- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review Fluids

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Turbulence model form errors in separated flows

Kerry S. Klemmer1,*, Wen Wu2, and Michael E. Mueller1

  • 1Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544, USA
  • 2Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Mississippi, Oxford, Mississippi 38677, USA

  • *kklemmer@princeton.edu
PDF

Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 024606 – Published 15 February, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.8.024606

Abstract

In turbulence modeling, model form errors are introduced in the prediction of the Reynolds stresses through the Boussinesq hypothesis and other modeling choices, such as the specific form of the eddy viscosity. These linear eddy viscosity models have known points of failure in flows that feature significant complexity, such as separated flows. In this work, an implied models approach is used to better understand the sources and dynamics of model form error in separated flows through a priori analysis, focusing on the Boussinesq hypothesis using exact inputs for determining the eddy viscosity. In the implied models approach, a transport equation is derived for the model error through the transport equation implied by the model for the quantity of interest; that is, the Reynolds stresses in this work. A boundary layer over a flat plate with a statistically stationary separation bubble is analyzed and shown to have two error modes corresponding to the qualitative behavior of turbulent wall-bounded and turbulent free-shear model form errors. The wall-bounded mode is observed sufficiently upstream of the separation bubble, and the free-shear mode is observed near and within the separation bubble, with a superposition of these two modes observed in the intermediate regions. These results indicate on the one hand a complex picture of model error that changes through the flow but on the other hand a simple picture of model error that comprises elements of canonical flows. Therefore, calibration of turbulence models against simpler canonical flows can capture the main modes of model failure in more complex flows.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (32)

  1. D. C. Wilcox, Turbulence Modeling for CFD (DCW Industries Inc, 2006).
  2. K. S. Klemmer and M. E. Mueller, Implied models approach for turbulence model form physics-based uncertainty quantification, Phys. Rev. Fluids 6, 044606 (2021).
  3. E. Goncalves and R. Houdeville, Reassessment of the wall functions approach for RANS computations, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 5, 1 (2001).
  4. F. R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J. 32, 1598 (1994).
  5. T. Jie and J. Jie, Stress limiter consideration for k−ω turbulence models in shock-wave/turbulent boundary-layer interactions in supersonic and hypersonic flows, in 20th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference (2011), p. 3980.
  6. C. Speziale and S. Thangam, Analysis of an RNG based turbulence model for separated flows, Int. J. Eng. Sci. (Oxford, UK) 30, 1379 (1992).
  7. H. Lübcke, S. Schmidt, T. Rung, and F. Thiele, Comparison of LES and RANS in bluff-body flows, J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 89, 1471 (2001).
  8. T. Knopp, T. Alrutz, and D. Schwamborn, A grid and flow adaptive wall-function method for RANS turbulence modelling, J. Comput. Phys. 220, 19 (2006).
  9. M. L. Shur, P. R. Spalart, M. K. Strelets, and A. K. Travin, A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall-modelled LES capabilities, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 29, 1638 (2008).
  10. G. Iaccarino, A. A. Mishra, and S. Ghili, Eigenspace perturbations for uncertainty estimation of single-point turbulence closures, Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 024605 (2017).
  11. C. Gorlé, S. Zeoli, M. Emory, J. Larsson, and G. Iaccarino, Epistemic uncertainty quantification for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes modeling of separated flows over streamlined surfaces, Phys. Fluids 31, 035101 (2019).
  12. R. L. Thompson, A. A. Mishra, G. Iaccarino, W. Edeling, and L. Sampaio, Eigenvector perturbation methodology for uncertainty quantification of turbulence models, Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 044603 (2019).
  13. K. Stephanopoulos, I. Witte, T. Wray, and R. K. Agarwal, Uncertainty quantification of turbulence model coefficients in OpenFOAM and Fluent for mildly separated flows, in 46th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference (2016), p. 4401.
  14. M. C. Dunn, B. Shotorban, and A. Frendi, Uncertainty quantification of turbulence model coefficients via latin hypercube sampling method, J. Fluids Eng. 133, 041402 (2011).
  15. C. Gorlé, J. Larsson, M. Emory, and G. Iaccarino, The deviation from parallel shear flow as an indicator of linear eddy-viscosity model inaccuracy, Phys. Fluids 26, 051702 (2014).
  16. M. Emory, J. Larsson, and G. Iaccarino, Modeling of structural uncertainties in Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes closures, Phys. Fluids 25, 110822 (2013).
  17. O. Desjardins, G. Blanquart, G. Balarac, and H. Pitsch, High order conservative finite difference scheme for variable density low Mach number turbulent flows, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 7125 (2008).
  18. J. F. MacArt and M. E. Mueller, Semi-implicit iterative methods for low Mach number turbulent reacting flows: Operator splitting versus approximate factorization, J. Comput. Phys. 326, 569 (2016).
  19. MATLAB, version 7.10.0 (R2021a) (The MathWorks Inc., Natick, Massachusetts, 2021).
  20. A. A. Townsend, Local isotropy in the turbulent wake of a cylinder, Aust. J. Sci. Res. 1, 161 (1948).
  21. L. Bradbury, The structure of a self-preserving turbulent plane jet, J. Fluid Mech. 23, 31 (1965).
  22. J. Rotta, Statistical theory of nonhomogeneous turbulence. Part II, Eur. Phys. J. A 131, 51 (1951).
  23. M. Takahashi, K. Iwano, Y. Sakai, and Y. Ito, Experimental investigation on destruction of Reynolds stress in a plane jet, Exp. Fluids 60, 46 (2019).
  24. W. Wu and U. Piomelli, Effects of surface roughness on a separating turbulent boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech. 841, 552 (2018).
  25. U. Piomelli, A. Rouhi, and B. J. Geurts, A grid-independent length scale for large-eddy simulations, J. Fluid Mech. 766, 499 (2015).
  26. A. Rouhi, U. Piomelli, and B. J. Geurts, Dynamic subfilter-scale stress model for large-eddy simulations, Phys. Rev. Fluids 1, 044401 (2016).
  27. M. Lee and R. D. Moser, Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to Reτ≈5200, J. Fluid Mech. 774, 395 (2015).
  28. K.-L. Tzuoo, J. H. Ferziger, and S. J. Kline, Zonal Models of Turbulence and Their Application to Free Shear Flows, Tech. Rep. TF-27 (Stanford University, 1986).
  29. P. Bradshaw, Effects of extra rates of strain - Review, in Near-Wall Turbulence (Hemisphere, 1990), pp. 106–122.
  30. F. R. Menter, Zonal two equation k−ω turbulence models for aerodynamic flows, in Proc. of the 23rd Fluid Dynamics, Plasmadynamics, and Lasers Conference, AIAA (1993), p. 2906.
  31. B. Eisfeld and O. Brodersen, Advanced turbulence modelling and stress analysis for the DLR-F6 configuration, in 23rd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference (2005), p. 4727.
  32. R. Bai, J. Li, F. Zeng, and C. Yan, Mechanism and performance differences between the SSG/LRR-ω and SST turbulence models in separated flows, Aerospace 9, 20 (2022).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Fluids 8, 024606– Published 15 February, 2023
  • Received 18 June 2022
  • Accepted 20 January 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

©2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation