UFR 3-34 Evaluation
Semi-Confined Flows
Underlying Flow Regime 3-34
Evaluation
Comparison of CFD Calculations with Experiments
In this section we first present major results of RANS computations of the considered flow performed with different turbulence models [7] and their comparison with the experimental data (sub-section 6.1). Then, in sub-section 6.2, results are presented of the scale-resolving simulations (enhanced RANS-LES methods [8], [9] and WRLES [6]). This sub-section begins with a comparison of flow visualizations from different simulations, which visually display turbulence resolving capabilities of the approaches used. Then, a comparison with the experimental data is shown for the main body of these simulations.
RANS Calculations
The 2DWMH flow has been computed and discussed in numerous RANS studies both by individual researches and in the framework of different collaborative projects and workshops. So below we present only a concise outline of major findings of these studies based on quite representative information on performance of different RANS models available at https://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/nasahump_val.html [7]. The models (see Table 5) include: four linear eddy viscosity models (one-equation model of Spalart & Allmaras (SA model) [31], this model with the Rotation-Curvature correction (SACC) [32], the two-equation k-. Shear Stress Transport of Menter (SST) [33]) and the two-equation k-kL model of Menter & Egorov and Abdol-Hamid (k-kL-MEAH2015 [34]) and one differential Reynolds Stress Model (RSM), namely the SSG/LLR-RSM-w2012 model [35] which “blends” the Speziale-Sarkar-Gatski (SSG) model [36] in the near wall flow region and Launder-Reece-Rodi (LRR) model [37] in the outer region.
Figures 8, 9 show plots of distributions of the pressure and friction coefficients over the hump predicted by different linear eddy viscosity models (Fig. 8) and by the RSM (Fig. 9) with the use of the two NASA codes (structured code CFL3D and unstructured code UNS3D) together with the corresponding experimental data. The figures show that in terms of agreement with the data, none of the models ensures accurate prediction of the pressure and friction distributions and that all of them considerably over-predict the reattachment location and the length of the separation bubble. Other than that, the k-kL-MEAH15 model exhibits a very poor prediction of Cf. The shortest bubble is predicted by the RSM, but it still remains roughly 25% longer than in the experiment. Moreover, as noted in [38], the SSG/LLR-RSM-w2012 predicts an unnatural back bending of the streamline near reattachment. (see Fig. 10).
 |
|
| Figure 8: Comparison with experiment of streamwise distributions of the pressure (a)
and friction (b) coefficients predicted by linear eddy-viscosity turbulence models [7] |
| |
|
| Figure 8: Comparison with experiment of streamwise distributions of the pressure (a)
and friction (b) coefficients predicted by linear eddy-viscosity turbulence models [7] |
Contributed by: E. Guseva, M. Strelets — Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University (SPbPU)
© copyright ERCOFTAC 2024