UFR 3-32 Evaluation: Difference between revisions

From KBwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Dave.Ellacott moved page SilverP:UFR 3-32 Evaluation to UFR 3-32 Evaluation)
 
(47 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 11: Line 11:
<!--{{LoremIpsum}}-->
<!--{{LoremIpsum}}-->
== Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments ==
== Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments ==
<div id="6.1"></div>
===LES versus experiment at shock generator angle of 8 degrees===
===LES versus experiment at shock generator angle of 8 degrees===
Velocity fluctuations in a plane parallel to  the  wall  evidence  the
Velocity fluctuations in a plane parallel to  the  wall  evidence  the
Line 28: Line 29:
|}
|}


Quantitative comparisons in the symmetry plane are shown in Figure 6.
Quantitative comparisons in the symmetry plane are shown in [[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure6|Figure&nbsp;6]].
The agreement  between  experiment  and  simulation  is  very  good  in  the
The agreement  between  experiment  and  simulation  is  very  good  in  the
symmetry plane for  the  longitudinal  velocity  except  in  the  separation
symmetry plane for  the  longitudinal  velocity  except  in  the  separation
Line 46: Line 47:


Longitudinal evolution of turbulence spectra in the spanwise direction
Longitudinal evolution of turbulence spectra in the spanwise direction
are presented in Figure 7 for both large and  narrow  span  simulations. In
are presented in [[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure7|Figure&nbsp;7]] for both large and  narrow  span  simulations.
the separation region, it appears  that  a  large  part  of  the  energy  is
In the separation region, it appears  that  a  large  part  of  the  energy  is
contained in the small wave numbers  in  the  large  span  computation.  The
contained in the small wave numbers  in  the  large  span  computation.  The
cutoff wave number imposed by the finite span is too  large  in  the  narrow
cutoff wave number imposed by the finite span is too  large  in  the  narrow
Line 61: Line 62:


Low frequency movements of the reflected shock are clearly observed in
Low frequency movements of the reflected shock are clearly observed in
Figure 8. As in the experiment the frequency of the power  spectral  density
[[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure8|Figure&nbsp;8]]. As in the experiment the frequency of the power  spectral  density
maximum is located at St=0.03. The  agreement  on  the  energy  distribution
maximum is located at St=0.03. The  agreement  on  the  energy  distribution
between the narrow span computation and the experiment is very good.
between the narrow span computation and the experiment is very good.


<div id="figure8"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="750"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig8a.png|370px]]|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig8b.png|370px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 8:''' Left: longitudinal evolution of LES pressure spectra in the streamwise direction. Right: pressure spectra at <math>{\left.X^* = 0\right.}</math>
|}
<div id="6.2></div>
<div id="6.2"></div>
===DES versus experiment at shock generator angle of 9.5 degrees===
===DES versus experiment at shock generator angle of 9.5 degrees===
This section describes only the comparison the SDES  computation  with
This section describes only the comparison of the SDES  computation  with
the experiments. The reader is referred  to  Doerffer et al. 2010  for  a
the experiments. The reader is referred  to  [[UFR_3-32_References#2|Doerffer&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;(2010)]] for  a
presentation of RANS results.
presentation of RANS results.


The chosen technique of inflow turbulence generation is the  Synthetic
The chosen technique of inflow turbulence generation is the  Synthetic
Eddy Method (SEM) (Garnier, 2009). Figure 9  illustrates  clearly  the  fact
Eddy Method (SEM) ([[UFR_3-32_References#10|Garnier,&nbsp;2009]]).
[[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure9|Figure&nbsp;9]] illustrates  clearly  the  fact
that LES content (resolved eddies) is introduced  at  the  entrance  of  the
that LES content (resolved eddies) is introduced  at  the  entrance  of  the
computational domain over the entire boundary  layer  height.  Nevertheless,
computational domain over the entire boundary  layer  height.  Nevertheless,
lateral boundary layers are treated in RANS mode.
lateral boundary layers are treated in RANS mode.


<div id="figure9"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="445"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig9.png|435px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 9:''' Visualization of the flow (one isovalue of the Q criterion coloured by the longitudinal velocity). In purple, one isovalue of the pressure highlighting the incident shock
|}
<div id="figure10"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="750"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig10a.png|370px]]|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig10b.png|370px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 10:''' Longitudinal velocity and pseudo streamlines in the plane located at 1.2 mm from the wall. Left PIV (IUSTI), right: SDES computation (ONERA).
|}


It is found (Figure 10) that even if some improvement is observed with
It is found ([[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure10|Figure&nbsp;10]]) that even if some improvement is observed with
respect to RANS computations performed on the same  grid  (Doerffer et al.
respect to RANS computations performed on the same  grid  ([[UFR_3-32_References#2|Doerffer&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;2010]]),
2010), it seems that the extent of the predicted corner flows is too  small.
it seems that the extent of the predicted corner flows is too  small.
This is tentatively attributed to the fact that lateral  walls  are  treated
This is tentatively attributed to the fact that lateral  walls  are  treated
with RANS at the inflow.
with RANS at the inflow.


The agreement between SDES and PIV is generally better in the symmetry
The agreement between SDES and PIV is generally better in the symmetry
plane (see Figure 11) even if the bubble aspect ratio is larger in the  SDES
plane (see [[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure11|Figure&nbsp;11]]) even if the bubble aspect ratio is larger in the  SDES
computation than in the experiment.  According  to  the  model  proposed  in
computation than in the experiment.  According  to  the  model  proposed  in
Piponniau et al (2009), this should lead to an increase of the frequency  of
[[UFR_3-32_References#13|Piponniau&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;(2009)]], this should lead to an increase of the frequency  of
the reflected shock movement.
the reflected shock movement.


<div id="figure11"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="750"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig11a.png|370px]]|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig11b.png|370px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 11:''' Longitudinal velocity in the symmetry plane. Left: PIV; right: SDES
|}


Even if the averaged results of this SDES  simulation  are  far  from  being
Even if the averaged results of this SDES  simulation  are  far  from  being
Line 96: Line 127:
useful way.
useful way.


Figure 12  presents  isocontours  of  wall  pressure  fluctuations  and
[[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure12|Figure&nbsp;12]] presents  isocontours  of  wall  pressure  fluctuations  and
streamlines which visualizes  the flow topology. Streamlines should  not  be
streamlines which visualizes  the flow topology. Streamlines should  not  be
compared with those provided in Figure 10 since the  flow  topology  changes
compared with those provided in [[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure10|Figure&nbsp;10]] since the  flow  topology  changes
drastically between the wall and 1.2 mm  from  the  wall.  Upstream  of  the
drastically between the wall and 1.2 mm  from  the  wall.  Upstream  of  the
interaction, pressure fluctuations are weak and they are  due  to  turbulent
interaction, pressure fluctuations are weak and they are  due  to  turbulent
fluctuations present in the boundary layer.  A  local  pressure  fluctuation
fluctuations present in the boundary layer.  A  local  pressure  fluctuation
maximum is observable near the separation at x=0.25. This quantity  is  used
maximum is observable near the separation at <math>{x=0.25}</math>. This quantity  is  used
in the experiments to  identify  the  beginning  of  the  interaction  zone.
in the experiments to  identify  the  beginning  of  the  interaction  zone.
Nevertheless, it can be observed that the maxima  of  pressure  fluctuations
Nevertheless, it can be observed that the maxima  of  pressure  fluctuations
Line 113: Line 144:
must be investigated.
must be investigated.


<div id="figure12"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="548"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig12.png|538px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 12:''' Wall pressure fluctuations and streamlines
|}


The longitudinal evolution of the spectral energy density of  wall  pressure
The longitudinal evolution of the spectral energy density of  wall  pressure
fluctuations premultiplied by the frequency and  normalized  by  the  signal
fluctuations premultiplied by the frequency and  normalized  by  the  signal
variance is presented in Figure 13 and in Figure 14 for computation and  the
variance is presented in [[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure13|Figure&nbsp;13]] and in
[[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure14|Figure&nbsp;14]] for computation and  the
experiment. A frequency resolution FR of 200 Hz has  been  chosen  to  limit
experiment. A frequency resolution FR of 200 Hz has  been  chosen  to  limit
the statistical error due to short signal duration (only 80 ms).
the statistical error due to short signal duration (only 80 ms).


<div id="figure13"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="570"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig13.png|560px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 13:''' Power spectral density of wall pressure fluctuations from SDES premultiplied by the frequency <math>{\left.(fG(f)/\sigma\right.}</math>  in the plane <math>{\left.(f,X^{*}))\right.}</math>
|}
<div id="figure14"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="750"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig14.png|740px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 14:''' Experimental power spectral density of wall pressure fluctuations premultiplied by frequency <math>{\left.nG(n)\right.}</math> in the plane <math>{\left.(n,X^{*})\right.}</math>, adapted from [[UFR_3-32_References#4|Dupont ''et&nbsp;al.'' 2006]]
|}


Very high frequency fluctuations are present in the  inflow  boundary  layer
Very high frequency fluctuations are present in the  inflow  boundary  layer
(/X*/ < -0.05). In the range -0.05 < /X*/ < 0.15, the energy is concentrated  in
<math>{\left(X^* < -0.05\right)}</math>&nbsp;.
In the range <math>{\left.-0.05 < X^* < 0.15\right.}</math>&nbsp;, the energy is concentrated  in
a very low frequency band with an energy peak in the range  300-500  Hz.  In
a very low frequency band with an energy peak in the range  300-500  Hz.  In
the experiment, a bump centred around 200 Hz is evidenced  in  the  pressure
the experiment, a bump centred around 200 Hz is evidenced  in  the  pressure
spectra. The fact that higher frequencies are found in  the  computation  is
spectra. The fact that higher frequencies are found in  the  computation  is
surprising if one scales the Strouhal number of the low frequency  movements
surprising if one scales the Strouhal number of the low frequency  movements
on the interaction length. Nevertheless, in the IUSTI  model (Piponniau et
on the interaction length. Nevertheless, in the IUSTI  model
al. 2009), the frequency depends  on  the bubble  aspect  ratio,  a  larger
([[UFR_3-32_References#13|Piponniau&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;2009]]), the frequency depends  on  the
aspect ratio (as in this computation) giving a higher frequency.
bubble  aspect  ratio,  a  larger aspect ratio (as in this computation) giving a higher frequency.
In the range 0.4 < /X*/ < 0.8, the spectrum is really broadband and, for /X*>
In the range <math>{\left.0.4 < X^* < 0.8\right.}</math>&nbsp;, the spectrum is really broadband and,
0.8, we can observe that energy is concentrated in the range 3-10 kHz as  in
for <math>{\left.X^* > 0.8\right.}</math>&nbsp;,
we can observe that energy is concentrated in the range 3-10 kHz as  in
the experiment. Such frequencies correspond to large  Kelvin-Helmholtz  type
the experiment. Such frequencies correspond to large  Kelvin-Helmholtz  type
structures formed in the shear layer above the separation bubble.
structures formed in the shear layer above the separation bubble.
Line 141: Line 195:
pressure fluctuations  in  the  whole  flow.  In  particular,  the  relative
pressure fluctuations  in  the  whole  flow.  In  particular,  the  relative
contribution of frequencies  lower  than  1000  Hz  with  respect  to  total
contribution of frequencies  lower  than  1000  Hz  with  respect  to  total
fluctuations is plotted in Figure 15 for the semi-plane y<0.085. It  can  be
fluctuations is plotted in [[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#figure15|Figure&nbsp;15]]
observed that low frequencies contribute for more than 70 %  of  the  total
for the semi-plane <math>{y < 0.085}</math>. It  can  be
observed that low frequencies contribute for more than 70%  of  the  total
energy under the footprint of the reflected shock. In  the  separated  zone,
energy under the footprint of the reflected shock. In  the  separated  zone,
20 % of pressure fluctuations are  attributable  to  low  frequencies.  This
20% of pressure fluctuations are  attributable  to  low  frequencies.  This
figure is in agreement with the experimental observations of  Dupont et al
figure is in agreement with the experimental observations of  [[UFR_3-32_References#4|Dupont&nbsp;''et&nbsp;al.''&nbsp;(2006)]].
(2006). A slightly larger level (30 %) of low frequency content is found  in
A slightly larger level (30%) of low frequency content is found  in
the corner flow shear layers.
the corner flow shear layers.
<div id="figure15"></div>
{|align="center" border="0" width="479"
|[[Image:UFR_3-32_fig15.png|469px]]
|-
|align="center"|'''Figure 15:''' Relative part of pressure fluctuations in the range 80-1000 Hz with respect to total fluctuation in the semi-plane <math>{y < 0.085}</math>.
|}


