Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T17:10:00.892Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RANS prediction of open jet aerofoil interaction and design metrics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 July 2019

A. A. Sheikh Al-Shabab Open the ORCID record for A. A. Sheikh Al-Shabab [Opens in a new window]  and
P. G. Tucker
A. A. Sheikh Al-Shabab
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering University of CambridgeCambridge, United Kingdom
P. G. Tucker*
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering University of CambridgeCambridge, United Kingdom
*
pgt23@cam.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

RANS models remain an attractive turbulence simulation method which could provide some open jet aerofoil interaction analysis at a fraction of the cost of a high-fidelity LES approach. The present work explores the potential and limitations of RANS in this context by simulating an open jet aerofoil noise experiment using the aerospace oriented Menter SST RANS model. This model’s tendency to transition at a critical Reynolds number lower than the experimental value was found to impact the boundary layer development. However, the introduction of a low-Re correction improved the prediction of surface pressure and skin friction, enabling the suction surface separation bubble to be captured. The free shear layer’s virtual origin characteristics exhibited sensitivity to the interaction with the aerofoil, which can be developed into a metric of the interaction. The main challenge for RANS was accounting for the rise in background disturbance level in the working section, which is caused by the high-turbulence intensity in the free shear layers.

Keywords

AerodynamicsInstallation effectsComputational fluid dynamicsOpen jetTurbulence modelling
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 123 , Issue 1266 , August 2019 , pp. 1275 - 1296
Copyright
© Royal Aeronautical Society 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Present affiliation: School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Cranfield, United Kingdom.

References

REFERENCES

Bradshaw, P., Ferriss, D.H. and Johnson, R. Turbulence in the noise-producing region of a circular jet, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1964, 19, (04), pp 591–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, T.F., Marcolini, M.A. and Pope, D.S. Airfoil trailing-edge flow measurements, AIAA Journal, 1986, 24, (8), pp 1245–1251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moreau, S., Henner, M., Iaccarino, G., Wang, M. and Roger, M. Analysis of flow conditions in freejet experiments for studying airfoil self-noise, AIAA Journal, 2003, 41, (10), pp 1895–1905.10.2514/2.1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Al-Shabab, A.A.S. Numerical Investigation of Aerodynamic Installation Effects in Open Jet Wind Tunnel Aerofoil Experiments, PhD thesis, The University of Cambridge, 2016.Google Scholar
Hanjalic, K. Will RANS survive LES? A view of perspectives, Journal of Fluids Engineering, 2005, 127, (5), pp 831–839.10.1115/1.2037084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA Journal, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
Jasak, H. Error Analysis and Estimation for the Finite Volume Method with Applications to Fluid Flows, PhD thesis, Imperial College London, 1996.Google Scholar
Patankar, S.V. and Spalding, D.B. A calculation procedure for heat, mass and momentum transfer in three-dimensional parabolic flows, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 1972, 15, (10), pp 1787–1806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence modeling for CFD. DCW Industries La Canada, CA, 2006.Google Scholar
Menter, F., Kuntz, M. and Langtry, R. Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model, Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, 2003, 4, (1), pp 625–632.Google Scholar
Spalart, P.R. and Rumsey, C.L. Effective inflow conditions for turbulence models in aerodynamic calculations, AIAA Journal, 2007, 45, (10), pp 2544–2553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, F., Ferreira, J.C., Esch, T. and Konno, B. The SST turbulence model with improved wall treatment for heat transfer predictions in gas turbines, Proceedings of the International Gas Turbine Congress, No IGTC2003-TS-059, 2003, pp 2–7.Google Scholar
Langtry, R.B. Prediction of Transition for Attached and Separated Shear Layers in Turbomachinery, Master’s thesis, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada, 2003.Google Scholar
Biswas, D. and Fukuyama, Y. Calculation of transitional boundary layers with an improved low-Reynolds-number version of the k–ε turbulence model’ Journal of Turbomachinery, 1994, 116, (4), pp 765–773.Google Scholar
Winkler, J., Moreau, S. and Carolus, T. Large-eddy simulation and trailing-edge noise prediction of an airfoil with boundary-layer tripping, 15th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference, AIAA Paper, No AIAA-2009-3197, 2009.Google Scholar
Stanley, S., Sarkar, S. and Mellado, J. A study of the flow-field evolution and mixing in a planar turbulent jet using direct numerical simulation, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2002, 450, pp 377–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, P.G. Novel miles computations for jet flows and noise, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 2004, 25, (4), pp 625–635.Google Scholar
Shur, M.L., Spalart, P.R. and Strelets, M.K. Noise prediction for increasingly complex jets. part i: Methods and tests, International Journal of Aeroacoustics, 2005, 4, (3), pp 213–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naqavi, I.Z., Tucker, P.G. and Liu, Y. Large-eddy simulation of the interaction of wall jets with external stream, International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 2014, 50, pp 431–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, T.J. (ed.) Microphone Measurements in and out of airstream, Aeroacoustic Measurements, 2002, Springer Science & Business Media, Germany, Chapter 1, pp 6–30 (within Chapter 1: Microphone Measurements in and out of airstream in the book).Google Scholar
Rumsey, C.L. and Spalart, P.R. Turbulence model behavior in low Reynolds number regions of aerodynamic flowfields, AIAA Journal, 2009, 47, (4), pp 982–993.Google Scholar
Catalano, P. and Tognaccini, R. Turbulence modeling for low-Reynolds-number flows, AIAA Journal, 2010, 48, (8), pp 1673–1685.Google Scholar
Schoenherr, K.S. On the Resistance of Flat Surfaces Moving Through a fluid, 1932, Trans. Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Eng., Vol. 40, pp 279–313.Google Scholar
Pope, S.B. Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press, 2000, Chapter 5, Section 5.4.2 The Plane Mixing Layer. pp 139–P147.Google Scholar
Al-Shabab, A.A.S. and Tucker, P.G. Toward active computational fluid dynamics role in open jet airfoil experiments design, AIAA Journal, 2018, 56, (8), pp 3205–3215.Google Scholar