of Supercritical Airfoil Dynamic Response due to Transonic Buffet , 2016 .

[20]  P. Roe Approximate Riemann Solvers, Parameter Vectors, and Difference Schemes , 1997 .

[21]  S. Pope Turbulent Flows: FUNDAMENTALS , 2000 .

[22]  P. Spalart A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows , 1992 .

[23]  David J. Piatak,et al.  Oscillating Turntable for the Measurement of Unsteady Aerodynamic Phenomena , 2003 .

[24]  P. Spalart,et al.  A New Version of Detached-eddy Simulation, Resistant to Ambiguous Grid Densities , 2006 .