Density corrections for turbulence models

Catris, Stéphane; Aupoix, B.

doi:10.1016/s1270-9638(00)00112-7

Cited by 196 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Likewise, the heat flux q j includes molecular and turbulent transport. The equation for the turbulence field variable ν t has the form taken from Catris and Aupoix [34] with turbulence modeling constants from the original Spalart and Allmaras paper [35]. See also the NASA Langley Turbulence Modeling Resource [36] for full details and for the form and values of the turbulence model parameters: σ;Ŝ; c b1 ; c b2 ; c w1 ; f w .…”

Section: Governing Equationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The one-equation Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model [35] with the Catris-Aupoix [34] compressibility correction was used, and large time steps were used to rapidly converge the simulations to statistical steady state. Figure 5 plots the temperature and water mass-fraction fields for the RANS simulations on the domain centerline, at the exit plane, and slightly above the flat-plate surface.…”

Section: A 141 Million Element Simulations-element Grid Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulation of Autoignition-Dominated Supersonic Combustion

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simulations of combustion in high-speed and supersonic flows need to account for autoignition phenomena, compressibility, and the effects of intense turbulence. In the present work, the evolution-variable manifold framework of Cymbalist and Dimotakis ("On Autoignition-Dominated Supersonic Combustion," AIAA Paper 2015-2315, June 2015) is implemented in a computational fluid dynamics method, and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes and wall-modeled large-eddy simulations are performed for a hydrogen-air combustion test case. As implemented here, the evolution-variable manifold approach solves a scalar conservation equation for a reaction-evolution variable that represents both the induction and subsequent oxidation phases of combustion. The detailed thermochemical state of the reacting fluid is tabulated as a low-dimensional manifold as a function of density, energy, mixture fraction, and the evolution variable. A numerical flux function consistent with local thermodynamic processes is developed, and the approach for coupling the computational fluid dynamics to the evolution-variable manifold table is discussed. Wall-modeled large-eddy simulations incorporating the evolution-variable manifold framework are found to be in good agreement with full chemical kinetics model simulations and the jet in supersonic crossflow hydrogen-air experiments of Gamba and Mungal ("Ignition, Flame Structure and Near-Wall Burning in Transverse Hydrogen Jets in Supersonic Crossflow," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 780, Oct. 2015, pp. 226-273). In particular, the evolutionvariable manifold approach captures both thin reaction fronts and distributed reaction-zone combustion that dominate high-speed turbulent combustion flows.Nomenclature a = speed of sound, m∕s C; X ; Z = progress variable, nonfuel mass fraction, and fuel mass fraction c v ; c v;s = mixture and s-species specific heats, J∕kg ⋅ K D = diffusion coefficient, m 2 ∕s E = total energy per unit volume, J∕m 3 e; e s = mixture and s-species specific energy, J∕kg F = convective flux vector h; h 0 = enthalpy and total enthalpy, J∕kg i = grid index J = jet momentum ratio j h = diffusive enthalpy flux k = kinetic energy, J∕kg L; R = values obtained from left and right data M s = s-species molar mass, kg∕kmol N s = number of species in detailed kinetics model n; n x ; n y ; n z = element face unit normal vector and components p = pressure, Pa q j = heat flux vector= vectors of conserved and primitive variables u; u; v; w = velocity vector and components, m∕s u 0 = face-normal velocity component, m∕s x; x j = position vector and its components, m Y s = s-species mass fraction α = dissipative flux factor δ R = reaction-zone thickness, m ε = dissipation rate ζ = evolution-variable source term, 1∕s η k = Kolmogorov length scale, m Λ; λ = diagonal matrix of eigenvalues and eigenvalue ν t ; ν = turbulence field variable and kinematic viscosity ρ; ρ s = density and s-species density, kg∕m 3 σ ij = viscous and Reynolds stress τ = evolution variable ϕ = stoichiometric fuel-air ratio χ = subgrid-s...

show abstract

Section: Governing Equationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: A 141 Million Element Simulations-element Grid Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulation of Autoignition-Dominated Supersonic Combustion

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, we recognized that the results obtained using the algebraic turbulence model were not realistic. Therefore, we implemented the one-equation turbulence model of Spalart and Allmaras, with the compressibility correction suggested by Catris and Aupoix (2000), to perform additional simulations. This model allows for suppression and amplification of turbulence based on the local flow characteristics.…”

