Hybrid RANS-LES Versus URANS Simulations of a Simplified Compressor Blades Cascade

  • Y. HoarauEmail author
  • D. Szubert
  • M. Braza
Conference paper
Part of the Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design book series (NNFM, volume 130)


Based on a previous experience from BR710 and BR725 Roll-Royce fan blade development programs, the phenomena of shock wave-boundary layer interaction (SWBLI) are known to be of critical importance regarding engine safety and performance. In the European TFAST Project (Transition Location Effect on Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction), experiments and numerical simulations of unsteady and transitional SWBLI phenomena in a simplified compressor blades cascade are performed. Two blades of 100 mm are set-up in a 100*100 mm channel. The grid used is 9,6 M cells with \(y^+<1\) everywhere. The inlet turbulence intensity is set to 4 % and the Mach number has been adjusted to be 1.22 in front of the lower blade. In the present paper, unsteady transitional RANS and hybrid RANS-LES computations of the flow around two compressor blades are performed with the NSMB solver. Simulations with Spalart-Allmaras and \(k-\omega \) turbulence models in their URANS and DDES formulation as well as \(k-\omega \) SAS are performed.


Mach Number Lift Coefficient Compressor Blade Boundary Layer Interaction Transonic Compressor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work has been carried out in the context of the European project TFAST. We acknowledge the CPU allocation on the French Supercomputing Centres IDRIS and CINES.


  1. 1.
    Babinsky, H., Harvey, J.K.: Shock WaveBoundary-Layer Interactions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouhadji, A., Braza, M.: Physical analysis by numerical simulation of organised modes and shock-vortex interaction in transonic flows around an aerofoil. Part II: Reynolds number effect. J. Comput. Fluids 32(9), 1261–1281 (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourdet, S., Braza, M., Bouhadji, A., Thiele, F.: Direct numerical simulation of the three-dimensional transition to turbulence in the transonic flow around a wing. J. Flow Turbul. Combust. 71, 203–220 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clemens, N.T., Narayanaswamy, V.: Low-frequency unsteadiness of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interactions. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46, 469–492 (2014)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Doerffer, P., Hirsch, C., Dussauge, J.P., Babinsky, H., Barakos, G.N.: Unsteady Effects of Shock Wave Induced Separation. Springer, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dolling, D.S.: Fluctuating loads in shock-wave/boundary layer interaction: tutorial and update. In: AIAA Paper, 1993-0284 (2001)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolling, D.S.: Fifty years of shock wave/boundary layer interaction: what next? AIAA J. 39, 1517–1531 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Edwards, J.R., Chandra, S.: Comparison of eddy viscosity-transport turbulence models for three-dimensional, shock-separated flowfields. AIAA J. 34(4), 756–763 (1996)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, K.H., Kim, C., Rho, O.-H.: Methods for the accurate computations of hypersonic flows: I. AUSMPW+Scheme. J. Comput. Phys. 174(1), 38–80 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lee, B.H.K.: Self-sustained oscillations on airfoils at transonic speeds. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 37, 147–196 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Menter, F., Bender, R.: A scale-adaptive simulation model for turbulent flow prediction. In: AIAA Paper, 2003-0767, Reno, NV (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Menter, F., Egorov, Y.: A scale-adaptive simulation model using two-equation models. In: AIAA Paper, 2005-1095, Reno, NV (2005)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Menter, F.: Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J. 32(8), 1598–1605 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Smits, A.J., Dussauge, J.P.: Turbulent Shear Layers in Supersonic Flow. AIP, Woodbury (1996)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spalart, P., Allmaras, S.: A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In: AIAA Paper, 439 (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Spalart, P., Deck, S., Shur, M., Squires, K., Strelets, M., Travin, A.: A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theoret. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 20, 181–195 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vos, J., Chaput, E., Arlinger, B., Rizzi, A., Corjon, A.: Recent advances in aerodynamics inside the NSMB (Navier-Stokes Multi-Block) consortium. In: AIAA Paper, 0802 (1998)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICUBE, CNRS - Université de Strasbourg - ENGEES - INSAStrasbourgFrance
  2. 2.IMFT, CNRS - INPT - Université de ToulouseToulouseFrance

Personalised recommendations