2005
DOI: 10.2514/1.16173
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Automatic Transition Prediction for High-Lift Systems Using a Hybrid Flow Solver

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2007
2007
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 12 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Thus, as shown in [6], the large number of grid points near the wall for a high resolution of the boundary layers, the adaptation of the NavierStokes grid in the laminar, turbulent, and transitional boundary-layer regions and the generation of new adapted grids for the RANS solver after every step of the transition location iteration are avoided, and the computational time can be massively reduced. In addition, the number of RANS iteration cycles between two steps of the transition location iteration can be highly reduced compared to an approach where the boundary-layer parameters are computed directly from the RANS grid [23,24], because the surface pressure converges significantly faster in the RANS computation than the boundarylayer velocity profiles [25], which are the basis for the computation of the boundary-layer parameters.…”
Section: Transition Prediction Coupling Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, as shown in [6], the large number of grid points near the wall for a high resolution of the boundary layers, the adaptation of the NavierStokes grid in the laminar, turbulent, and transitional boundary-layer regions and the generation of new adapted grids for the RANS solver after every step of the transition location iteration are avoided, and the computational time can be massively reduced. In addition, the number of RANS iteration cycles between two steps of the transition location iteration can be highly reduced compared to an approach where the boundary-layer parameters are computed directly from the RANS grid [23,24], because the surface pressure converges significantly faster in the RANS computation than the boundarylayer velocity profiles [25], which are the basis for the computation of the boundary-layer parameters.…”
Section: Transition Prediction Coupling Structurementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Here, converged force coefficients are not sufficient because the boundary-layer profiles still change significantly for many more iterations. Instead, the residuals have to be converged sufficiently to ensure fully developed boundarylayer profiles [35,36]. Figure 3 shows a typical convergence history for a RANS simulation on three multigrid levels.…”
Section: B Converging Laminar-turbulent Boundary Layermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Thus, as shown in [6], the large number of grid points near the wall for a high resolution of the boundary layers, the adaptation of the Navier-Stokes grid in the laminar, turbulent and transitional boundary-layer regions and the generation of new adapted grids for the RANS solver after every step of the transition location iteration are avoided and the computational time can be massively reduced. In addition, the number of RANS iteration cycles between two steps of the transition location iteration can be highly reduced compared to an approach where the boundary-layer parameters are computed directly from the RANS grid [38]- [39], because the surface pressure converges significantly faster in the RANS computation than the boundarylayer velocity profiles [24], [29]- [30] which are the basis for the computation of the boundary-layer parameters. Because the laminar separation point is used as an approximation of the real transition point in the case that the e Nmethods do not detect transition upstream of the separation, this approach may fail when transition occurs inside a laminar separation bubble.…”
Section: Transition Prediction Coupling Structurementioning
confidence: 99%