===Conclusions===
===Conclusions===
The two studies reported in 6.1 (LES with periodic spanwise boundaries)  and
The two studies reported in [[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#6.1|2.1.1]] (LES with periodic spanwise boundaries)  and
6.2 (SDES of  the  full  3D  interaction)  are  complementary  and  lead  to
[[UFR_3-32_Evaluation#6.2|2.1.2]] (SDES of  the  full  3D  interaction)  are  complementary  and  lead  to
conclusions as follows. Some  of  them  are  also  reproduced  in  the  Best
conclusions as follows. Some  of  them  are  also  reproduced  in  the  Best
Practice Advice.
Practice Advice.
Line 163: Line 226:
----
----
{{ACContribs
{{ACContribs
|authors=Jean-Paul Dussauge
|authors=Jean-Paul Dussauge (*), P. Dupont (*) , N. Sandham (**), E. Garnier (***)
|organisation=Orange
|organisation= (*)&nbsp;Aix-Marseille Université, and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UM 7343, (**)&nbsp;University of Southampton, (***)&nbsp;ONERA/DAAP, Meudon, France
}}
}}
{{UFRHeader
{{UFRHeader
Line 170: Line 233:
|number=32
|number=32
}}
}}


© copyright ERCOFTAC {{CURRENTYEAR}}
© copyright ERCOFTAC {{CURRENTYEAR}}

Latest revision as of 13:45, 12 February 2017

Planar shock-wave boundary-layer interaction

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

Semi-confined Flows

Underlying Flow Regime 3-32

Evaluation

Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments

LES versus experiment at shock generator angle of 8 degrees

Velocity fluctuations in a plane parallel to the wall evidence the presence of low and high velocity streaks that populates canonical boundary layers. After the separation (identified by the first dashed line), the size of turbulent structures in the spanwise direction significantly increases and further downstream the turbulence slowly relaxes toward its canonical state. This figure illustrates the fact that the simulation is capable of capturing most of the finest turbulent structures present in a supersonic boundary layer.

UFR 3-32 fig5.png
Figure 5: Velocity fluctuations from LES in a plane parallel to the wall (corresponding to in the upstream boundary layer).

Quantitative comparisons in the symmetry plane are shown in Figure 6. The agreement between experiment and simulation is very good in the symmetry plane for the longitudinal velocity except in the separation bubble region. Nevertheless, it is important to mention that this region is very sensitive to the nature of inflow perturbations since a large variability of the results in this area has already been observed in the experiment, the 2006 data differing from the 2007 one, specifically in this region. The agreement with the experiment is also generally satisfactory for the Reynolds shear stress.

UFR 3-32 fig6a.png|UFR 3-32 fig6b.png
Figure 6: Comparison of PIV2007 and LES results. Left: longitudinal velocity. Right: Reynolds shear stress.

Longitudinal evolution of turbulence spectra in the spanwise direction are presented in Figure 7 for both large and narrow span simulations. In the separation region, it appears that a large part of the energy is contained in the small wave numbers in the large span computation. The cutoff wave number imposed by the finite span is too large in the narrow span simulation. This forces the energy to concentrate at smaller scale and affects the results.

UFR 3-32 fig7.png
Figure 7: Longitudinal evolution of turbulence spectra in the spanwise direction for two distances from the wall.

Low frequency movements of the reflected shock are clearly observed in Figure 8. As in the experiment the frequency of the power spectral density maximum is located at St=0.03. The agreement on the energy distribution between the narrow span computation and the experiment is very good.

UFR 3-32 fig8a.png|UFR 3-32 fig8b.png
Figure 8: Left: longitudinal evolution of LES pressure spectra in the streamwise direction. Right: pressure spectra at

DES versus experiment at shock generator angle of 9.5 degrees

This section describes only the comparison of the SDES computation with the experiments. The reader is referred to Doerffer et al. (2010) for a presentation of RANS results.

The chosen technique of inflow turbulence generation is the Synthetic Eddy Method (SEM) (Garnier, 2009). Figure 9 illustrates clearly the fact that LES content (resolved eddies) is introduced at the entrance of the computational domain over the entire boundary layer height. Nevertheless, lateral boundary layers are treated in RANS mode.

UFR 3-32 fig9.png
Figure 9: Visualization of the flow (one isovalue of the Q criterion coloured by the longitudinal velocity). In purple, one isovalue of the pressure highlighting the incident shock


UFR 3-32 fig10a.png|UFR 3-32 fig10b.png
Figure 10: Longitudinal velocity and pseudo streamlines in the plane located at 1.2 mm from the wall. Left PIV (IUSTI), right: SDES computation (ONERA).

It is found (Figure 10) that even if some improvement is observed with respect to RANS computations performed on the same grid (Doerffer et al. 2010), it seems that the extent of the predicted corner flows is too small. This is tentatively attributed to the fact that lateral walls are treated with RANS at the inflow.

The agreement between SDES and PIV is generally better in the symmetry plane (see Figure 11) even if the bubble aspect ratio is larger in the SDES computation than in the experiment. According to the model proposed in Piponniau et al. (2009), this should lead to an increase of the frequency of the reflected shock movement.

