00 mi piace00 non mi piace

0 visualizzazioni17 pagineCfd analysis

Apr 14, 2020

© © All Rights Reserved

0 visualizzazioni

00 mi piace00 non mi piace

Sei sulla pagina 1di 17

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

for aerodynamic applications

Pietro Catalano ∗ , Marcello Amato

C.I.R.A., Italian Aerospace Research Center, 81043 Capua (CE), Italy

Received 25 January 2002; received in revised form 10 March 2003; accepted 23 June 2003

Abstract

In a numerical simulation the choice of a turbulence model must be a compromise between physical modelling and computational cost.

The CIRA RANS flow solver has been applied, by employing a large set of turbulence models, to typical aerodynamic applications for which

certified experimental data are available in literature. The transonic flows over an airfoil and a wing placed in a wind tunnel, both characterized

by a strong shock-boundary layer interaction with an induced separation, and the high lift flow around a multi component airfoil are taken into

consideration. An evaluation, in terms of accuracy and numerical behaviour, of some common turbulence models ranging from one-equation

to high order, using the same code and numerics, is presented.

Satisfactory and consistent results have been achieved; the more sophisticated the turbulence model the more accurate the simulation is.

The SST Menter κ–ω turbulence model has shown, for the applications investigated, the best compromise between the physical capabilities

and the numerical stiffness.

2003 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

Riassunto gnas

In una simulazione numerica la scelta di un modello di turbolenza deve essere un compromesso tra la modellistica fisica ed il costo

computazionale. II solutore fluidodinamico del CIRA ZEN é stato impiegato, utilizzando un’ ampia gamma di modelli di turbolenza, per

tipiche applicazioni di aerodinamica per le quali esistono in letteratura dati sperimental certificati. Sono stati presi in considerazione i flussi

transonici intorno ad un profilo ed ad un’ ala in galleria del vento, entrambi caratterizzati da una forte interazione urto-starto limite, ed

il flusso in condizione di alta portanza intorno ad un profilo multi-componente. É presentata una valutazione, in termini di accuratezza e

comportamento numerico di alcuni diffusi modelli di turbolenza, da modelli ad un’ equazione a modelli di ordine superiore, utilizzando lo

stesso codice e la stessa numerica.

Risultati sodisfacenti e consistenti sono stati ottenuti; piú sofisticato é il modello di turbolenza piú accurata é la simulazione. II modello

κ–ω SST di Menter ha mostrato, per le applicazioni prese in considerazione, il miglior compromesso tra potenzialitá fisiche e rigidezza

numerica.

2003 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

tions, obtained by time averaging the NS equations, are

The accuracy that can be achieved in a Navier–Stokes usually employed to simulate turbulent industrial flows.

simulation strongly depends on the prediction of the char- These equations need a closure to compute an unknown, the

acteristics of the turbulent flow field. Important physical Reynolds tensor constituted by the double correlation of the

phenomena, such as boundary layer separation and shock- turbulent fluctuations, that derives from the convective term

boundary layer interaction, can be predicted with sufficient of the NS equations. The task of a turbulence model is to

accuracy only by a correct simulation of the turbulent flows. close the RANS equations by computing the components of

the Reynolds stress tensor.

* Corresponding author. In this paper an evaluation, using the same code and nu-

E-mail address: p.catalano@cira.it (P. Catalano). merics, of some among the most used turbulence models for

1270-9638/$ – see front matter 2003 Éditions scientifiques et médicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/S1270-9638(03)00061-0

494 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

Nomenclature

b Wing span Re Reynolds number

c Airfoil chord Ret Turbulent Reynolds number

z Airfoil coordinates ρ Density

Cζ1 , Cζ2 , Cζ3 Closure coefficients of the turbulence S Mean strain rate tensor

model σκ , σζ Closure coefficients of the turbulence model

Cµ Closure coefficient of the turbulence model τ Reynolds tensor

δij Kronecker delta

u Mean velocity

ε Turbulent dissipation rate

u Fluctuating velocity

κ Turbulent kinetic energy

κa von Kármán constant x Airfoil coordinates

fµ , fζ1 , fζ2 Viscous damping functions y Distance

l Turbulent length scale y+ Distance in wall units

M Mach number ω = ε/κ Turbulent specific dissipation

µ Molecular viscosity Ω Mean vorticity tensor

flows over an airfoil and a wing placed in a wind tunnel,

both characterized by a strong shock-boundary layer interac- The Reynolds stress tensor, by applying the Boussinesq

tion with an induced separation, and the high lift flow around hypothesis, results linearly related to the mean flow strain

a multi component airfoil are taken into consideration. The tensor through the eddy viscosity :

