Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-29T23:08:38.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Adaptive detached eddy simulation of transition under the influence of free-stream turbulence and pressure gradient

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 March 2021

Zifei Yin Open the ORCID record for Zifei Yin [Opens in a new window] ,
Xuan Ge  and
Paul Durbin
Zifei Yin*
Affiliation:
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, PR China
Xuan Ge
Affiliation:
Convergent Science, Inc., Madison, WI 53718, USA
Paul Durbin
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011, USA
*
†Email address for correspondence: yinzifei@sjtu.edu.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The basic question of whether a hybrid method for turbulence simulation can plausibly capture laminar-to-turbulent transition is addressed. The $\ell ^2$–$\omega$ adaptive detached eddy simulation model (Yin & Durbin, Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow, vol. 62, 2016, pp. 499–509) does so. It dynamically adjusts a model constant, based on local mesh resolution and instantaneous flow features. In a laminar flow, the adaptive procedure returns zero subgrid viscosity, and large-scale low-frequency perturbations are resolved on the grid. However, rather than fully simulating transition, the hybrid model switches on at transition; small-scale turbulence is not resolved. It is found that the correct transitional behaviour is captured because the adaptive formulation responds to the initiation of small-scale components in the field of velocity gradient. The current work addresses flat-plate transition under the influence of free-stream turbulence and pressure gradient, encompassing bypass and separation-induced transition. First, the transition prediction mechanism of the adaptive model is explained. Then, the ability to predict transition statistically is evaluated, along with sensitivity studies of boundary conditions and mesh resolution.

JFM classification

Turbulent Flows: Turbulence modelling Turbulent Flows: Turbulence simulation Turbulent Flows: Turbulent transition

Information

Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 915 , 25 May 2021 , A115
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Alam, M.F., Walters, D.K. & Thompson, D.S. 2013 A transition-sensitive hybrid RANS/LES modeling methodology for CFD applications. In 51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, p. 995.Google Scholar
Bailly, C. & Juve, D. 1999 A stochastic approach to compute subsonic noise using linearized Euler's equations. In 5th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, p. 1872.Google Scholar
Durbin, P.A. 2017 Perspectives on the phenomenology and modeling of boundary layer transition. Flow Turbul. Combust. 99 (1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ge, X., Arolla, S. & Durbin, P.A. 2014 A bypass transition model based on the intermittency function. Flow Turbul. Combust. 93 (1), 37–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ham, F.E., Lien, F.S., Wu, X., Wang, M. & Durbin, P.A. 2000 LES and unsteady RANS of boundary-layer transition induced by periodically passing wakes. In Proceedings of the Summer Program, pp. 249–260. Center for Turbulence Research.Google Scholar
Hodara, J. & Smith, M.J. 2017 Hybrid Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes/large-eddy simulation closure for separated transitional flows. AIAA J. 55 (6), 1948–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, R. & Durbin, P.A. 2001 Simulations of bypass transition. J. Fluid Mech. 428, 185–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jasak, H., Jemcov, A. & Tukovic, Z. 2007 OpenFOAM: A C++ library for complex physics simulations. In International Workshop on Coupled Methods in Numerical Dynamics, pp. 1–20. IUC Dubrovnik Croatia.Google Scholar
Langtry, R. & Menter, F. 2005 Transition modeling for general CFD applications in aeronautics. In 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, p. 522.Google Scholar
Lardeau, S., Leschziner, M. & Zaki, T. 2012 Large eddy simulation of transitional separated flow over a flat plate and a compressor blade. Flow Turbul. Combust. 88 (1–2), 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilly, D.K. 1991 A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid-scale closure method. Phys. Fluids A 4 (3), 633–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lou, W. & Hourmouziadis, J. 2000 Separation bubbles under steady and periodic-unsteady main flow conditions. Trans. ASME: J. Turbomach. 122 (4), 634–643.Google Scholar
Reddy, K., Ryon, J. & Durbin, P.A. 2014 A DDES model with a Smagorinsky-type eddy viscosity formulation and log-layer mismatch correction. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 50, 103–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roach, P.E. & Brierley, D.H. 1992 The influence of a turbulent free-stream on zero pressure gradient transitional boundary layer development Part 1: Test cases T3A and T3B. In Numerical Simulation of Unsteady Flows and Transition to Turbulence, pp. 319–347. ERCOFTAC.Google Scholar
Sørensen, N.N., Bechmann, A. & Zahle, F. 2011 3D CFD computations of transitional flows using DES and a correlation based transition model. Wind Energy 14 (1), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalart, P.R. 1997 Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. In Proceedings of First AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES. Greyden Press.Google Scholar
Spalart, P.R. 2009 Detached-eddy simulation. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 41, 181–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalart, P.R., Deck, S., Shur, M.L., Squires, K.D., Strelets, M.K. & Travin, A. 2006 A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 20 (3), 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suluksna, K., Dechaumphai, P. & Juntasaro, E. 2009 Correlations for modeling transitional boundary layers under influences of freestream turbulence and pressure gradient. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 30 (1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, D.K. & Cokljat, D. 2008 A three-equation eddy-viscosity model for Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes simulations of transitional flow. J. Fluids Engng 130 (12), 121401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D.C. 1998 Turbulence Modeling for CFD. DCW Industries.Google Scholar
Wissink, J. & Rodi, W. 2006 Direct numerical simulations of transitional flow in turbomachinery. Trans. ASME: J. Turbomach. 128 (4), 668–678.Google Scholar
Xiao, Z., Wang, G., Yang, M. & Chen, L. 2019 Numerical investigations of hypersonic transition and massive separation past Orion capsule by DDES-Tr. Intl J. Heat Mass Transfer 137, 90–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Z. & Durbin, P.A. 2016 An adaptive DES model that allows wall-resolved eddy simulation. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 62, 499–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yin, Z., Reddy, K. & Durbin, P.A. 2015 On the dynamic computation of the model constant in delayed detached eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 27 (2), 025105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaki, T.A. & Durbin, P.A. 2005 Mode interaction and the bypass route to transition. J. Fluid Mech. 531, 85–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar