https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?

R=20150009530 2018-09-27T04:44:11+00:00Z

Status of Turbulence Modeling for High-

Speed Propulsion Flow Problems
N.J. Georgiadis
NASA Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, OH 44135 USA
Georgiadis@nasa.gov

W.A. Engblom, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

R.A. Baurle, NASA Langley
J.R. Edwards, N.C. State Univ.
A.Uzun, Florida State University
D.A. Yoder. M.A. Vyas, & J.R. DeBonis, NASA Glenn

The first author?s work was Sponsored by the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Program and the DoD Test
Resource Management Center? s (TRMC) Test and Evaluation /Science and Technology (T&E/S& T)
Program through the High Speed Systems Test (HSST) area.
 Introduction
• High speed aircraft are highly desirable for military and
commercial applications.
• "Hypersonic" speed is frequently defined as Mach No. > 5
SR71 (Mach 3+):
X15 (Mach 6.7):

2
 Introduction

• Hypersonic air-breathing propulsion is one of the most difficult

R&D challenges facing the worldwide aeronautics community.

X51 Waverider:

• 1 out of 3 flights resulted in sustained combustion.

• Hydrocarbon fueled.

3
 Introducti on

• Current R&D uses ground tests and computationa l fluid

dynamics (CFD) to prepare for flight tests.

X43:

• Flight 2 achieved Mach 7; Flight 3 achieved - Mach 10.

• Hydrogen fueled.

4
 Introduction
• High Speed I Hypersonic R&D uses flight tests, ground tests,
and CFD ----all have difficulties:

1. Flight tests: Expensive, difficult to instrument, very harsh

environments for experimental aircraft that naturally lead to high
failure rates.
2. Ground tests: Difficult to achieve actual flight conditions, facility
interference effects, difficult to instrument.
3. CFD: Physical modeling is highly unproven - at best. Modeling
of turbulence, chemistry, heat transfer, fluid-thermal-structural
interactions is subject to high uncertainty.

5
 Introducti on

• Turbulence models remains one of the key pacing technologies

in Computationa l Fluid Dynamics (CFD).

• An overview of key turbulence modeling areas for propulsion

flows is presented.
• Emphasis is placed on "practical" state-of-the-a rt today:
- Standard practices using primarily RANS.
- Promising new technology (i.e. LES, hybrid RANS/LES) that may be available for
production use in near future.
- Key shortfalls for which R&D is necessary.
• Focus is placed on high-speed propulsion systems (i.e.
scramjets); turbine engines are also addressed in less detail.

6
 Key Turbulent Features of
Scramjet Flowpaths

FUEL INJECTION

Laminar-to-turbulent
transition, Shock wave I COMBUSTOR AND
turbulent boundary layer EXPANSION SYSTEM:
interactions 30 compressible mixing,
reacting flow, turbulent I
chemistry interactions
ISOLATOR: Shock wave/
turbulent boundary layer
interactions

7
 Key Turbulent Features of
Turbine Engine Flowpaths

INLET: NOZZLE/MIXER
Transition, '
COMPRESSOR: TURBINE: PLUME
Separation 30 Turbulent Mixing,
Swirling 30 flow, COMBUSTOR: Transition, 30, very
wakes, shock- Compressibil ity,
30 reacting flow high heat transfer
interactions ' ' Acoustics
turbulent I chemistry film cooling
interactions, multi-phase

8
 Presentation Outline

• Overview of Turbulence Modeling in Use for Propulsion Flows

- RANS
- LES and DNS
• Boundary Layer Transition - Inlets and Turbines
• 3D Boundary Layer Effects
• Shock-Wave /Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions
• Combustor I Reacting Flows
- Scalar Transport
- Turbulent I Chemistry Interactions
• Exhaust System Modeling
- Jet and Mixing - RANS
- LES-based Methods
• Experimental Validation Data Needs
• Conclusions

9
 Navier-Stokes Equations

op o
--:;-
ut
+ u.A (pui) = 0
;l,..
Continuity
l

C(pui) + 0 (pu .u .) = - OP + Orif Momentum

Ot & . }
1
Ox . Ox.
}
1 }

oE,
___;_+ o ( u ( E, + P)) -_ o ( U/CiJ ) - 0q1 Energy
a o.x .
}
1
o.x .
}
o.x.
}

10
.
..