CIRA flow solver ZEN has been applied, by employing the

∂ui ∂uj 2 ∂uk 2

Spalart–Allmaras, the Myong–Kasagi κ–ε, the Wilcox κ–ω, τij = µt + − δij − ρκI , (2)

∂xj ∂xi 3 ∂xk 3

the Kok TNT κ–ω, the Menter SST κ–ω, and a non linear

κ–ε model, to simulate specific flow conditions around the where κ is the turbulent kinetic energy. The eddy viscosity

RAE 2822 airfoil, the wing RAE M2155, and a wing section depends on the velocity and the length scale of the turbulent

of the A310 aircraft. Certified experimental data are avail- eddies

able in literature for these test cases.

µt ∝ κ 1/2 l α (3)

In order to highlight the turbulence models giving the best

compromise between physical modelling and computational and plays the same role as the molecular viscosity in the

cost, both accuracy and numerical behaviour are discussed. molecular diffusion.

A short overview of the models, and their implementation in Several turbulence models, ranging from algebraic to the

the CIRA code ZEN is also given. Reynolds stress models have been developed and can be

found in literature. Each model is calibrated on a specific

range of applicability and requires constants specification.

The simplest turbulence models are the algebraic models

2. RANS turbulence modelling where the eddy viscosity is completely determined in terms

of local mean flow variables. These models are cheap and

robust, but are not able to take into account important

A set of transport equations to directly compute the

effects of the flow history. The well-known and widely used

components of the unknown Reynolds stress tensor

Baldwin and Lomax [4] model is adopted in ZEN.

In the one-equation turbulence models, only one or a

τij = −ρui uj (1) combination of the turbulent scales is computed by solving

a transport equation. The Spalart–Allmaras model [21],

can be directly derived by the Navier–Stokes equations. widely used in aeronautical applications, is implemented in

Currently, the difficult numerical handling and the high the CIRA code.

computational cost required to solve the transport equations The two-equations turbulence models are complete in the

system, makes this technique not suitable for the simulation sense that two transport equations for both the turbulent

of turbulent engineering flows. The standard approach is to scales are solved, and the Reynolds stress tensor can be

relate the unknown Reynolds stresses to the known mean completely determined from the local state of the mean flow

flow quantities through a turbulence model. and of the mean turbulent quantities. The velocity scale is

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 495

chosen to be the square root of the turbulent kinetic energy • κ–ω models

κ, while the length scale is usually determined from κ and κ

µt = fµ Cµ ρ . (8)

an auxiliary quantity. ω

One of the most popular two-equations turbulence mod-

els, is the κ–ε model that makes use, as second turbulent Some models (i.e., κ–ε) employ, for boundary layer flows in

scale, of the turbulent dissipation rate ε. This model, pro- the near wall regions, the so-called damping functions that

posed in the standard form by Jones and Launder [13], has multiply the coefficients of the ζ equation and Cµ in (7). The

been the subject of many researchs and efforts mainly de- constants and the damping functions of the κ–ζ turbulence

voted to the stiffness of the ε equation. The Myong and models coded in the CIRA code ZEN are summarized in

Kasagi κ–ε turbulence model [16] is coded in ZEN. Table 1.

The κ–ω turbulence models are becoming more and more

popular in the last years, because it has been shown that they 2.2. High order models

are less stiff, and are more accurate for boundary layers flows

subject to adverse pressure gradient than the κ–ε models The turbulence models that make use of the linear

[26]. constitutive relation (2) are not able to resolve the normal

The original κ–ω model developed by Wilcox [27] stress anisotropy. Furthermore, the linear models are based

shows, especially for free shear layers but also for boundary on the hypothesis of local equilibrium between stress and

layes, a free stream dependency; the results depend on the strain which does not allow to take into account important

free stream values of the turbulent variable and in particular stress relaxation effects.

of ω. Since the κ–ε model generally does not present Turbulence models that provide an anisotropic general-

this free stream dependency, Menter proposed to include a ization of the eddy viscosity concept avoiding the complex-

∂κ ∂ω ity of the Reynolds stress models have been developed. Ex-

cross diffusion term (∝ ∂x j ∂xj

) with blending functions that

allows to switch from κ–ω to κ–ε approaching the edge of a amples are the explicit algebraic Reynolds stress models

boundary layer [15]. Kok, extending to the κ–ω the analysis (EARSM) [10,25] that represent a simplified solution of the

originally applied to the κ–ε model [7], has proposed a Reynolds stress transport equations, and the nonlinear eddy

model (TNT) that seems to overcome the drawback of the viscosity models [22,23] where the constitutive relation (2)

free stream dependency [14]. In the TNT κ–ω model, the is considered as the leading term of a series expansion of

cross diffusion term is taken into account only if positive. functionals.