UFR 3-32 fig11a.png|UFR 3-32 fig11b.png
Figure 11: Longitudinal velocity in the symmetry plane. Left: PIV; right: SDES

Even if the averaged results of this SDES simulation are far from being perfect, it is the only one that exists for the 9.5 degrees case carried out on the full geometry. Some work has then been performed to analyze the unsteady data hoping that it could complement the experimental results in a useful way.

Figure 12 presents isocontours of wall pressure fluctuations and streamlines which visualizes the flow topology. Streamlines should not be compared with those provided in Figure 10 since the flow topology changes drastically between the wall and 1.2 mm from the wall. Upstream of the interaction, pressure fluctuations are weak and they are due to turbulent fluctuations present in the boundary layer. A local pressure fluctuation maximum is observable near the separation at . This quantity is used in the experiments to identify the beginning of the interaction zone. Nevertheless, it can be observed that the maxima of pressure fluctuations can be found in the corner flows and downstream from the interaction. In the latter case, these fluctuations are associated to Kelvin-Helmholtz type vortices which are generated in the shear layer above the separation bubble. More generally, these results indicate that the unsteady movements of highest intensity are localized in corner flows and a possible statistical link between these corner flows and the main separation area must be investigated.

UFR 3-32 fig12.png
Figure 12: Wall pressure fluctuations and streamlines

The longitudinal evolution of the spectral energy density of wall pressure fluctuations premultiplied by the frequency and normalized by the signal variance is presented in Figure 13 and in Figure 14 for computation and the experiment. A frequency resolution FR of 200 Hz has been chosen to limit the statistical error due to short signal duration (only 80 ms).

UFR 3-32 fig13.png
Figure 13: Power spectral density of wall pressure fluctuations from SDES premultiplied by the frequency in the plane


UFR 3-32 fig14.png
Figure 14: Experimental power spectral density of wall pressure fluctuations premultiplied by frequency in the plane , adapted from Dupont et al. 2006

Very high frequency fluctuations are present in the inflow boundary layer  . In the range  , the energy is concentrated in a very low frequency band with an energy peak in the range 300-500 Hz. In the experiment, a bump centred around 200 Hz is evidenced in the pressure spectra. The fact that higher frequencies are found in the computation is surprising if one scales the Strouhal number of the low frequency movements on the interaction length. Nevertheless, in the IUSTI model (Piponniau et al. 2009), the frequency depends on the bubble aspect ratio, a larger aspect ratio (as in this computation) giving a higher frequency. In the range  , the spectrum is really broadband and, for  , we can observe that energy is concentrated in the range 3-10 kHz as in the experiment. Such frequencies correspond to large Kelvin-Helmholtz type structures formed in the shear layer above the separation bubble. In the experiment, the pressure signals are filtered at 40 kHz. This can explain the discrepancies observed above this frequency between SDES and experiment.

The computation gives information about the frequency content of the pressure fluctuations in the whole flow. In particular, the relative contribution of frequencies lower than 1000 Hz with respect to total fluctuations is plotted in Figure 15 for the semi-plane . It can be observed that low frequencies contribute for more than 70% of the total energy under the footprint of the reflected shock. In the separated zone, 20% of pressure fluctuations are attributable to low frequencies. This figure is in agreement with the experimental observations of Dupont et al. (2006). A slightly larger level (30%) of low frequency content is found in the corner flow shear layers.


UFR 3-32 fig15.png
Figure 15: Relative part of pressure fluctuations in the range 80-1000 Hz with respect to total fluctuation in the semi-plane .

Conclusions

The two studies reported in 2.1.1 (LES with periodic spanwise boundaries) and 2.1.2 (SDES of the full 3D interaction) are complementary and lead to conclusions as follows. Some of them are also reproduced in the Best Practice Advice.

  • The low frequency mode can indeed be captured with simulation approaches.
  • 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)
  • For weak interaction cases the results for the spanwise periodic assumption compares favourably with experimental data.
  • Strong interactions give highly three-dimensional interactions which require sidewall boundary layers to be included in the calculations.
  • DES with additional inflow stimulation (i.e. SDES) provides a reference calculation.




Contributed by: Jean-Paul Dussauge (*), P. Dupont (*) , N. Sandham (**), E. Garnier (***) — (*) Aix-Marseille Université, and Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique UM 7343, (**) University of Southampton, (***) ONERA/DAAP, Meudon, France

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024