Review and Assessment of Turbulence Models for Hypersonic Flows: 2D/Asymmetric Cases

Roy, Christopher J.; Blottner, F. G.

doi:10.2514/6.2006-713

Cited by 29 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 133 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Roy and Blottner [124] compile an exhaustive database of experiments and use several to review and assess a wide range of turbulence models for compression corners, cylinder flares, cone-cones and 2-D and axisymmetric impinging shocks. They make several specific recommendations for future experimental campaigns regarding uncertainty characterization.…”

Section: Heat Transfer and Skin Friction Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions

Gaitonde

2015

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

502

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Heat Transfer and Skin Friction Coefficientmentioning

confidence: 99%

Progress in shock wave/boundary layer interactions

Gaitonde

2015

Progress in Aerospace Sciences

502

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…[17]), which are based on assumptions on the type of turbulence. The turbulent GKS seem to be a good candidate to investigate turbulent flow and the more so in the rarefied / transition regime, such as for instance flow cases related to hypersonic flight, where ordinary schemes still fail to provide accurate and reliable results ( [14,15]). Not only are GKS much better • .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A gas-kinetic scheme for the simulation of turbulent flows

Righi¹

2012

AIP Conference Proceedings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerical schemes derived from gas-kinetic theory can be applied to simulations in the hydrodynamics limit, in laminar and also turbulent regimes. In the latter case, the underlying Boltzmann equation describes a distribution of eddies, in line with the concept of eddy viscosity developed by Lord Kelvin and Osborne Reynolds at the end of the nineteenth century. These schemes are physically more consistent than schemes derived from the Navier-Stokes equations, which invariably assume infinite collisions between gas particles (or interactions between eddies) in the calculation of advective fluxes. In fact, in continuum regime too, the local Knudsen number can exceed the value 0.001 in shock layers, where gas-kinetic schemes outperform Navier-Stokes schemes, as is well known.Simulation of turbulent flows benefit from the application of gas-kinetic schemes, as the turbulent Knudsen number (the ratio between the eddies' mean free path and the mean flow scale) can locally reach values well in excess of 0.001, not only in shock layers. A further advantage of gaskinetic schemes is that the fluxes are accurate to τ 2 , for instance in the scheme developed in [19] for the finite-volume discretization. In laminar flow, this provides a better resolution of shocks and vortexes, whereas in turbulent flows, high-order fluxes allow for a better resolution of secondary flows in a manner comparable to higher-order turbulence models for the Navier-Stokes schemes.This study has investigated a few cases of shock -boundary layer interaction comparing a gas-kinetic scheme and a Navier-Stokes one, both with a standard k − ω turbulence model. Whereas the results obtained from the Navier-Stokes scheme are affected by the limitations of eddy viscosity two-equation models, the gas-kinetic scheme has performed much better without making any further assumption on the turbulent structures.

show abstract

“…1, 2 Moreover, the available RANS turbulence models were developed for incompressible flows and the modeling of compressible turbulent 3 flows is still an active area of research. Despite all of these considerations, many efforts have been made in order to assess these models for hypersonic applications [4][5][6][7] and to develop a methodology for validating 8 these models with hypersonic ground testing experimental data. An effort has also been made, 9 in order to provide a central and a common data base for different version of RANS turbulence models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%