The standard Wilcox, the Menter SST and the Kok TNT Non linear κ–ε turbulence models have been developed

κ–ω turbulence models have been implemented in the CIRA by the authors, during the E.G. funded project AVTAC [11],

RANS flow solver [6]. coupling the constitutive relation by Shih [24] to the Myong

and Kasagi κ–ε model [2,3]. The Shih Reynolds stress

2.1.1. κ–ζ turbulence models tensor with quadratic and cubic terms reads as:

The transport equations of a generic κ–ζ turbulence

∂ui ∂uj 2 ∂uk 2

model (where ζ can be assumed to be ε or ω) can be written τij = µt + − δij − ρκδij

as ∂xj ∂xi 3 ∂xk 3

3

∂(ρκ) ∂(ρκuj ) A3 κ ∂uk ∂uk ∂ui ∂uj

+ + ρ −

∂t ∂xj 2 ε2 ∂xi ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk

4

∂ µt ∂κ κ ∂uk ∂uk ∂up ∂uk ∂uk ∂up

= Pκ − Dκ + µ+ , (4) + A5 ρ 3 +

∂xj σκ ∂xj ε ∂xi ∂xp ∂xj ∂xj ∂xp ∂xi

∂(ρζ ) ∂(ρζ uj ) ζ 2 1 ∂ul ∂ui ∂uk ∂uj ∂uk 2

+ = (fζ1 Cζ1 Pκ − fζ2 Cζ2 Dκ ) − Π2 δij − + − Π1 δij

∂t ∂xj κ 3 2 ∂xl ∂xk ∂xj ∂xk ∂xi 3

∂ µt ∂ζ ρ ∂κ ∂ζ 1 ∂ul ∂uk ∂uk ∂ui ∂uj 2

+ µ+ + Cζ3 , (5) − + − Π2 δij , (9)

∂xj σζ ∂xj ζ ∂xj ∂xj 2 ∂xl ∂xi ∂xj ∂xk ∂xk 3

where Pκ , and Dκ stand for the production and destruction where the invariants Πi are defined as:

terms of κ, and are evaluated as

∂ui ∂uj ∂ui ∂ui

∂ui Π1 = , Π2 = , (10)

Pκ = τij , Dκ = ρε. (6) ∂xj ∂xi ∂xj ∂xj

∂xj

∂ui ∂ui ∂up

The eddy viscosity is computed through the turbulent vari- Π3 = . (11)

∂xk ∂xp ∂xk

ables as

The functions A3 and A5 , in front of the quadratic and

• κ–ε models cubic term respectively, depend on the turbulent variables

κ2 and on the main strain and rotation tensor, and ensure the

µt = fµ Cµ ρ ; (7) realizability of the model.

ε

496 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

Table 1

Constants and damping functions of the implemented κ–ζ turbulence models

κa2

Myong–Kasagi κ–ε 1.4 1.3 Cζ2 − √ 1.8 0 0.09

σζ Cµ

5 − κ2

Wilcox κ–ω 2 2 √a 0.075 0 1

6 σζ 0.09

5 − κ2

Kok TNT κ–ω 1.5 2 √a 0.075 0.5 1

6 σζ 0.09

1 0.3ζ

Menter SST κ–ω F1 σκω +(1−F1 )σκε F1 Cκω + (1 − F1 )Cκε 2(1 − F1 )σζ2 max(0.3ζ,ΩF2 )

Cζ2 σ κ2

√ζ a

κ–ω type 0.85 0.5 0.09 − 0.09 0.075

Cζ2 σ κ2

√ζ a

κ–ε type 1.0 0.856 0.09 − 0.09 0.0828

F1 = tanh(a14 )

√

κ 4ρσζκε κ

a1 = min[max( 0.09ζy , 500ν

2 ), ] F2 = tanh(a22 )

ζy CDκζ y 2

√

∂κ ∂ζ , 10−20 ]

CDκω = max[2ρσζκε ζ1 ∂x

2 κ

a2 = max[ 0.09ζy , 500ν

j ∂xj 2 ]

ζy

2 + +/70 )

Myong–Kasagi κ–ε 1 (1 − 29 e(Ret /6) )(1 − e(−y /5) ) (1 + √3.45 )(1 − e(−y )

Ret

Wilcox κ–ω 1 1 1

1 − (9/2)Cµ2 (κS ∗ /ε)2 The use of a quadratic constitutive relation is effective when

A3 = , (12) the anisotropy of turbulence is important, while the cubic

0.5 + (3/2)(κ 2/ε2 )Ω ∗ S ∗

term is necessary only for swirling flows.

