Advertisement

Comparative Assessment of Synthetic Turbulence Methods in an Unstructured Compressible Flow Solver

  • Axel ProbstEmail author
  • Philip Ströer
Conference paper
Part of the Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design book series (NNFM, volume 143)

Abstract

Three different synthetic turbulence methods are assessed in hybrid RANS/LES simulations with the unstructured compressible flow solver DLR-TAU. Fluctuations computed with either the Synthetic-Eddy Method, its divergence-free version, or the Synthetic-Turbulence Generator are injected via momentum sources into the flow field. In a flat plate flow, the latter method yields minimal deviations from reference data when combined with suited volume forcing, while the induced noise is not larger than in the other methods. In a mixing co-flow, all approaches yield decent predictions of the flow development apart from a slightly too high mixing rate.

Keywords

Hybrid RANS/LES Wall-modelled LES Synthetic turbulence Flat plate Mixing co-flow 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The STG implementation in TAU including the blending function for variable volume forcing was provided by Daniela G. François, now DLR Göttingen. The mixing co-flow was defined as common test case in the GARTEUR Action Group 54 “RaLESin”.

References

  1. 1.
    Jarrin, N., Prosser, R., Uribe, J.C., Benhamadouche, S., Laurence, D.: Reconstruction of turbulent fluctuations for hybrid RANS/LES simulations using a Synthetic-Eddy method. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 30(3), 435–442 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Poletto, R., Revell, A., Craft, T., Jarrin, N.: Divergence free synthetic eddy method for embedded LES inflow boundary conditions. In: Seventh International Symposium On Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena (TSFP-7), Ottawa, Canada (2011)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adamian, D., Travin, A.: An efficient generator of synthetic turbulence at rans-les interface in embedded LES of wall-bounded and free shear flows. In: Kuzmin, A. (ed.) Computational Fluid Dynamics 2010, 739–744. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwamborn, D., Gardner, A.D., von Geyr, H., Krumbein, A., Lüdeke, H., Stürmer, A.: Development of the DLR TAU-Code for aerospace applications. In: International Conference on Aerospace Science and Technology, pp. 26–28. Bangalore, India (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pot, P.J.: A Wake Boundary Layer Mixing Experiment. Technical report, NLR (1979)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Probst, A.: Implementation and assessment of the Synthetic-Eddy Method in an unstructured compressible flow solver. In: Progress in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling. NNFMMD, vol. 137, pp. 91–101. Springer International Publishing (2018)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francois, D.G., Radespiel, R., Probst, A.: Forced synthetic turbulence approach to stimulate resolved turbulence generation in embedded LES. In: Progress in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling. NNFMMD, vol. 130. Springer International Publishing (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Löwe, J., Probst, A., Knopp, T., Kessler, R.: Low-dissipation low-dispersion second-order scheme for unstructured finite-volume flow solvers. AIAA J. 54(10), 2961–2971 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shur, M.L., Spalart, P.R., Strelets, M.K., Travin, A.K.: A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES capabilities. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 29(6), 406–417 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Laraufie, R., Deck, S.: Assessment of Reynolds stresses tensor reconstruction methods for synthetic turbulent inflow conditions, Application to hybrid RANS/LES methods. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 42, 68–78 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schlatter, P., Örlü, R.: Assessment of direct numerical simulation data of turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 659, 116–126 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nagib, H.M., Chauhan, K.A., Monkewitz, P.A.: Approach to an asymptotic state for zero pressure gradient turbulent boundary layers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A: Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 365, 755–770 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shur, M.L., et. al: Improved Embedded Approaches. In: Go4Hybrid: Grey Area Mitigation for Hybrid RANS-LES Methods, Notes on Numerical Fluid Mechanics and Multidisciplinary Design, vol. 134, pp. 51–87 (2017)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deck, S., Weiss, P., Renard, N.: A rapid and low noise switch from RANS to WMLES on curvilinear grids with compressible flow solvers. J. Comput. Phys. 363, 231–255 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.DLR (German Aerospace Center)GoettingenGermany

Personalised recommendations