Numerical Methods Comparison of Shock-Induced Separation on Transonic Axisymmetric Hump
Source abstract
Abstract
A transonic hump with a Mach number (M∞) of 0.875 was utilized to compare the prediction capabilities of RANS, URANS, IDDES, and IDDES-SLA for shock-induced separation. The results matched the experimental data concerning pressure, friction coefficients, velocity distribution, and other parameters. The improved delayed detached eddy simulation with a modified sub-grid scale (IDDES-SLA) method performed the best amongst tested numerical methods, demonstrating differences of 1.3% and 4.1% from the experimental results for separation and reattachment locations, respectively. The primary difference between IDDES and IDDES-SLA is reflected in detailed data, such as velocity and high-frequency characteristics, although both methods exhibit similar simulation capabilities for the main structural features of the flow field. The POD and PSD analyses of the flow field results demonstrated that the IDDES-SLA method was more capable of resolving higher modes of flow field.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Aerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research · Computational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics · Aerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
COMAC Shanghai Aircraft Design and Research Institute, Shanghai 201210, China
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China
National Key Laboratory of Aircraft Configuration Design, Xi’an 710072, China
Funding
National Natural Science Foundation of China
References (34)
Show source-provided references
1. Ferri, A. (1940). Experimental Results with Airfoils Tested in the High-Speed Tunnel at Guidonia. (Patent No. NACA-TM-946).
2. Dynamics of three-dimensional shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions10.1146/annurev-fluid-120720-022542 ↗
3. Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions10.1016/j.paerosci.2014.09.002 ↗
4. Recent advances in the shock wave/boundary layer interaction and its control in internal and external flows10.1016/j.actaastro.2020.05.001 ↗
5. Numerical study of oblique shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction considering sidewall effects10.1017/jfm.2015.58 ↗
6. Study of shock wave/boundary layer interaction from the perspective of nonequilibrium effects10.1063/5.0085570 ↗
7. Unsteady analysis of shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction experiments at Mach 4.210.2514/1.J058073 ↗
8. Experimental and numerical study of oscillating transonic shock waves in ducts10.2514/1.J050944 ↗
9. Shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions at compression ramps studied by high-speed schlieren10.2514/1.J058257 ↗
10. Babinsky, H., and Harvey, J.K. (2011). Shock Wave-Boundary-Layer Interactions, Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511842757 ↗
11. Transonic shock-wave/boundary -layer interactions on an oscillating airfoil10.2514/3.50886 ↗
12. Balakumar, P. (2017, January 5–9). Direct Numerical Simulation of Flows over an NACA-0012 Airfoil at Low and Moderate Reynolds Numbers. Proceedings of the 47th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Denver, CO, USA.10.2514/6.2017-3978 ↗
13. Parametric study of separation and reattachment in transonic airfoil flows10.2514/1.J060520 ↗
14. Transonic, turbulent boundary-layer separation generated on an axisymmetric flow model10.2514/3.9286 ↗
15. Lynch, K.P., Barone, M.F., Beresh, S.J., Spillers, R., Henfling, J., and Soehnel, M. (2019, January 17–21). Revisiting Bachalo-Johnson: The sandia axisymmetric transonic hump and CFD challenge. Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, Dallas, TX, USA.10.2514/6.2019-2848 ↗
16. Beresh, S.J., Barone, M.F., Dowding, K., Lynch, K.P., and Miller, N.E. (2020, January 6–10). A CFD Validation Challenge for Transonic, shock-induced separated flow: Approach and metrics. Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA.10.2514/6.2020-1308 ↗
17. Lynch, K.P., Lance, B., Lee, G.S., Naughton, J.W., Miller, N.E., Barone, M.F., Beresh, S.J., Spillers, R., and Soehnel, M. (2020, January 6–10). A CFD validation challenge for transonic, shock-induced separated flow: Experimental characterization. Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, Orlando, FL, USA.10.2514/6.2020-1309.c1 ↗
18. Experimental characterization of an axisymmetric transonic separated flow for computational fluid dynamics validation10.2514/1.J062278 ↗
19. Riley, L.P., and Adler, M. (2021, January 2–6). RANS and wall-modeled LES predictions for the Sandia challenge on transonic, separated flow. Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum, Online.10.2514/6.2021-2757 ↗
20. Gupta, M., Datta, A., Mathew, J., and Hemchandra, S. (2021, January 2–6). Shock induced separation in a transonic flow past an axi-symmetric hump. Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2021 Forum, Online.10.2514/6.2021-2756 ↗
21. Rahmani, S.K., and Wang, Z.J. (2022, January 3–7). Large eddy simulation of the Sandia axisymmetric transonic hump using a high-order method. Proceedings of the AIAA Scitech 2022 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA.10.2514/6.2022-1534 ↗
22. Reynolds-Averaged Studies of the Sandia Transonic Bump Validation Challenge, with Loss of Symmetry10.2514/1.C037473 ↗
23. Agrawal, R., Elnahhas, A., and Moin, P. (2023, January 12–16). Wall modeled large-eddy simulations of flow over the Sandia transonic hump. Proceedings of the AIAA Aviation 2023 Forum, San Diego, CA, USA.10.2514/6.2023-3972 ↗
24. Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models10.2514/3.10041 ↗
25. Comparison of two-equation turbulence models for boundary layers with pressure gradient10.2514/3.11790 ↗
26. Mockett, C. (2009). A Comprehensive Study of Detached Eddy Simulation, Technical University of Berlin.
27. Spalart, P.R. (1997, January 4–8). Comments on the Feasibility of LES for Wings and on the Hybrid RANS/LES Approach. Proceedings of the First AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES, Ruston, LA, USA.
28. Strelets, M. (2001, January 8–11). Detached eddy simulation of massively separated flows. Proceedings of the 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA.10.2514/6.2001-879 ↗
29. Travin, A., Shur, M., Strelets, M., and Spalart, P.R. (2002). Physical and Numerical Upgrades in the Detached-Eddy Simulation of Complex Turbulent Flows. Advances in LES of Complex Flows, Proceedings of the Euromech Colloquium 412, Munich, Germany, 4–6 October 2000, Springer.10.1007/0-306-48383-1_16 ↗
30. Menter, F.R., and Kuntz, M. (2004). Adaptation of Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models to Unsteady Separated Flow Behind Vehicles. The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses, and Trains, Springer.10.1007/978-3-540-44419-0_30 ↗
31. A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES capabilities10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2008.07.001 ↗
32. An enhanced version of DES with rapid transition from RANS to LES in separated flows10.1007/s10494-015-9618-0 ↗
33. A Numerical Investigation of the Dominant Characteristics of a Transonic Flow Over a Hemispherical Turret10.1080/10618562.2022.2146676 ↗
34. On the identification of a vortex10.1017/S0022112095000462 ↗