1.6µt

A5 = (13)

(ρκ 4 /ε3 )(7(S ∗ )2 + (Ω ∗ )2 )/4

3. Numerical method

with

1

S∗ = Sij∗ Sij∗ , Sij∗ = Sij − Skk δij (14) The CIRA code ZEN (Zonal Euler Navier–Stokes) has

3 been used in the numerical simulations. ZEN is a multiblock

and solver for the Euler, TLNS and RANS equations based on

∗

1 ∂ui ∂uj a finite volume cell centered approach. A central differenc-

Ω = Ωij Ωij , Ωij = − . (15) ing with blended self adaptive second and fourth order artifi-

2 ∂xj ∂xi

cial dissipation is employed. The discretization inside blocks

The coefficient Cµ is not a constant but a function of κ, ε, and at block interfaces is done in a conservative and uniform

and of the main strain and rotation tensor: flow consistent way and allows for local block refinement on

1 a block by block basis. The solution procedure is based on

Cµ = , (16)

4 + As U ∗ (κ/ε) a time marching concept. The multigrid scheme is used to

where accelerate the convergence of the solution, and performs re-

√ √ laxations, by using the Runge–Kutta algorithm, on different

1

As = 6 cos φ, φ= arccos 6W ∗ (17) grid levels. Local time stepping, residual averaging and local

3 block relaxation [8] are the techniques employed. The code

with is parallelized by using different message passing softwares

Sij∗ Sj∗k Ski

∗

like MPI, PVM, and OMP [17]. A preconditioning method

W∗ = (18) for low speed flows has been recently implemented [18].

(S ∗ )3

The turbulence equations are uncoupled by the RANS

and

equations and are solved, inside a multigrid cycle, only on

U∗ = (S ∗ )2 + (Ω ∗ )2 . (19) the finest grid level.

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 497

3.1. Discretization of the turbulence equations focusing on the accuracy and on the numerical behaviour

of the adopted turbulence models.

The turbulence equations (4) and (5) can be written in

integral form, by applying the Gauss theorem, as (e.g., for 4.1. RAE 2822 airfoil

the (4))

The RAE 2822 airfoil is a transonic subcritical airfoil

d

ρκ dV = (Pκ − Dκ ) dV deeply investigated from both theoretical and experimental

dt point of view. It has been tested in the RAE wind tunnel in

V V

11 different flow conditions in the range of Mach numbers

µt ∂κ

+ ρκui − µ + ni dS, (20) 0.676–0.750, and at several Reynolds numbers [1]. The

σκ ∂xi case 10, that presents a shock induced separation with a

∂V

re-attachment upstream of the trailing edge, has been the

where V is the computational domain and ∂V is its boundary subject of many numerical simulations, and has been chosen

surface. Eq. (20), by means of the cell centered finite volume as a test case to validate and assess turbulence models in

approach, reduce for each cell (i, j, k) to E.C. funded projects such as EUROVAL [12] and AVTAC

dUij k [11], and is part of the database of the E.U. thematic network

Vij k + Rijc k − Rijv k − Vij k Qij k = 0, (21) QNET-CFD [5]. A single-block mesh with a C topology and

dt

272 × 80 cells has been employed.

where Ui,j,k is the vector of the unknown ρκ and ρζ , Rijc k

and Rijv k are the total net fluxes (convective and dissipative 4.1.1. Case 10

respectively), and Qij k stands for the source term. The The simulation of the case 10 flow condition represents a

convective fluxes are evaluated by means of a first order severe test for the CFD codes. The prediction of the shock

upwind scheme, while a central difference scheme is used location, of the separation extension, and of the pressure

for the dissipative fluxes. recovery behind the shock and in the trailing edge zone are

real challenges for the turbulence models.

The geometry adopted in the EUROVAL project [12] has

4. Results and discussion been used in the numerical simulations. A positive camber

correction

The CIRA flow solver ZEN has been applied to simulate

the flow around the RAE 2822 airfoil, the wing RAE M2155 3(z/c) = 0.006x/c(1 − x/c) (22)

placed in a wind tunnel, and around a three component is applied to the measured airfoil contour [1], and the flow

airfoil in high lift conditions by using the same numerics specification, after the wind tunnel correction, is:

and a large set of turbulence models. The first two cases

are representative of a transonic flow with a strong shock- • Mach = 0.754,

boundary layer interaction with an induced separation. The • α = 2.57◦ ,

last case is indicative of a high lift flow with its complex • Reynolds = 6.2 × 106 .

