A comparison between RANS turbulence models and DNS of turbulent MHD channel flows
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Astronomy and AstroPhysics↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “turbulence modeling”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Turbulence model predictions for the inhomogeneous mixing layer
The plane mixing layer between two streams of different densities and velocities is studied using a complete, phenomenological model of turbulence. The model is an extension of that described by Saffman (1974). The properties of similarity solutions are computed, and compared with experimental data. The qualitative dependence on velocity ratio, density ratio, compressibility and adverse pressure gradient is predicted correctly. The quantitative agreement is satisfactory.
Milinazzo, F.↗
Turbulence Model Implementation and Verification in the SENSEI CFD Code
This paper outlines the implementation and verification of the negative Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model into the SENSEI CFD code. The SA-neg turbulence model is implemented in a flexible, object-oriented framework where additional turbulence models can be easily added. In addition to outlining the new turbulence modeling framework in SENSEI, an overview of the other general improvements to SENSEI is provided. The results for four 2D test cases are compared to results from CFL3D and FUN3D to verify that the turbulence models are implemented properly. Several differences in the results from SENSEI, CFL3D, and FUN3D are identified and are attributed to differences in the implementation and discretization order of the boundary conditions as well as the order of discretization of the turbulence model. When a solid surface is located near or intersects an inflow or outflow boundary, higher order boundary conditions should be used to limit their effect on the forces on the surface. When the turbulence equations are discretized using second order spatial accuracy, the edge of the eddy viscosity profile seems to be sharper than when a first order discretization is used. However, the discretization order of the turbulence equation does not have a significant impact on output quantities of interest, such as pressure and viscous drag, for the cases studied.
Jackson, Charles W.↗
Workshop on Engineering Turbulence Modeling
Discussed here is the future direction of various levels of engineering turbulence modeling related to computational fluid dynamics (CFD) computations for propulsion. For each level of computation, there are a few turbulence models which represent the state-of-the-art for that level. However, it is important to know their capabilities as well as their deficiencies in order to help engineers select and implement the appropriate models in their real world engineering calculations. This will also help turbulence modelers perceive the future directions for improving turbulence models. The focus is on one-point closure models (i.e., from algebraic models to higher order moment closure schemes and partial differential equation methods) which can be applied to CFD computations. However, other schemes helpful in developing one-point closure models, are also discussed.
Povinelli, Louis A.↗
Workshop on Computational Turbulence Modeling
The purpose of this meeting was to discuss the current status and future development of turbulence modeling in computational fluid dynamics for aerospace propulsion systems. Various turbulence models have been developed and applied to different turbulent flows over the past several decades and it is becoming more and more urgent to assess their performance in various complex situations. In order to help users in selecting and implementing appropriate models in their engineering calculations, it is important to identify the capabilities as well as the deficiencies of these models. This also benefits turbulence modelers by permitting them to further improve upon the existing models. This workshop was designed for exchanging ideas and enhancing collaboration between different groups in the Lewis community who are using turbulence models in propulsion related CFD. In this respect this workshop will help the Lewis goal of excelling in propulsion related research. This meeting had seven sessions for presentations and one panel discussion over a period of two days. Each presentation session was assigned to one or two branches (or groups) to present their turbulence related research work. Each group was asked to address at least the following points: current status of turbulence model applications and developments in the research; progress and existing problems; and requests about turbulence modeling. The panel discussion session was designed for organizing committee members to answer management and technical questions from the audience and to make concluding remarks.
