UFR 3-32 Best Practice Advice

Planar shock-wave boundary-layer interaction

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

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

• Turbulence modelling
• Transition modelling
• Near-wall modelling
• Other modelling

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

Front Page

Description

Test Case Studies

Evaluation

Best Practice Advice

References

© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024