phenomena such as confluence between wakes and boundary

layers, strong adverse pressure gradients and stream lines The pressure and friction coefficients are presented in

curvature effects. The results are presented and discussed Fig. 1. With respect to the experimental data all the model

498 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

predict a shock located more downstream. The Kok TNT κ– 4.2. RAE M2155 wing

ω, the Myong–Kasagi κ–ε, and the Spalart Allmaras give

practically the same result, while the Wilcox κ–ω provides The RAE M2155 is a low aspect ratio wing (3.27) deeply

the worst and the SST Menter κ–ω and the nonlinear κ–ε tested by D.R.A. in the RAE wind tunnel in the Mach

the best shock location. The pressure recovery behind the number range 0.6–0.87 [9]. The wing RAE M2155 has been

shock is under-predicted by all the models with the SST the subject of many numerical simulations, has been chosen

Menter κ–ω and the nonlinear κ–ε showing the best pressure to validate and assess turbulence models in the E.C. funded

recovery in the trailing-edge zone. All the turbulence models project AVTAC [11], and is part of the data base of the E.C.

predict a shock induced separation with the Wilcox κ–ω funded thematic networks FLOWNET and QNET-CFD [5].

providing the smallest flow separated zone. The κ–ε models The grid employed in the simulations has 36 blocks and

yield the lowest values of the friction coefficient upstream of about 1.2 × 106 points.

the shock.

The velocity profiles at three stations are presented 4.2.1. Case 2

in Fig. 2. At x/c = 0.40 the flow is attached and all Experimental data for several combinations of Mach

the numerical results are in excellent agreement with the number and incidences are available. The flow condition

experimental data. The station x/c = 0.65 is just behind the at M∞ = 0.806, Re∞ = 4.1 × 106 , α = 2.5◦ , named as

shock, and the flow is separated. The Wilcox κ–ω, due to case 2, seems to be the most severe and relevant to assess

the bad prediction of the shock location, yields the worst the capabilities of a NS solver.

velocity profiles, while the results provided by the SST κ– At these conditions (Fig. 3), the flow on the upper surface

ω and the nonlinear κ–ε are the closest to the experimental of the wing is characterized by a triple shock wave system

data. At x/c = 0.90 all the numerical results lie in a narrow from the root to about the 50% of the span, and by a single

band except very close to the wall where the Wilcox κ–ω shock wave from about the 50% to the tip. Inboard the 50%

model gives a wrong behaviour of the velocity profile. span, changes in the flow direction occur in the region of the

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 499

TNT κ–ω yield a similar result, while the SST Menter κ–ω

provides a solution similar to the nonlinear κ–ε. The Wilcox

κ–ω predicts the flow to separate more outboard than all

the other models and provides the smallest flow separated

zone. The flow three dimensionality, visible by the curva-

ture of the skin friction lines, are more pronounced, espe-

cially in the outboard part of the wing, for the nonlinear κ–ε

model.

The pressure coefficients at several stations along the

span are shown in Figs. 6 and 7. All the numerical results lie

in a narrow band, and the comparison with the experimental

data is generally good. In the sections where the shock-

boundary layer interaction is stronger, the nonlinear κ–ε and

the Menter SST κ–ω better predict the shock location and

the pressure recovery behind the shocks and in the trailing

edge zones (Fig. 7).

The friction coefficients are shown in Fig. 8. The highest

values of the friction coefficient are provided by the Wilcox

Fig. 3. Wing RAE M2155 case 2 – oil flow visualization. κ–ω and the lowest by the Myong–Kasagi and the nonlinear

κ–ε models. The considerations, already expressed, about

the flow separation could be repeated.

forward leg of the triple shock wave system and in trailing The velocity profiles at three stations along the wing

edge zone but without flow separation. The flow separation span are shown in Fig. 9. The first two plots (top part of

starts where the three shock waves join together and ends the figure) are relevant to stations (x/c = 0.85, y/b = 0.30,

at about 90% of the span. The separation extends for about x/c = 0.43, y/b = 0.35) where the flow is attached and all

10% of the local chord. the turbulence models give a satisfactory result. The last plot

The flow field on the upper surface of the wing, as pre- (bottom part of the figure) refer to a very critical station

dicted by the turbulence models employed in the numeri- (x/c = 0.40, y/b = 0.77) where the flow is separated or just

cal simulations, is shown in Figs. 4 and 5. The shock wave re-attached. The Wilcox and the Kok TNT κ–ω provide the

system is simulated in a satisfactory manner, and all the worst results, while the Menter SST model, as the nonlinear

models predict a flow separation where the shocks meet. κ–ε, yields a velocity profile in excellent agreement with the

The Spalart–Allmaras, the Myong–Kasagi κ–ε, and the Kok experimental data.

