RANS feasibility study of using roughness to mimic transition strip effect on the crossflow separation over a 6:1 prolate-spheroid

  • Mojtaba M. AmiriEmail author
  • Marcelo A. Vitola
  • Sergio H. Sphaier
  • Paulo T. Esperança


An axisymmetric body at incidence experiences the three-dimensional crossflow separation. This separation is attributed to the adverse circumferential pressure gradient. However, the separation pattern is also dependent upon the structure of the boundary layer. In this regard, utilization of transition strip devices in experiments on axisymmetric bodies may modify this structure, and consequently the crossflow separation pattern. The main objective of the present research is to mimic numerically the transition strip effect on the crossflow separation over a 6:1 prolate-spheroid up to α = 30° incidence and ReL = 4.2×106. However, to avoid direct modeling of the strip, which would increase the computational cost, an attempt was made to add roughness over the body surface. To estimate the roughness that simulates closely the transition strip effect, three different roughness values were considered. The numerical model is based on RANS and a Reynolds stress turbulence model implemented in STARCCM+. The simulations have been evaluated based on the local and global variables and validated against the available experimental data. The results demonstrate the effectiveness of using a proper roughness value to mimic the transition strip effect. They also show the importance of modeling the transition strip effect, which is normally not considered, to capture the crossflow separation pattern.

Key words

Axisymmetric body crossflow separation transition strip device CFD RANS equations 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors would like to thank the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development –CNPq and the Brazilian funding agency ANP-PRH3 for their support.


  1. [1]
    Simpson R. Three–dimensional turbulent boundary layers and separation [J[. 33rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1995, 226.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    Tobak M., Peake D. J. Topology of three–dimensional separated flows [J]. Annual review of fluid mechanics, 1982, 14 (1): 61–85.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. [3]
    Jeans T., Holloway A. L. Flow–separation lines on axisymmetric bodies with tapered tails [J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2010, 47 (6): 2177–2183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. [4]
    Ahn S. An experimental study of flow over a 6 to 1 prolate–spheroid at incidence [J]. Doctoral Thesis, Virginia Tech, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Wetzel T., Simpson R. Unsteady three–dimensional crossflow separation measurements on a prolate–spheroid undergoing time–dependent maneuvers [C]. 35th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1996, 618.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Wetzel T., Simpson R., Chesnakas C. Measurement of three–dimensional crossflow separation [J]. AIAA Journal, 1998, 36 (4): 557–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. [7]
    Chesnakas C., Simpson R. A detailed investigation of the 3–d separation about a 6: 1 prolate–spheroid at angle of attack [C]. 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 1997, 320.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Chesnakas C., Simpson R. Full three–dimensional measurements of the cross–flow separation region of a 6: 1 prolate–spheroid [J]. Experiments in Fluids, 1994, 17(1): 68–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. [9]
    Gee K., Cummings R., Schiff B. Turbulence model effects on separated flow about a prolate–spheroid [J]. AIAA Journal, 1992, 30(3): 655–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. [10]
    Rhee S., Hino T. Numerical simulation of unsteady turbulent flow around maneuvering prolate–spheroid [J]. AIAA Journal, 2002, 40 (10): 2017–2026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. [11]
    Piquet J., Queutey P. Navier–Stokes computations past a prolate–spheroid at incidence. low incidence case [J]. Computers and Fluids, 1992, 21(4): 599–625.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. [12]
    Piquet J., Queutey P. Navier–stokes computations past a prolate–spheroid at incidence. ii: High incidence case [J]. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 1993, 16(1): 1–27.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. [13]
    Kim S., Rhee S., Cokljat D. Application of modern turbulence models to vortical flow around a prolate–spheroid [J]. 41st Aerospace Sciences, AIAA, 2003, 429.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Phillips A., Turnock S., Furlong M. Influence of turbulence closure models on the vortical flow field around a submarine body undergoing steady drift [J]. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 2010, 15(3): 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. [15]
    Holloway A., Jeans T., Watt G. Flow separation from submarine shaped bodies of revolution in steady turning [J]. Ocean Engineering, 2015, 108: 426–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. [16]
    Constantinescu G., Pasinato H., Wang Y. et al. Numerical investigation of flow past a prolate spheroid [J]. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2002, 124(4): 904–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. [17]
    Xiao Z., Zhang Y., Huang J. et al. Prediction of separation flows around a 6: 1 prolate–spheroid using rans/les hybrid approaches [J]. Acta Mechanica Sinica, 2007, 23(4): 369–382.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. [18]
    Versteeg H., Malalasekera W. An introduction into computational fluid dynamics: The finite volume method [M]. Pearson Education, 2007.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Fureby C., Karlsson A. Les of the flow past a 6: 1 prolate–spheroid [C]. 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, 2009, 1616.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Allan J., Conn J. Effect of laminar flow on ship models [J]. Trans. INA, 1950, 92: 107.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Dawson E. An investigation into the effects of submergence depth, speed and hull length–to–diameter ratio on the near surface operation of conventional submarines [D]. Doctoral Thesis, University of Tasmania, 2014.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Flack K., Schultz M. Roughness effects on wall–bounded turbulent flows [J]. Physics of Fluids, 2014, 26(10): 101305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. [23]
    Iyer P. Discrete roughness effects on high–speed boundary layers [D]. Doctoral Thesis, University of Minnesota, 2015.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Speziale G., Sarkar S., Gatski T. Modelling the pressure–strain correlation of turbulence: an invariant dynamical systems approach [J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1991, 227: 245–272.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. [25]
    Launder B., Spalding D. The numerical computation of turbulent flows [J]. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1974, 3(2): 269–289.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. [26]
    Cebeci T., Bradshaw P. Momentum transfer in boundary layers [M]. Washington DC: Hemisphere Publishing Corp., New York: McGraw–Hill Book Co., 1977, 407.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    STARCCM+. Version, 9.04. 009 user guide [M]. New York, USA: CD–adapco Inc., 2014Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    White F., Corfield I. Viscous fluid flow [M]. Vol. 3, New York: McGraw–Hill, 2006.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    White F. Viscous fluid flow. 2nd edition New York: McGraw–Hill, 1991.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    West G., Apelt C. The effects of tunnel blockage and aspect ratio on the mean flow past a circular cylinder with Reynolds numbers between 104 and 105 [J]. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1982, 114: 361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© China Ship Scientific Research Center 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mojtaba M. Amiri
    • 1
    Email author
  • Marcelo A. Vitola
    • 1
  • Sergio H. Sphaier
    • 1
  • Paulo T. Esperança
    • 1
  1. 1.Ocean Technology Laboratory (LabOceano-COPPE)Federal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations