Lessons Learned from RANS Simulations of Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

Abstract : Usual two-equation turbulence models, based on a constant value of c(sub-mu) in the definition of the eddy viscosity, are known to fail in predicting most features of Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions (SWBLI). In searching a simple way to improve their capabilities, it appears that three different theoretical approaches end up with simple and similar Weakly Non-Linear (WNL) corrections. Such a correction, originally proposed to ensure realizability in subsonic flows, is extended to deal with compressible flows and applied to three-dimensional supersonic SWBLI developing on three single sharp fin plate configurations. The numerical solutions are obtained by solving the full Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations on grids up to 3.3 million cells with the linear and WNL versions of the kappa-omega turbulence model. The WNL correction allows full grid-convergence and yields much better numerical solutions, including the prediction of the pressure plateau under the lambda foot of the shock, the maximum skin-friction coefficient on the bottom plate, and the secondary separation in the strong SWBLI case. The improvement is due to halving the turbulence intensity in the vortical flow embedded within the lambda foot of the shock. The WNL correction has also a beneficial effect in transonic cases, as illustrated for a two-dimensional channel flow over a bump. Finally, its success in predicting unsteady features in the case of shock-induced oscillations in transonic flows over airfoils is underlined. In the considered 3-D supersonic, 2-D transonic steady and unsteady SWBLI, the key-point is the dependency of c(sub-mu) on the strain and vorticity invariants rather than the non-linear expansion of the shear stress.

[1]  T. J. Coakley,et al.  Turbulence modeling methods for the compressible Navier-Stokes equations , 1983 .

[2]  E. Goncalvès,et al.  Numerical Simulation of Shock Oscillations over Airfoil using a Wall Law Approach , 2001 .

[3]  J. Délery Experimental investigation of turbulence properties in transonic shock/boundary-layer interactions , 1983 .

[4]  F. Smith Theoretical aspects of transition and turbulence in boundary layers , 1991 .

[5]  P. Bradshaw Calculation of boundary-layer development using the turbulent energy equation , 1967, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[6]  Miguel R. Visbal,et al.  Large-eddy simulation of supersonic compression-ramp flows , 2001 .

[7]  Doyle Knight,et al.  Shock wave boundary layer interactions in high Mach number flows: A critical survey of current CFD prediction capabilities , 1998 .

[8]  B. Launder,et al.  Development and application of a cubic eddy-viscosity model of turbulence , 1996 .

[9]  Doyle Knight,et al.  Large Eddy Simulation of a Supersonic Compression Corner Part I , 2000 .

[10]  Alexander J. Smits,et al.  Turbulent Shear Layers in Supersonic Flow , 1996 .

[11]  D. Wilcox Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models , 1988 .

[12]  Doyle Knight,et al.  Insights in Turbulence Modeling for Crossing-Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions , 2001 .

[13]  W. Jones,et al.  The calculation of low-Reynolds-number phenomena with a two-equation model of turbulence , 1973 .

[14]  Kwang-Soo Kim,et al.  Skin-friction measurements and computational comparison of swept shock/boundary-layer interactions , 1991 .

[15]  George N. Barakos,et al.  NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF TRANSONIC BUFFET FLOWS USING VARIOUS TURBULENCE CLOSURES , 2000, Proceeding of First Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena.

[16]  Algebraic Turbulence Modeling for Swept Shock-Wave/Turbulent Boundary-Layer Interactions , 1997 .

[17]  J. B. Mcdevitt,et al.  Static and dynamic pressure measurements on a NACA 0012 airfoil in the Ames High Reynolds Number Facility , 1985 .

[18]  U. Schumann Realizability of Reynolds-Stress Turbulence Models , 1977 .

[19]  F. Menter Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications , 1994 .

[20]  S. Pope A more general effective-viscosity hypothesis , 1975, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[21]  D. Knight,et al.  Numerical simulation of crossing-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interaction using a two-equation model of turbulence , 2000, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[22]  B. Benoit,et al.  Buffeting Prediction for Transport Aircraft Applications Based on Unsteady Pressure Measurements , 1987 .

[23]  Miguel R. Visbal,et al.  Direct numerical and large-eddy simulation of supersonic flows by a high-order method , 2000 .

[24]  D. Knight,et al.  Influence of the Wall Condition on k-? Turbulence Model Predictions , 2002 .

[25]  E. Goncalvès,et al.  Reassessment of the wall functions approach for RANS computations , 2001 .

[26]  A. I. Maksimov,et al.  Three-Dimensional Turbulent Interactions Caused by Asymmetric Crossing-Shock Configurations , 1999 .

[27]  A. A. Zheltovodov Regimes and properties of three-dimensional separation flows initiated by skewed compression shocks , 1982 .

[28]  A. Panaras,et al.  The effect of the structure of swept-shock-wave/turbulent-boundary-layer interactions on turbulence modelling , 1997, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[29]  Olivier Rouzaud,et al.  NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF BUFFETING OVER AIRFOIL USING DUAL TIME-STEPPING METHOD , 2000 .

[30]  David S. Dolling,et al.  Fifty Years of Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction Research: What Next? , 2001 .

[31]  David C. Wilcox,et al.  Comparison of two-equation turbulence models for boundary layers with pressure gradient , 1993 .

[32]  A. Panaras Algebraic Turbulence Modeling for Swept , 1997 .

[33]  P. Durbin On the k-3 stagnation point anomaly , 1996 .