Fig. 4. Wing RAE M2155 case 2 – pressure contour map and skin friction lines (upper surface). Spalart–Allmaras (left), Myong–Kasagi κ–ε (right).

500 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Fig. 5. Wing RAE M2155 case 2 – pressure contour map and skin friction lines (upper surface). (a) κ–ω Wilcox standard, (b) κ–ω TNT, (c) κ–ω Menter SST,

(d) MK κ–ε + Shih O(2).

4.3. A310 wing section flap settings corresponding to the landing configuration (slat

deflection = 24.4 ◦ , flap detection = 32.4◦ ). For this case,

The CIRA RANS flow solver ZEN has been applied to experimental data at Mach number of about 0.22, Reynolds

simulate the flow around a multi-component airfoil in high

number of about 4 million, and at several incidences have

lift condition. The set of turbulence models coded in ZEN

has been employed, and a verification of the models, look- been made available during the E.C. funded project EURO-

ing at local properties and at the aerodynamic coefficients, LIFT [20]. The computational mesh was originally devel-

has been performed [19]. The geometry chosen is the 59% oped by DLR, and has been modified in house; it has 76992

wing span section of the A310 aircraft, with the slat and cells with 30 blocks.

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 501

Fig. 7. Wing RAE M2155 case 2 – pressure coefficients. Zoom in the shock (left) and trailing edge (right) regions.

4.3.1. Pressure coefficients results. At α = 12 ◦ (top left plot of Fig. 10), the pressure

Pressure coefficients at several angles of attack are distribution is rather accurate on the slat and on the main;

presented in Fig. 10. The turbulence models used in the on the latter an underprediction is visible in the upper

computations provide, before the stall occurs, quite similar trailing edge region. On the flap the experimental data

502 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

show a clear separation which is not present in any of 4.3.2. Velocity profiles

the numerical simulations performed during the EUROLIFT At the angle of attack of α = 12.24 ◦ and α = 21.40◦ ex-

project. The disagreement could be due to the different perimental velocity profiles at several locations (see Fig. 11)

condition and turbulence levels of the boundary layer and of are available. The comparison between the numerical and

the wake impinging the flap. Increasing the angle of attack experimental data is presented in the Figs. 12 and 13 and

the agreement is generally good. The experimental results

the pressure distribution on the rear part of the main and

are best reproduced over the main component (rakes 3 and

on the flap gets in better agreement with the corresponding 4). At the stations located on the main and on the flap, the

experimental values. The suction peak of the slat and of influence of the wake coming from the upstream elements

the main are generally underpredicted, the κ–ω Menter SST and the related momentum loss is clearly visible. The results

yielding the results closest to the experimental data. At coming from all the turbulence models lie in a rather narrow

α = 21◦ the nonlinear κ–ε turbulence model has shown band and show the same flow features.

poor convergence levels, while only the Kok TNT and the

Menter SST κ–ω have been applied at incidences greater 4.3.3. Aerodynamic coefficients

than 22◦ in order to compute the drag polar of the airfoil. Two turbulence models, the Kok TNT and the Menter

At α = 25◦ (bottom right plot of Fig. 10), the airfoil, from SST κ–ω, have been used to compute the aerodynamic

coefficients of the airfoil. The results are presented in Figs.

the experimental point of view, is stalled. The Kok TNT

14–19 in terms of lift, drag (from pressure integration), and

model does not predict the stall yet, thus the agreement with pitching moments, for the complete configuration and for

the experimental data is poor. The κ–ω Menter SST clearly each single component, as functions of the angle of attack.

detects the stall with a large decrease of the pressure levels; The lift and the drag coefficient are overestimated and the

however, the numerical-experimental comparison is not very pitching moment underestimated, with the TNT κ–ω model

good. providing results slightly closer to the experimental data.

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 503

it is evident how the differences between the numerical

and the experimental results are mostly due to the main

and to the flap elements, while the slat contribution is in

quite good agreement with the experimental data. The stall,

with respect to the experimental data, is anticipated by the

κ–ω Menter SST and postponed by the Kok TNT κ–ω.

The sudden characteristic of the stall, as presented by the

experimental data, is predicted somehow by the Menter SST

κ–ω model. The stall, for the Menter SST κ–ω model, starts

with the formation of a bubble on the upper surface of the

slat that causes a sudden lost of lift for the slat and a much

stronger wake that affects the flow field on the downstream

components. This can be noticed in Fig. 20, where the stream

lines at different angles of attack, in the forward region

of the airfoil, are shown. The re-attachment point in the

cove of the slat, that is located close to the trailing edge

at α = 12 ◦ , moves upstream when the incidence increases, Fig. 11. A310 59% wing span section – rakes positions.

flow separated zone appears again in the cove of the slat at

the stall angle.

