Advertisement

Comparative Assessment of Hybrid LES/RANS Models in Turbulent Flows Separating from Smooth Surfaces

  • S. Šarić
  • B. Kniesner
  • A. Mehdizadeh
  • S. Jakirlić
  • K. Hanjalić
  • C. Tropea
Part of the Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design book series (NNFM, volume 97)

Abstract

Several hybrid LES/RANS (LES - Large-Eddy Simulation; RANS - Reynolds- Averaged Navier-Stokes) models have been assessed in computations of separated flows over smooth-contoured, wall-mounted hills, including flow control. The models considered include DES (Detached Eddy Simulation; Spalart et al. 1997, Travin et al. 2002), DDES (Delayed DES; Spalart et al. 2006), a zonal hybrid LES/RANS scheme (HLR; Jakirlic et al. 2006) and an Instability-Sensitized (IS) k-ε model. We report on models performance in the two configurations: periodic flow over a symmetric 2-D hill at moderate Reynolds number (Re b =10595; LES: Fröhlich et al.,2005; Breuer et al., 2005) and flow over a 2-D hump at high Re number( Re c  ≈ 106,Exp.: Greenblatt et al., 2004). In the latter case the separation was controlled by steady suction through a narrow opening at the natural separation line in addition to the baseline flow. The computational results obtained confirm a crucial role of the LES/RANS interface treatment.

Keywords

Zonal Hybrid Separate Shear Layer Interface Position Detach Eddy Simulation RANS Model 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Breuer, M., et al.: A comparative study of the turbulent flow over a periodic arrangement of smoothly contoured hills. In: 6th ERCOFTAC Workshop on Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation - DLES6, Poitiers, France, September 12–14 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. Fröhlich, J., et al.: Highly resolved large-eddy simulation of separated flow in a channel with streamwise periodic constrictions. J. Fluid Mech. 526, 19–66 (2005)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Greenblatt, D., et al.: A separation control CFD validation test case. Part 1: Baseline and steady suction, AIAA Paper No. 2004-2220 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. Jakirlic, S., Jester-Zürker, R., Tropea, C.: Report on 9th ERCOFTAC/IAHR/ COST Workshop on Refined Turbulence Modelling. October 9–10, 2001, Darmstadt University of Technology, ERCOFTAC Bulletin, No. 55, pp. 36–43 (2002)Google Scholar
  5. Jakirlic, S., Hanjalic, K.: A new approach to modelling near-wall turbulence energy and stress dissipation. J. Fluid Mech. 539, 139–166 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jakirlić, S., et al.: Merging near-wall RANS models with LES for separating and reattaching flows. In: ASME Joint U.S.-European Fluids Engineering Summer Meeting: Symposium on “DNS, LES and Hybrid RANS/LES Techniques”, Miami, FL, USA, July 17–20, Paper No. FEDSM2006-98039 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. Kniesner, B., et al.: Wall treatment in LES by RANS: Method development and application to aerodynamic flows and swirl combustors. ERCOFTAC Bulletin (72), 33–40 (2007)Google Scholar
  8. Launder, B.E., Sharma, B.I.: Application of the Energy-Dissipation Model of Turbulence to the Calculation of Flow Near a Spinning Disc. Letters in Heat and Mass Transfer 1, 131–138 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Manceau, R., et al. (eds.): 10th Joint ERCOFTAC (SIG-15)/IAHR/QNET-CFD Workshop on Refined Flow Modelling, Universite de Poitiers, France, October 10–11 (2002)Google Scholar
  10. Mason, P.J., Callen, N.S.: On the magnitude of the subgrid-scale eddy coefficient in large-eddy simulation of turbulent channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 162, 439–462 (1986)zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Menter, F.R., Egorov, Y.: Revisiting the turbulent scale equation. In: IUTAM Symposium on One Hundred Years of Boundary Layer Research, Göttingen, August 12–14 (2004)Google Scholar
  12. Menter, F.R., Egorov, Y., Rusch, D.: Steady and unsteady flow modelling using the k-k1/2L model. In: Hanjalic, et al. (eds.) 5th Int. Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, Dubrovnik, Croatia, September 25–29, Begell House Inc. (2006)Google Scholar
  13. Šarić, S., et al.: Computational analysis of locally forced flow over a wall-mounted hump at high-Re number. Int. J. of Heat and Fluid Flow 27(4), 707–720 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. Spalart, P.R., et al.: Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. 1st AFOSR Int. Conf. on DNS and LES (1997)Google Scholar
  15. Spalart, P.R., et al.: A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 20, 181–195 (2006)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Temmerman, L., et al.: A hybrid two-layer URANS-LES approach for large eddy simulation at high Reynolds numbers. Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow 26, 173–190 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Travin, A., et al.: Physical and numerical upgrades in the Detached-Eddy Simulation of complex turbulent flows. In: Friedrich, Rodi (eds.) Fluid Mechanics and Its Application, vol. 65, pp. 239–254 (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Šarić
    • 1
  • B. Kniesner
    • 1
  • A. Mehdizadeh
    • 1
  • S. Jakirlić
    • 1
  • K. Hanjalić
    • 1
  • C. Tropea
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Fluid Mechanics and AerodynamicsDarmstadt University of TechnologyGermany

Personalised recommendations