Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-p5m67 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-19T17:28:55.313Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of several eddy viscosity turbulence models in two and three dimensional boundary layer flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

A. W. C. Leung  and
L. C. Squire
A. W. C. Leung
Affiliation:
Cambridge University Engineering Department
L. C. Squire
Affiliation:
Cambridge University Engineering Department
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Four flow cases are calculated using a boundary layer method with five turbulence models. The Johnson-King model, in particular, is modified and two variant forms are used in the present work. The variant forms involve an anisotropic form of three-dimensional eddy viscosity formulations and a modification in the outer viscosity expression. It is found that the Johnson-King model generally performs very well as compared to the others, and the variant forms provide further improvement in most cases.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 98 , Issue 973 , April 1994 , pp. 73 - 82
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1994 

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

1. Johnson, D.A. and King, L.S. A new turbulence closure model for boundary layer flows with strong adverse pressure gradients and separation. AIAA Paper 84-0175, 1984.Google Scholar
2. Johnson, D.A. Predictions of transonic separated flow with an eddy-viscosity/Reynolds-shear-stress closure model. AIAA Paper 85-1683, 1985.Google Scholar
3. King, L.S. A comparison of turbulence closure models for transonic flows about airfoils. AIAA Paper 87-0418, 1987.Google Scholar
4. Perry, A.E. and Schofield, W. H. Mean velocity and shear stress-distributions in turbulent boundary layers. Phys Fluids, 1973, 16, (12), pp 2068–2081.Google Scholar
5. Johnston, L.J. A solution method for the three-dimensional compressible turbulent boundary-layer equations. Aeronaut J, Apr. 1989, 93, (924), pp 115–131.Google Scholar
6. Cebeci, T. and Smith, A.M.O. Analysis of Turbulent Boundary Layers, Academic Press, 1974.Google Scholar
7. Baldwin, B. and Lomax, H. Thin-layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows. AIAA Paper 78-0257, 1978.Google Scholar
8. Chen, H.C. and Patel, V.C. Near-wall turbulent models for complex flows including separation. AIAA J, 1988, 26, (6), pp 641–648.Google Scholar
9. Chien, K.Y. Predictions of channel and boundary-layer flows with a low Reynolds number turbulence model. AIAA J, 1982, 20, (1),pp 33–38.Google Scholar
10. Wolfshtein, M. The velocity and temperature distribution in one dimensional flow with turbulence augmentation and pressure gradient. Int J Heat Mass Transfer, 1969, 12, pp 301–318.Google Scholar
11. Holmes, S.C. and Squire, L.C. Numerical studies of supersonic flow over a compression corner. Aeronaut J, Mar. 1992, 96, (953), pp 87–95.Google Scholar
12. Johnson, D.A. and Coakley, T.J. Improvement to a non equilibrium algebraic turbulence model. AIAA J, 1990, 28, (11), pp 2000–2003.Google Scholar
13. Savill, A.M., Gatski, T.B. and Lindberg, P.A. A Pseudo-3D extension to the Johnson & King model and its application to the EuroExpt S-duct geometry. Proceedings of 1st ERCOFTAC Work shop on Numerical Simulation of Unsteady Flows and Transition to Turbulence, Lausanne. Ed. by Pirroneau, O., Rodi, W., Ryhming, I.L. Savill, A.M. and Truong, T.U. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
14. Abid, R. Extension of the Johnson-King Turbulence Model to the 3-D flows. AIAA Paper 88-0223, 1988.Google Scholar
15. Rotta, R.C. A family of turbulence models for three dimensional boundary layers. Turbulent Shear Flows I, pp 267–278. Ed. by Durst, F., Launder, B.E., Schmidt, F.W. and Whitelaw, J.H. Springer-Verlag, 1979.Google Scholar
16. Moreau, V. A study of anisotropic effects in three dimensional incompressible turbulent boundary layers driven by pressure gradients. PhD Thesis, No.755, EPF Lausanne, 1988.Google Scholar
17. Savill, A.M. Extending the Johnson & King model to 3D. Unpublished research, 1991.Google Scholar
18. Galbraith, R.A.McD. and Head, M.R. Eddy viscosity and mixing length from measured boundary layer developments. Aeronaut Q, May 1975, 26, pp 133–154.Google Scholar
19. Samuel, A.E. and Joubert, P.N. A boundary layer developing in an increasingly adverse pressure gradient. J Fluid Mech, 1974, 66, pp 481–505.Google Scholar
20. Schubauer, G.B. and Spangenburg, W.B. Forced mixing in boundary layers. J Fluid Mech, 1960, 8, pp 10–38.Google Scholar
21. Van den Berg, B. and Elsenaar, A. Measurements in a three dimensional incompressible turbulent boundary layer in an adverse pressure gradient under infinite swept wing conditions. NLR TR 72092U, 1972.Google Scholar
22. Elsenaar, A. and Boelsma, S.H. Measurements of the Reynolds stress tensor in a three-dimensional turbulent boundary layer under infinite swept wing conditions. NLR TR 74095U, 1974.Google Scholar
23. Bradshaw, P. and Terrell, M.G. The response of a turbulent boundary layer on an infinite swept wing to the sudden removal of pressure gradient. NPL Aero Report 1305, 1969.Google Scholar
24. Patel, V.C., Rodi, W. and Scheuerer, G. Turbulence models for near-wall and low Reynolds number flows: a review. AIAA J, 1985, 23, (9), pp 1308–1319.Google Scholar