504 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

Fig. 12. A310 59% wing span section – velocity profiles α = 12.24◦ .

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 505

Fig. 13. A310 59% wing span section – velocity profiles α = 21.40◦ .

506 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

Table 2

RAE2822 case 10–CPU time comparison

Spalart–Allmaras 1.00

Fig. 16. A310 59% wing span section – pitching moment coefficient.

discussed only with reference to the RAE 2822 airfoil.

A comparison of the convergence histories of the ρ and κ

equations is reported in Fig. 21. The κ–ω and the Spalart

Allmaras show a similar behaviour, while the stiffness of

the Myong–Kasagi κ–ε and mainly of the nonlinear κ–ε is

clearly visible. It is worth noting that the results shown are

relevant to the same convergence level and not to the same

number of iterations.

An estimate of the cpu time required by the different

turbulence models to run a fixed number of iterations

is summarized in Table 2 where the Spalart Allmaras

turbulence model has been considered as a reference. The

Fig. 14. A310 59% wing span section – lift coefficient.

cpu time of the two-equation turbulence models are of the

same order of magnitude and, as expected, bigger than the

cpu time of the Spalart–Allmaras model.

5. Concluding remarks

2-D and 3-D typical aerodynamic applications has been

presented. The CIRA flow solver ZEN, by employing the

Spalart Allmaras, the Myong and Kasagi κ–ε, the Wilcox,

Kok TNT, and SST Menter κ–ω, and a nonlinear eddy

viscosity turbulence model, has been applied to simulate

specific flow conditions around the RAE 2822 airfoil,

the RAE M2155 wing placed in a wind tunnel, and a

wing section of the A310 aircraft. The first two cases are

representative of a transonic flow with a strong shock-

boundary layer interaction with an induced separation. The

Fig. 15. A310 59% wing span section – drag coefficient.

last case is indicative of an high lift flow with its complex

phenomena such as confluence between wakes and boundary

4.4. Numerical behaviour layers, strong adverse pressure gradients and stream lines

curvature effects.

An analysis of the numerical behaviour of the turbulence The Spalart–Allmaras, the Myong and Kasagi κ–ε, and

models employed in the simulations has been performed. the Kok TNT κ–ω turbulence models have provided a

The conclusions achieved are the same for all the applica- similar result more accurate than the Wilcox κ–ω.

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 507

Fig. 17. (a) A310 59% wing span section, (b) aerodynamic coefficients, (c) slat contribution.

Fig. 18. (a) A310 59% wing span section, (b) aerodynamic coefficients, (c) main component contribution.

Fig. 19. (a) A310 59% wing span section, (b) aerodynamic coefficients, (c) flap contribution.

508 P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509

Fig. 20. (a) A310 59% wing span section, (b) stream lines in the slat region, (c) κ–ω menter SST.

(a) (b)

The Kok TNT has shown to be quite flexible. The reproduced with reasonable accuracy by both the models,

characteristic to avoid the computation of distances from but only the SST Menter κ–ω has predicted the sudden

solid walls allows to this model to preserve one of the main characteristic of the stall presented in the experimental data.

advantages of the standard κ–ω turbulence model. In conclusion, the SST Menter κ–ω, for the transonic and

The nonlinear κ–ε model makes use of a quadratic stress- high-lift flows investigated, has shown the best compromise

strain relationship that has shown to be effective whereas between the physical capabilities and the numerical stiffness.

the flow presents a strong shock-boundary layer interaction.

The results have been improved in terms of shock location,

References

pressure recovery behind the shock and in the trailing edge

zone and also in terms of the extension of the separated flow [1] AGARD-AR-138, Experimental data base for computer program

regions. Nevertheless the constitutive relation adopted has assessment.

enhanced the stiffness of the model, and it has been not [2] M. Amato, P. Catalano, An evaluation of stress–strain relationships for

possible to achieve acceptable results for the high lift flow aeronautical applications, XV AIDAA National Congress, November

15–19, 1999, Turin, Italy.

at the highest incidences. [3] M. Amato, P. Catalano, Non linear κ ε turbulence modeling for

The SST Menter κ–ω has provided results similar to industrial applications, ICAS 2000 Congress, August 28–September 1

the nonlinear κ–ε, but being less stiff and computational 2000, Harrogate, UK.

expensive. The shear stress transport formulation has shown [4] B.S. Baldwin, H. Lomax, Thin layer approximation and algebraic

to be effective and important to improve the results. This model for separated turbulent flows, AIAA paper 78-257, 1978.