Navier-Sto kes for Perfect Gas

P=pRT Ideal Gas

2 Ou1.
r ..
lj
= 2nS
r·
.. - - 1
lj
1 5..
3r a. lJ Newtonian Fluid
1

Rate of Strain

or
q.=-k- Fourier' s law
1 ar.1

11
Reynolds Averaging

u. == -1
l
J I
I+T
u.dt
l
Traditional
Reynolds-averaging
r

A 1
u. ==-
f f+T
pu.dt
Density weighting
1
pr --
I
1
(Favre averaging}

A pf
f ==-=-
p
(Favre averaging}

12
 Modeled Turbulent Terms - RANS

Reynolds Stress

Turbulent heat flux

These terms replace ALL turbulent effects in the momentum and energy
equations.

13
 Spatial Filtering

Filtering operation

Filter function

- pf
f ==-=-
p
(Favre filtering)

Note that the Favre spatial filtering here and Favre Reynolds averaging
look similar but refer to two very different operations.

14
 Modeled Turbulent Terms - LES

sg.!>
-p
- ( f"""t,.t
U .U . -
I j
,..., ,...,
U .U . - T ..
I } lj
) -
Subgrid Stress

Subgrid heat flux

These terms replace only turbulent effects that are smaller than the
numerical scheme and grid (hence called subgrid} can resolve.

15
 ,,_\) . I I£( ~~' , tv4Lo4 !!;>..

Comparison of RANS and LES Equations ~~ -~

1 - Continuity C(-_,_, DT .C,,--- ~~~Na. ,.,...,.o<><

RANS

LES

16
 ."'\, i'·•..'.\) f:\' 1lt:.,/ ! '\~1 •IV6lV4t~

Com paris on of RANS and LES Equa tions ~; ~

2 - Momentum r-':1"UnC'~ ~.nr:o..o-<f;<

RANS

LES

17
 Comparison of RANS and LES Equations
3- Energy

"
oE, o ,. . " - o ,. . _ ,. . -r o _ r)
-Ot+ &. )
(u .(E, + P)) ==
&.
(u.r ..
1)
+ u.r ..
1)
1
)- (q.
&. )
1
+ q
)
. RANS
) ) )

,...,

- sgs)
oE, + 8 (.....,u. (E,.., + P)) -_ o (-U.T_ .. +U.T .. - o (-
q . +q sgs )
. LES
Ot &. ) 1 & . 11) 11) &. } }
) } }

18
 Major Differences Between Running
RANS and LES

All turbulent stresses are replaced by Dominant turbulent stresses are

the averaged effect {numerically calculated {numerically resolve
diffusive) unsteady behavior)- can't have too
much diffusion or turbu lence goes
away.
Constant CFL- goal is to get to Must run time accurately to capture
convergence as fast as possible. time-varying turbulence.

Grids are packed to regions of high Best grids are uniform, isotropic-
mean shear {stretch ing OK) need to be of size to capture sca les
of interest.
Numerical scheme designed for Numerical scheme driven by need
reasonable accuracy, shock wave for high order of accuracy for
capturing, convergence resolving unsteady behavior.
characteristics.
19
 RANS Turbulenc e Modeling

• Reynolds-Ave raged Navier-Stokes (RANS)- ·replaces all

unsteady turbulent motion with modeled turbulent stresses.
• Practical State of the art is two-equation models: k-E , k-co ,k-t;.
Menter Shear-Stress Transport (SST) is popular "hybrid model"
combining k-E and k-co.
• For subsonic/tran sonic external aerodynamics , one equation
models such as Spalart-AIIma ras are popular- not used as
much in propulsion flows.
• Full Reynolds-Stre ss Models -offer more complete
representation of 3-D turbulent stress field, but have not lived up
to promise in terms of improved predictions.
• Explicit algebraic stress models (EASMs) solve 2-eqn models,
but used additional relations to obtain "Reynolds-str ess-like"
behavior.