Shabbir, A.↗
Turbulence Modeling Verification and Validation
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software that solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations has been in routine use for more than a quarter of a century. It is currently employed not only for basic research in fluid dynamics, but also for the analysis and design processes in many industries worldwide, including aerospace, automotive, power generation, chemical manufacturing, polymer processing, and petroleum exploration. A key feature of RANS CFD is the turbulence model. Because the RANS equations are unclosed, a model is necessary to describe the effects of the turbulence on the mean flow, through the Reynolds stress terms. The turbulence model is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in RANS CFD, and most models are known to be flawed in one way or another. Alternative methods such as direct numerical simulations (DNS) and large eddy simulations (LES) rely less on modeling and hence include more physics than RANS. In DNS all turbulent scales are resolved, and in LES the large scales are resolved and the effects of the smallest turbulence scales are modeled. However, both DNS and LES are too expensive for most routine industrial usage on today's computers. Hybrid RANS-LES, which blends RANS near walls with LES away from walls, helps to moderate the cost while still retaining some of the scale-resolving capability of LES, but for some applications it can still be too expensive. Even considering its associated uncertainties, RANS turbulence modeling has proved to be very useful for a wide variety of applications. For example, in the aerospace field, many RANS models are considered to be reliable for computing attached flows. However, existing turbulence models are known to be inaccurate for many flows involving separation. Research has been ongoing for decades in an attempt to improve turbulence models for separated and other nonequilibrium flows. When developing or improving turbulence models, both verification and validation are important steps in the process. Verification insures that the CFD code is solving the equations as intended (no errors in the implementation). This is typically done either through the method of manufactured solutions (MMS) or through careful step-by-step comparisons with other verified codes. After the verification step is concluded, validation is performed to document the ability of the turbulence model to represent different types of flow physics. Validation can involve a large number of test case comparisons with experiments, theory, or DNS. Organized workshops have proved to be valuable resources for the turbulence modeling community in its pursuit of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Workshop contributors using different CFD codes run the same cases, often according to strict guidelines, and compare results. Through these comparisons, it is often possible to (1) identify codes that have likely implementation errors, and (2) gain insight into the capabilities and shortcomings of different turbulence models to predict the flow physics associated with particular types of flows. These are valuable lessons because they help bring consistency to CFD codes by encouraging the correction of faulty programming and facilitating the adoption of better models. They also sometimes point to specific areas needed for improvement in the models. In this paper, several recent workshops are summarized primarily from the point of view of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Furthermore, the NASA Langley Turbulence Modeling Resource website is described. The purpose of this site is to provide a central location where RANS turbulence models are documented, and test cases, grids, and data are provided. The goal of this paper is to provide an abbreviated survey of turbulence modeling verification and validation efforts, summarize some of the outcomes, and give some ideas for future endeavors in this area.
Rumsey, Christopher L.↗
Two-dimensional turbulence models
Two-dimensional turbulence models are compared with experimental measurements made using an array of instrumented towers. The spatial correlation coefficient, the two-point spectrum or cross spectrum, and the coherence function are discussed. The prediction techniques in general agree reasonably well with the experimental results. Measurements of the integral length scale however, do not correlate well with the prediction model.
Frost, W.↗
Turbulence modeling for hypersonic flows
Turbulence modeling for high speed compressible flows is described and discussed. Starting with the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, methods of statistical averaging are described by means of which the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are developed. Unknown averages in these equations are approximated using various closure concepts. Zero-, one-, and two-equation eddy viscosity models, algebraic stress models and Reynolds stress transport models are discussed. Computations of supersonic and hypersonic flows obtained using several of the models are discussed and compared with experimental results. Specific examples include attached boundary layer flows, shock wave boundary layer interactions and compressible shear layers. From these examples, conclusions regarding the status of modeling and recommendations for future studies are discussed.
Marvin, J. G.↗
Turbulence modeling for hypersonic flows
Turbulence modeling for high speed compressible flows is described and discussed. Starting with the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, methods of statistical averaging are described by means of which the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are developed. Unknown averages in these equations are approximated using various closure concepts. Zero-, one-, and two-equation eddy viscosity models, algebraic stress models and Reynolds stress transport models are discussed. Computations of supersonic and hypersonic flows obtained using several of the models are discussed and compared with experimental results. Specific examples include attached boundary layer flows, shock wave boundary layer interactions and compressible shear layers. From these examples, conclusions regarding the status of modeling and recommendations for future studies are discussed.
Marvin, J. G.↗
Turbulence modeling for hypersonic flows
Turbulence modeling for high-speed compressible flows is described and discussed. Starting with the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, methods of statistical averaging are described by means of which the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations are developed. Unknown averages in these equations are approximated using various closure concepts. Zero-, one-, and two-equation eddy viscosity models, algebraic stress models, and Reynolds stress transport models are discussed. Computations of supersonic and hypersonic flows obtained using several of the models are discussed and compared with experimental results. Specific examples include attached boundary-layer flows, shock-wave boundary-layer interactions, and compressible shear layers. From these examples, conclusions regarding the status of modeling and recommendations for future studies are discussed.