[5] P. Catalano, M. Amato, A numerical evaluation of 2-D and 3-D ap-

model and the Kok TNT have been applied to compute the plication challenges of transonic aerodynamics by applying different

drag polar of a three-component airfoil in high lift conditions turbulence models QNET-CFD, Network Newsletter 1 (2) (2001) 25–

up to the stall. The aerodynamic coefficients have been 28.

P. Catalano, M. Amato / Aerospace Science and Technology 7 (2003) 493–509 509

[6] P. Catalano, M. Amato, Assessment of κ–ω turbulence modeling [17] V. Puoti, E. Bucchignani, A. Matrone, Different domain decomposi-

in the CIRA flow solver ZEN, ECCOMAS 2001 CFD Conference, tion techniques to solve computational fluid dynamics problems, Par-

September 4–7, 2001, Swansea Wales, UK. allel CFD Conference, May 11–14, 1998, Hsinchu, Taiwan.

[7] J.B. Cazalbou, P.R. Spalart, P. Bradshaw, On the behaviour of two- [18] V. Puoti, A preconditioning method for low speed flows 15th CFD

equation models at the edge of a turbulent region, Phys. Fluids 6 (5) Conference, June 11–15, 2001, Anaheim, CA, USA. AIAA paper

(1994) 1797–1804. 2001-2555.

[8] C. De Nicola, R. Tognaccini, V. Puoti, Local block relaxation method [19] V. Puoti, P. Catalano, M. Amato, High lift flow modeling for multi-

for the solution of the equations of gasdynamics, AIAA J. 38 (8) component airfoils, XVI AIDAA National Congress, September 24–

(2000) 1377–1384. 28, 2001, Palermo, Italy.

[9] DRA TR 92016, Measurement of the flow over a low aspect-ratio wing [20] R. Rudnik, Towards CFD validation for 3D high lift flows – EURO-

in the Mach number range 0.6 to 0.87 for the purpose of validation of LIFT, ECCOMAS CFD 2001 Conference, September 4–7, 2001,

computational methods. Swansea Wales, UK.

[10] T.B. Gatski, C.G. Speziale, On explicit algebraic stress models for [21] P.R. Spalart, S.R. Allmaras, A one equation turbulence model for

complex turbulent flows, J. Fluid Mech. 254 (1993) 59–78. aerodynamics flows, 30th Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit,

[11] A. Gould, J.C. Courty, M. Sillen, E. Elsholz, A. Abbas, The AV- January 6–9, 1992, RENO, USA. AIAA paper 92-0439.

TAC project – a review of European aerospace cfd, ECCOMAS 2000 [22] T.H. Shih, J. Zhu, A realizable Reynolds stress algebraic equation

Congress, September 11–14, 2000, Barcelona, Spain. model, NASA TM 105993, ICOMP-92-27, CMOTT-92-14.

[12] W. Haase, F. Bradsma, E. Elsholz, M. Leschziner, D. Schwamborn, [23] T.H. Shih, J.L. Lumley, Remarks on turbulent constitutive relations,

EUROVAL – An European Initiative on Validation of CFD Codes, in: Math. Comput. Modeling 18, 9–16.

Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 42, Vieweg, 1992. [24] T.H. Shih, K.-H. Chen, N.-S. Liu, A nonlinear κ–ε model for

[13] W.P. Jones, B.E. Launder, The prediction of laminarization with a two turbulent shear flows, 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion

equation model for turbulence, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 15, 301–314. Conference and Exhibit, July 13–15, Cleveland, OH, AIAA paper 98-

[14] J.C. Kok, Resolving the dependence on free-stream values for the κ–ω 3983.

turbulence model, AIAA J. 38 (7) (2000) 1292–1295. [25] S. Wallin, A.V. Johansson, An explicit algebraic reynolds stress model

[15] F.R. Menter, Two equation eddy viscosity turbulence models for for incompressible and compressible flows, J. Fluid Mech. 403 (2000).

engineering applications, AIAA J. 32 (8) (1994) 1598–1605. [26] D.C. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DWC Industries, Inc. La

[16] H. Myong, N. Kasagi, A new approach to the improvement of the κ–ε Canãda, California.

turbulence model for wall bounded shear flow, JSME Intern. J. Ser. 2 [27] D.C. Wilcox, Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for

33 (1) 63–72. advanced turbulence models, AIAA J. 26 (11) (1988) 1299–1310.

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.