UFR 3-32 Best Practice Advice: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
= Best Practice Advice = | = Best Practice Advice = | ||
== Key | == Key physics == | ||
*The low frequency component (two orders of magnitude below the typical turbulent boundary layer frequencies) is an important feature of the interaction. It may be detected, for example, in the weighted power spectrum near the foot of the reflected shock wave. | *The low frequency component (two orders of magnitude below the typical turbulent boundary layer frequencies) is an important feature of the interaction. It may be detected, for example, in the weighted power spectrum near the foot of the reflected shock wave. | ||
*Mean and turbulent flow properties show the presence of a shock-induced separation bubble. | *Mean and turbulent flow properties show the presence of a shock-induced separation bubble. | ||
*For weak interaction cases the results for the spanwise periodic assumption compares favourably with experimental data. | *For weak interaction cases the results for the spanwise periodic assumption compares favourably with experimental data. | ||
*With strong interactions and with sidewalls present the separated flow zones are highly three dimensional. | *With strong interactions and with sidewalls present the separated flow zones are highly three dimensional. | ||
== Numerical modelling issues== | == Numerical modelling issues== | ||
*For weak interactions (here represented by the 8 degree shock generator) a periodic spanwise boundary condition may be used, but attention should be paid to the spanwise domain width. Good experience was obtained when the domain width was at least equal to the separation bubble length. | *For weak interactions (here represented by the 8 degree shock generator) a periodic spanwise boundary condition may be used, but attention should be paid to the spanwise domain width. Good experience was obtained when the domain width was at least equal to the separation bubble length. | ||
Revision as of 09:25, 12 August 2013
Planar shock-wave boundary-layer interaction
Semi-confined Flows
Underlying Flow Regime 3-32
Best Practice Advice
Key physics
- The low frequency component (two orders of magnitude below the typical turbulent boundary layer frequencies) is an important feature of the interaction. It may be detected, for example, in the weighted power spectrum near the foot of the reflected shock wave.
- Mean and turbulent flow properties show the presence of a shock-induced separation bubble.
- For weak interaction cases the results for the spanwise periodic assumption compares favourably with experimental data.
- With strong interactions and with sidewalls present the separated flow zones are highly three dimensional.
Numerical modelling issues
- For weak interactions (here represented by the 8 degree shock generator) a periodic spanwise boundary condition may be used, but attention should be paid to the spanwise domain width. Good experience was obtained when the domain width was at least equal to the separation bubble length.
- For strong interactions (here represented by a 9.5 degree shock generator) the full 3D domain corresponding to the experiment must be used.
- Shock capturing should not be too dissipative. Both codes used here pay particular attention to minimising additional dissipation by using shock sensors in addition to basic shock-capturing techniques.
- In LES with spanwise periodic boundary conditions attention needs to be placed in particular on the need for a sufficiently large domain size to capture both the mean flow and the low-frequency mode
- Grid dependency studies showed that grid size and by inference sub grid scale model characteristics are secondary factors for cases where the viscous sublayer is correctly resolved (wall modelling was not employed)
Physical modelling
- The full compressible Navier-Stokes equations for a Newtonian fluid with temperature-sensitive viscosity (e.g. using Sutherland's law) should be used.
- Time-dependent inflow representations of turbulent boundary layers are recommended for LES, unless one is prepared to simulate a long entire transition process.
- For DES inflow stimulation is necessary.
Application Uncertainties
Summarise any aspects of the UFR model set-up which are subject to uncertainty and to which the assessment parameters are particularly sensitive (e.g location and nature of transition to turbulence; specification of turbulence quantities at inlet; flow leakage through gaps etc.)
Recommendations for Future Work
Propose further studies which will improve the
quality or scope of the BPA and perhaps bring it up to date. For example,
perhaps further calculations of the test-case should be performed
employing more recent, highly promising models of turbulence (e.g Spalart
and Allmaras, Durbin's v2f, etc.). Or perhaps new experiments should be
undertaken for which the values of key parameters (e.g. pressure gradient
or streamline curvature) are much closer to those encountered in real
application challenges.
Contributed by: Jean-Paul Dussauge — Orange
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024