Marvin, J. G.↗
A multispecies turbulence model for the mixing and de-mixing of miscible fluids
A de-mix capable model for turbulence in compressible, variable density flows is proposed. The model is based on the Besnard-Harlow-Rauenzahn (BHR) family of models (Besnard D, Harlow F, Rauenzahn R, et al. Turbulence transport equations for variable-density turbulence and their relationship to two-field models. NM (United States): Los Alamos National Laboratory; 1992 (Technical Report LA-12303-MS), but is extended to track the evolution of the turbulent fluxes and fluctuations in the material mass fractions for each species present. The new evolution equations are introduced without requiring additional closures or new empirically tuned coefficients relative to previous BHR models, and are shown to improve the model’s ability to reproduce the behaviour of simulations containing mixing layers that are constrained by a stabilising force. As a result, the model is tested in a range of canonical flows including Rayleigh-Taylor driven, shock driven, and shear driven turbulence, and is shown to produce reasonable agreement with simulations and experiments in these scenarios.
42 ENGINEERING↗
Atmospheric Turbulence Modeling for Aero Vehicles: Fractional Order Fits
Atmospheric turbulence models are necessary for the design of both inlet/engine and flight controls, as well as for studying coupling between the propulsion and the vehicle structural dynamics for supersonic vehicles. Models based on the Kolmogorov spectrum have been previously utilized to model atmospheric turbulence. In this paper, a more accurate model is developed in its representative fractional order form, typical of atmospheric disturbances. This is accomplished by first scaling the Kolmogorov spectral to convert them into finite energy von Karman forms and then by deriving an explicit fractional circuit-filter type analog for this model. This circuit model is utilized to develop a generalized formulation in frequency domain to approximate the fractional order with the products of first order transfer functions, which enables accurate time domain simulations. The objective of this work is as follows. Given the parameters describing the conditions of atmospheric disturbances, and utilizing the derived formulations, directly compute the transfer function poles and zeros describing these disturbances for acoustic velocity, temperature, pressure, and density. Time domain simulations of representative atmospheric turbulence can then be developed by utilizing these computed transfer functions together with the disturbance frequencies of interest.
Atmospheric Turbulence Modeling↗
On Boundary-Value Problems for RANS Equations and Two-Equation Turbulence Models
Currently, in engineering computations for high Reynolds number turbulent flows, turbulence modeling continues to be the most frequently used approach to represent the effects of turbulence. Such models generally rely on solving either one or two transport equations along with the Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations. The solution of the boundary-value problem of any system of partial differential equations requires the complete delineation of the equations and the boundary conditions, including any special restrictions and conditions. In the literature, such a description is often incomplete, neglecting important details related to the boundary conditions and possible restrictive conditions, such as how to ensure satisfying prescribed values of the dependent variables of the transport equations in the far field of a finite domain. In this article, we discuss the possible influence of boundary values, as well as near-field and far-field behavior, on the solution of the RANS equations coupled with transport equations for turbulence modeling. In so doing, we defne the concept of a welldefined boundary-value problem. Additionally, a three-dimensional, rather than a simpler one-dimensional analysis is performed to analyze the near-wall and far-field behavior of the turbulence model variables. This allows an assessment of the decay rate of these variables required to realize the boundary conditions in the far field. This paper also addresses the impact of various transformations of two-equation models (e.g., the model of Wilcox) to remove the singular behavior of the dissipation rate (ω) at the surface boundary. Finally, the issue of well-posedness regarding the governing equations is considered. A compelling argument (although not a proof) for ill-posedness is made for both direct and inverse problems.
Navier–Stokes equations↗
Two-equation turbulence modeling for 3-D hypersonic flows
An investigation to verify, incorporate and develop two-equation turbulence models for three-dimensional high speed flows is presented. The current design effort of hypersonic vehicles has led to an intensive study of turbulence models for compressible hypersonic flows. This research complements an extensive review of experimental data and the current development of 2D turbulence models. The review of experimental data on 2D and 3D flows includes complex hypersonic flows with pressure profiles, skin friction, wall heat transfer, and turbulence statistics data. In a parallel effort, turbulence models for high speed flows have been tested against flat plate boundary layers, and are being tested against the 2D database. In the present paper, we present the results of 3D Navier-Stokes numerical simulations with an improved k-omega two-equation turbulence model against experimental data and empirical correlations of an adiabatic flat plate boundary layer, a cold wall flat plate boundary layer, and a 3D database flow, the interaction of an oblique shock wave and a thick turbulent boundary layer with a free stream Mach number = 8.18 and Reynolds number = 5 x 10 to the 6th.
