Hybrid RANS-LES and URANS Simulations of a Laminar Transonic Airfoil

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


Laminar flow is a potential way of minimizing drag and reducing aircraft emissions. However, the interaction of laminar boundary layers with shock waves at transonic speeds can cause severe detrimental aerodynamic effects and remains an opened question. In this way, in the framework of the TFAST European project, a laminar transonic airfoil has been developed for both numerical and experimental studies on such laminar interactions. The so-called V2C profile has been studied to provide natural laminar flow from the leading edge to the shock wave for a wide range of freestream Mach numbers and angles of attack. In the present paper, a numerical investigation of the transonic flow around the V2C airfoil is conducted by means of URANS and hybrid RANS-LES computations. At sufficiently-high angles of attack and moderate freestream Mach number (0.70), the transonic interaction develops buffet. In the paper, special attention is paid to the differences between the URANS and hybrid RANS-LES predictions of the shock-induced separation.


Critical Angle Freestream Mach Number Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction Natural Laminar Flow Alternate Vortex 
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.



As mentionned several times in this paper, this work was supported by the TFAST European project—Transition Location Effect on Shock Wave Boundary Layer Interaction. The research team thankfully acknowledges the French computing centers CINES and CALMIP for the HPC resources allocated as well as for their availability.


  1. 1.
    Barbut, G., Braza, M., Hoarau, Y., Barakos, G., Sévrain, A., Vos, J.B.: Prediction of transonic buffet around a wing with flap. In: Progress in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, Vol. 111, pp. 191–204. Springer (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bouhadji, A., Braza, M.: Organised modes and shock-vortex interaction in unsteady viscous transonic flows around an aerofoil: Part I: Mach number effect. J. Comput. Fluids 32(9), 1233–1260 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bourdet, S., Bouhadji, A., Braza, M., Thiele, F.: Direct numerical simulation of the three-dimensional transition to turbulence in the transonic flow around a wing. Flow Turbul. Combust. 71(1–4), 203–220 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crouch, J.D., Ng, L.L.: Variable \(N\)-factor method for transition prediction in three-dimensional boundary layers. AIAA J. 38(2), 211–216 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Deck, S.: Numerical computation of transonic buffet over a supercritical airfoil. AIAA J. 43(7), 1556–1566 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Edwards, J.R., Chandra, S.: Comparison of eddy viscosity-transport turbulence models for three-dimensional, shock-separated flowfields. AIAA J. 34(9), 756–763 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grossi, F., Braza, M., Hoarau, Y.: Prediction of transonic buffet by delayed detached-eddy simulation. AIAA J. 52(10), 2300–2312 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levy Jr, L.L.: Experimental and computational steady and unsteady transonic flows about a thick airfoil. AIAA J. 16(6), 564–572 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Menter, F.R.: Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J. 32(8), 1598–1605 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Roe, P.L.: Approximate riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 43(2), 357–372 (1981)CrossRefzbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Seegmiller, H.L., Marvin, J.G., Levy Jr, L.L.: Steady and unsteady transonic flow. AIAA J. 16(12), 1262–1270 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shur, M., Strelets, M., Zaikov, L., Gulyaev, A., Kozlovand, V., Secundov, A.: Comparative numerical testing of one- and two-equation turbulence models for flows with separation and reattachment. In: AIAA Paper (95–0863) (1995)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spalart, P.R., Allmaras, S.R.: A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. La Recherche Aérospatiale 1, 5–21 (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spalart, P.R., Deck, S., Shur, M.L., Squires, K.D., Strelets, M.K., Travin, A.: A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 20, 181–195 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Spalart, P.R., Rumsey, C.L.: Effective inflow conditions for turbulence models in aerodynamic calculations. AIAA J. 45(10), 2544–2553 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van Leer, B.: Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. V. A second-order sequel to Godunov’s method. J. Comput. Phys. 32(1), 101–136 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut de Mécanique des Fluides de ToulouseToulouseFrance
  2. 2.ICubeStrasbourgFrance

Personalised recommendations