4.5 Article

Anisotropic SST turbulence model for shock-boundary layer interaction

期刊

COMPUTERS & FLUIDS
卷 228, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2021.105072

关键词

SBLI; RANS; Turbulence model; SST k-omega; EARSM; Structure parameter

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The article discusses the limitations of the Menter SST k-omega turbulence model and proposes the SUQ-SST model as an improvement. The new model significantly improves predicting Reynolds stress anisotropy, flow separation, and surface properties.
Menter SST k-omega is a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes based two-equation turbulence model routinely used in industry for predicting aerodynamic flows. It shows excellent performance for low-speed flows, but gives inconsistent predictions for high-speed shock-induced separated flows. The model assumption of using a constant value of 0.31 for the structure parameter contradicts experimental observations. The model is also unable to predict Reynolds stress anisotropy generated by shock waves. In this work, we augment the SST model with quadratic eddy viscosity formulation of an explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model. A new relation for the structure parameter is proposed, making it a function of the local strain-rates and is no longer a constant in the regions of shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction (SBLI). Additional shock-physics is introduced using (Sinha et al., 2003) shock-unsteadiness model and an upper limit to the value of structure parameter is set in regions of shock waves. The new model, termed as SUQ-SST, is validated using a number of SBLI test cases ranging from supersonic to hypersonic speeds and near-incipient to fully-separated flows. Results show that the modifications do not alter the boundary layer prediction capability of the SST model. On the other hand, the new model gives significant improvement in predicting Reynolds stress anisotropy, flow separation, and surface properties in a wide range of SBLI flows.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据