Bardina, J. E.↗
On turbulence models and lidar measurements for wind turbine control
Abstract. To provide comprehensive information that will assist in making decisions regarding the adoption of lidar-assisted control (LAC) in wind turbine design, this paper investigates the impact of different turbulence models on the coherence between the rotor-effective wind speed and lidar measurement. First, the differences between the Kaimal and Mann models are discussed, including the power spectrum and spatial coherence. Next, two types of lidar systems are examined to analyze the lidar measurement coherence based on commercially available lidar scan patterns. Finally, numerical simulations have been performed to compare the lidar measurement coherence for different rotor sizes. This work confirms the association between the measurement coherence and the turbulence model. The results indicate that the lidar measurement coherence with the Mann turbulence model is lower than that with the Kaimal turbulence model. In other words, the potential value creation of LAC based on simulations during the wind turbine design phase, evaluated using the Kaimal turbulence model, will be diminished if the Mann turbulence model is used instead. In particular, the difference in coherence is more significant for larger rotors. As a result, this paper suggests that the impacts of different turbulence models should be considered uncertainties while evaluating the benefits of LAC.
17 WIND ENERGY↗
Adaptive mesh refinement and turbulence modeling
Adaptive mesh refinement is shown to be essential in turbulence modeling. Adaptive Mesh Refinement (AMR) is a more computationally efficient means to obtain a discrete approximation to a continuous boundary value problem of a specified accuracy than classic isotropic grid refinement. Previous application of this methodology in the assessment of turbulence models suggested that the field variable solution on the interior of the domain was more sensitive to grid refinement than would be suggested by the sensitivity to grid refinement of surface quantities. Revisiting challenging high speed flow field revealed that issues believed to be fundamental turbulence model issues appear to be related to an under-resolved boundary layer edge – a flow detail previously considered unimportant.
Hypersonics↗
Evaluation of turbulence models in the PARC code for transonic diffuser flows
Flows through a transonic diffuser were investigated with the PARC code using five turbulence models to determine the effects of turbulence model selection on flow prediction. Three of the turbulence models were algebraic models: Thomas (the standard algebraic turbulence model in PARC), Baldwin-Lomax, and Modified Mixing Length-Thomas (MMLT). The other two models were the low Reynolds number k-epsilon models of Chien and Speziale. Three diffuser flows, referred to as the no-shock, weak-shock, and strong-shock cases, were calculated with each model to conduct the evaluation. Pressure distributions, velocity profiles, locations of shocks, and maximum Mach numbers in the duct were the flow quantities compared. Overall, the Chien k-epsilon model was the most accurate of the five models when considering results obtained for all three cases. However, the MMLT model provided solutions as accurate as the Chien model for the no-shock and the weak-shock cases, at a substantially lower computational cost (measured in CPU time required to obtain converged solutions). The strong shock flow, which included a region of shock-induced flow separation, was only predicted well by the two k-epsilon models.
Georgiadis, N. J.↗
Turbulence Model Comparisons for a High-Speed Aircraft
Four turbulence models are described and evaluated for transonic flows over the High-Speed Research/industry baseline configuration known as Reference H by using the thin-layer, upwind, Navier-Stokes solver known as CFL3D. The turbulence models studied are the equilibrium model of Baldwin-Lomax (B-L) with the Degani-Schiff (D-S) modifications, the one-equation Baldwin-Barth (B-B) model, the one-equation Spalart-Allmaras (S-A) model, and Menter's two-equation Shear Stress Transport (SST) model. The flow conditions, which correspond to tests performed in the National Transonic Facility (NTF) at Langley Research Center, are a Mach number of 0.90 and a Reynolds number of 30 x 10 (exp. 6) based on mean aerodynamic chord for angles of attack of 1 deg., 5 deg., and 10 deg. The effects of grid topology and the representation of the actual wind tunnel model geometry are also investigated. Computed forces and surface pressures compare reasonably well with the experimental data for all four turbulence models.
Rivers, Melissa B.↗