Section: Nozzle Flow Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, when we employed the Spalart-Allmaras model for wall turbulence the simulation matched the Pitot pressure profile at the nozzle exit-plane. In the present studies, we also employ the SpalartAllmaras model for wall turbulence [Spalart and Allmaras, (1992)] with the compressibility correction from Catris and Aupoix (2000). gradient.…”

Section: Nozzle Flow Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Continuum and Particle Computations of Hypersonic Shock Interaction Flows

Chandler¹

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The public reporting burden for this collectiyv.oÄ information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including 'gathering and maintaining the data needed, arV;)Jpmpleting and reviewing the collection of information._ Send comme of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headqua.-(0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any otner provraim, «. ._., subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.ces, sctior ports ..iall be REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)2. REPORT TYPE Final ReportDATES PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics University of Minnesota Minneapolis MN 55455 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)USAF/AFRL AFOSR 801 N. Randolph Street Arlington VA 22203 SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) AFOSR SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S) DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTDistribution Statement A. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ABSTRACTThere has been increasing interest in developing numerical methods and accurate physical models for solving computational fluid dynamics (CFD) problems of hypersonic continuum and rarefied flows. In this work, we establish a framework for validating numerical methods and physical models employed in popular CFD codes. The first main objective of this work is to assess the ability of current state-of-the-art methods to simulate challenging hypersonic flow problems by comparing to well characterized experiments. The second main objective is to provide benchmark numerical solutions to hypersonic double-cone laminar flows that can be used as code validation cases. There has been increasing interest in developing numerical methods and accurate physical models for solving computational fluid dynamics (CFD) problems of hypersonic continuum and rarefied flows. In this work, we establish a framework for validating numerical methods and physical models employed in popular CFD codes. The first main objective of this work is to assess the ability of current state-of-the-art methods to simulate challenging hypersonic flow problems by comparing to well characterized experiments. The second main objective is to provide benchmark numerical solutions to hypersonic double-cone laminar flows that can be used as code validation cases. This report has been derived from Dr. Ioannis Nompelis' Ph. D. Thesis at the University of Minnesota.We have simulated experiments of hypersonic laminar double-cone flows that were performed at the Large Energy National Shock (LENS) facility. These experiments were conducted as part of a validation effort for continuum and particle-based codes. The double-cone flow was chosen because it exhibits strong viscous/inviscid and shock interactions, ...

show abstract

“…The turbulent eddy viscosity computed by Spalart-Allmaras (SA) and k-e models is overestimated while BL model underpredicts it in DNS results of flat plate by Li et al 18 at Mach 6.0. Catris and Aupoix 19 propose a correction of the diffusion terms in turbulent models to make the models compatible with the logarithmic law for a compressible boundary layer.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigation of turbulence models with compressibility corrections for hypersonic boundary flows

Tang

Gao

2015

Advances in Mechanical Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The applications of pressure work, pressure-dilatation, and dilatation-dissipation (Sarkar, Zeman, and Wilcox) models to hypersonic boundary flows are investigated. The flat plate boundary layer flows of Mach number 5-11 and shock wave/ boundary layer interactions of compression corners are simulated numerically. For the flat plate boundary layer flows, original turbulence models overestimate the heat flux with Mach number high up to 10, and compressibility corrections applied to turbulence models lead to a decrease in friction coefficients and heating rates. The pressure work and pressure-dilatation models yield the better results. Among the three dilatation-dissipation models, Sarkar and Wilcox corrections present larger deviations from the experiment measurement, while Zeman correction can achieve acceptable results. For hypersonic compression corner flows, due to the evident increase of turbulence Mach number in separation zone, compressibility corrections make the separation areas larger, thus cannot improve the accuracy of calculated results. It is unreasonable that compressibility corrections take effect in separation zone. Density-corrected model by Catris and Aupoix is suitable for shock wave/boundary layer interaction flows which can improve the simulation accuracy of the peak heating and have a little influence on separation zone.

show abstract

Density corrections for turbulence models

Cited by 196 publications

References 0 publications

Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulation of Autoignition-Dominated Supersonic Combustion

Wall-Modeled Large-Eddy Simulation of Autoignition-Dominated Supersonic Combustion

Continuum and Particle Computations of Hypersonic Shock Interaction Flows

Investigation of turbulence models with compressibility corrections for hypersonic boundary flows

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About