Using Adaptive Mesh Refinement to Study Grid Resolution Effects for Shock-Boundary Layer Interactions

Olsen, Michael E.; Lillard, Randolph P.

Home/Archive/NASA NTRS

NASA NTRS · 20180004281

Using Adaptive Mesh Refinement to Study Grid Resolution Effects for Shock-Boundary Layer Interactions

Olsen, Michael E.·Lillard, Randolph P.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR) promises a much more computationally efficient means to obtain a discrete approximation to a continuous boundary value problem of a specified accuracy than classic isotropic grid refinement. The AMR capability of OVERFLOW (a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code) is utilized to provide estimates of the exact analytical solutions to problems of interest to turbulence modeling. Predictions of surface pressure and skin friction, essentially the state of stress at the surface, shows little difference with grids believed to be "grid resolved." Velocity profiles, on the other hand, show marked differences in flows with shocks. The AMR method, as implemented in OVERFLOW 2.2k, appears to provide the ability to produce arbitrarily accurate solutions at a predictable cost much smaller than classic uniform mesh refinement.

Explore related subjects

Turbulence Modeling CFD Adaptive Mesh Refinement

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Olsen, Michael E., Lillard, Randolph P.. 2018-06-25. Using Adaptive Mesh Refinement to Study Grid Resolution Effects for Shock-Boundary Layer Interactions. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20180004281

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related reports

NASA NTRS2018

PIV and Rotational Raman-Based Temperature Measurements for CFD Validation in a Single Injector Cooling Flow

Film cooling is used in a wide variety of engineering applications for protection of surfaces from hot or combusting gases. The design of more efficient thin film cooling geometries/configurations could be facilitated by an ability to accurately model and predict the effectiveness of current designs using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code predictions. Hence, a benchmark set of flow field property data were obtained for use in assessing current CFD capabilities and for development of better turbulence models. Both Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and spontaneous rotational Raman scattering (SRS) spectroscopy were used to acquire high quality, spatially-resolved measurements of the mean velocity, turbulence intensity and also the mean temperature and normalized root mean square (rms) temperatures in a single injector cooling flow arrangement. In addition to flowfield measurements, thermocouple measurements on the plate surface enabled estimates of the film effectiveness. Raman spectra in air were obtained across a matrix of radial and axial locations downstream from a 68.07 mm square nozzle blowing heated air over a range of temperatures and Mach numbers, across a 30.48cm long plate equipped with a single injector cooling hole. In addition, both centerline streamwise 2-component PIV and cross-stream 3-component Stereo PIV data at 15 axial stations were collected in the same flows. The velocity and temperature data were then compared against Wind-US CFD code predictions for the same flow conditions. The results of this and planned follow-on studies will support NASA's development and assessment of turbulence models for heated flows.

Turbulence Modeling↗

NASA NTRS2015

CFD Validation Experiment of a Mach 2.5 Axisymmetric Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction

Experimental investigations of specific flow phenomena, e.g., Shock Wave Boundary-Layer Interactions (SWBLI), provide great insight to the flow behavior but often lack the necessary details to be useful as CFD validation experiments. Reasons include: 1.Undefined boundary conditions Inconsistent results 2.Undocumented 3D effects (CL only measurements) 3.Lack of uncertainty analysis While there are a number of good subsonic experimental investigations that are sufficiently documented to be considered test cases for CFD and turbulence model validation, the number of supersonic and hypersonic cases is much less. This was highlighted by Settles and Dodsons [1] comprehensive review of available supersonic and hypersonic experimental studies. In all, several hundred studies were considered for their database.Of these, over a hundred were subjected to rigorous acceptance criteria. Based on their criteria, only 19 (12 supersonic, 7 hypersonic) were considered of sufficient quality to be used for validation purposes. Aeschliman and Oberkampf [2] recognized the need to develop a specific methodology for experimental studies intended specifically for validation purposes.

Turbulence Modeling↗