On the Numerical Behavior of RANS-Based Transition Models

A comparison of several Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) based transition models is presented. Four of the most widespread models are selected: the γ−Reθ, γ, amplification factor transport (AFT), and kT−kL−ω models, representative of different modeling approaches. The calculations are performed on several geometries: a flat plate, the Eppler 387 and NACA 0012 two-dimensional (2D) airfoils at two angles of attack, and the SD7003 wing. Distinct features such as the influence of the inlet boundary conditions, discretization error, and modeling error are discussed. It is found that all models present a strong sensitivity to the turbulence quantities inlet boundary conditions, and with the exception of the AFT model, are severely influenced by the decay of turbulence predicted by the underlying turbulence model. This makes the estimation of modeling errors troublesome because these quantities are rarely reported in experiments. Despite not having specific terms in their formulation to deal with separation-induced transition, both the AFT and kT−kL−ω models manage to predict it for the Eppler 387 foil, although presenting higher numerical uncertainty than the remaining models. However, both models show difficulties in the simulation of flows at Reynolds numbers under 105. The γ−Reθ and γ models are the most robust alternatives in terms of iterative and discretization error. The use of RANS compatible transition models allows for laminar flow and features such as laminar separation bubbles to be reproduced and can lead to greatly improved numerical solutions when compared to simulations performed with standard turbulence models.

[1]  H. Schlichting Boundary Layer Theory , 1955 .

[2]  J. V. Ingen A suggested semi-empirical method for the calculation of the boundary layer transition region , 1956 .

[3]  M. Morkovin On the Many Faces of Transition , 1969 .

[4]  Hoar Frost,et al.  Low-Speed Aerodynamic Characteristics of NACA 0012 Aerofoi ] Section , including the Effects of Upper-Surface Roughness Simulating Hoar Frost , 1970 .

[5]  L. Mack,et al.  Transition and laminar instability , 1977 .

[6]  R. J. Mcghee,et al.  Experimental results for the Eppler 387 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers in the Langley low-turbulence pressure tunnel , 1988 .

[7]  T. Mueller,et al.  Experimental measurements of the laminar separation bubble on an Eppler 387 airfoil at low Reynolds numbers , 1990 .

[8]  D. Wilcox Turbulence modeling for CFD , 1993 .

[9]  M. Selig Summary of low speed airfoil data , 1995 .

[10]  R. Mayle,et al.  The Path to Predicting Bypass Transition , 1996 .

[11]  R. Mayle,et al.  Heat Transfer Committee and Turbomachinery Committee Best Paper of 1996 Award: The Path to Predicting Bypass Transition , 1997 .

[12]  Patrick J. Roache,et al.  Verification and Validation in Computational Science and Engineering , 1998 .

[13]  P. Bradshaw,et al.  Modeling of Flow Transition Using an Intermittency Transport Equation , 2000 .

[14]  H. Stock,et al.  Navier-Stokes Airfoil Computations with e Transition Prediction Including Transitional Flow Regions , 2000 .

[15]  F. Menter,et al.  Ten Years of Industrial Experience with the SST Turbulence Model , 2003 .

[16]  William H. Melbourne,et al.  THE EFFECT OF TURBULENCE INTENSITY ON PERFORMANCE OF A NACA4421 AIRFOIL SECTION , 2004 .

[17]  Jens H. M. Fransson,et al.  Transition induced by free-stream turbulence , 2005, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[18]  Michael Ol,et al.  Comparison of Laminar Separation Bubble Measurements on a Low Reynolds Number Airfoil in Three Facilities , 2005 .

[19]  Andreas Krumbein Automatic Transition Prediction and Application to Three-Dimensional Wing Configurations , 2007 .

[20]  Andreas Krumbein,et al.  Automatic Transition Prediction and Application to Three-Dimensional High-Lift Configurations , 2007 .

[21]  Christopher L. Rumsey,et al.  Effective Inflow Conditions for Turbulence Models in Aerodynamic Calculations , 2007 .

[22]  D. K. Walters,et al.  A Three-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Model for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Simulations of Transitional Flow , 2008 .

[23]  Guilherme Vaz,et al.  Free-Surface Viscous Flow Computations: Validation of URANS Code FreSCo , 2009 .

[24]  Aldo Rona,et al.  A Selective Review of Transition Modelling for CFD. , 2009 .

[25]  Florian R. Menter,et al.  Correlation-Based Transition Modeling for Unstructured Parallelized Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes , 2009 .

[26]  Andreas Krumbein,et al.  Evaluation of a Correlation-Based Transition Model and Comparison with the eN Method , 2012 .

[27]  James G. Coder,et al.  Comparisons of Theoretical Methods for Predicting Airfoil Aerodynamic Characteristics , 2014 .

[28]  Andreas Krumbein,et al.  Extension of the γ-Reθt Model for Prediction of Crossflow Transition , 2014 .

[29]  Luís Eça,et al.  A procedure for the estimation of the numerical uncertainty of CFD calculations based on grid refinement studies , 2014, J. Comput. Phys..

[30]  Siva Nadarajah,et al.  Laminar‐turbulent flow simulation for wind turbine profiles using the γ–Re˜θt transition model , 2014 .

[31]  James G. Coder,et al.  Computational Fluid Dynamics Compatible Transition Modeling Using an Amplification Factor Transport Equation , 2014 .

[32]  William Gropp,et al.  CFD Vision 2030 Study: A Path to Revolutionary Computational Aerosciences , 2014 .

[33]  James G. Coder,et al.  Application of the Amplification Factor Transport Transition Model to the Shear Stress Transport Model , 2015 .

[34]  F. Menter,et al.  A One-Equation Local Correlation-Based Transition Model , 2015 .

[35]  D. K. Walters,et al.  A Recommended Correction to the kT−kL−ω Transition-Sensitive Eddy-Viscosity Model , 2017 .

[36]  José C. Páscoa,et al.  Assessment of RANS turbulence models for numerical study of laminar-turbulent transition in convection heat transfer , 2017 .

[37]  E. Dick,et al.  Transition Models for Turbomachinery Boundary Layer Flows: A Review , 2017 .

[38]  James G. Coder,et al.  Enhancement of the Amplification Factor Transport Transition Modeling Framework , 2017 .

[39]  Douwe Rijpkema,et al.  On the use of the γ−R˜eθt transition model for the prediction of the propeller performance at model-scale , 2018, Ocean Engineering.

[40]  Pablo M. Carrica,et al.  Boundary Layer Transition Models for Naval Applications: Capabilities and Limitations , 2019 .