20
 Commonly Used RANS Models

1. Zero-equation (Algebraic): Cebeci-Smith, Baldwin-lomax

2. "Half-equation": Johnson-King
3. One-equation: Baldwin-Barth, Spalart-AIImaras
4. Two-equation:
a) k-E : Jones-launder (standard), Chien, many others
b) k-ro: Wilcox, Menter (BSl and SST)
5. Explicit algebraic stress models (EASM)
6. Reynolds-Stress closures

• The first 4 categories are "eddy viscosity models" where:

r!.7J = -pu~u'. = ,,r 2S.. - 2

Ouk o.
7 1 r 7J 3& 7J
k

21
Dv
-==C
--V+ -1 o
8 l l(
V+ U- ) ov
Oxk
+cb-2 ov ov -C J~'
Oxk Oxk wl 1
(uJd-
2

Df bl Oxk (J (J w

Vr == ufvl d == wall distance

x3
fvl - --
= =3 v"'
x· + cvl x==-
v ,. , v-
6 S =S + 2 ? fv2
+ -1-
J v2 -
X,A' g== r + cw2 (r - r) 1( d-
1 + /U v l
6 116
s = ~2QHQ H lj lj

f w= { l+cw3J
g6c6
3
w cbl =0.1355,cb2 =0.622,cvl = 7.1,a=2 / 3,
- cbl
Cwl_--2 + (l+cb2 ) ,Cw2 -0
-
3 -2 -0
. ,Cw3- ,K- .41
K CY

22
...
,._..:.\) l l:·tLr · ~•"""'-"4rli>v

Jones-Launder Two-Equation k-c RANS Model~ ~

D(pE) E Oui E2 {}
Dt = C&! k rif dt . -Cs2Pk+ dt.
} }
k2
llt = CJip-
E

CJI = 0.09,o-k = l,o-8 = 1.3,C8 1 = 1.55,C82 = 2.0

• Jones-launder form is referred to as the "standard" k-s model.
• Works well for attached boundary layers. Underestimates size of flow
separation (early reattachments).
• Works reasonably well for mixing layers, jet flows. Compressibility
corrections sometimes used for mixing problems at high convective
Mach numbers. 23
 Menter Two-Equation k-co "Shear Stress
Transport" (SST) RANS Model (1 of 2)

D(pk)
- - == T ..
au.
1
fJ*pOJk + o( + 0" ) ac
Dt lj a 1. -
a 1. r
II II
krt a 1.
D(pm) = !!__ Tij Oui _a 2
~pOJ +
o ll( Jl+ (jcuflt ) om + (1- ~)2p(} 1 Ok om
w2 - - - - -
Dt vr a.1 a 1. a. 1
m a . a.
1 1

11 == min pk · a1pkJ
fA't ' fl D
()) ~ l.r2

~* =tanh(arg:)
8
F4 = exp(-(R.v /120) )

~ = 1nax(F;* ,F4 )
500vJ 4pa- 2 k l
112

arg1
.I {
= n11nl rna
k
* ; ; UJ 2 J
2
L j3 coy cvy CDkUJY
24
...

Menter Two-Equation k-ro "Shear Stress

Transport" {SST) RANS Model {2 of 2)

• SST term comes from eddy viscosity expression. The hybrid k-ro,
k-E model without this term is referred to as the "Baseline" or
BSL model.
• Inner model reduces to original Wilcox k-ro formulation. Outer
model comes from transformed k-E model and is supposed to
reduce to the "standard" k-E model but differs in cross diffusion
term and diffusion coefficients.
• Model works quite well for attached -boundary layers, mild
separations, mixing flows {including jets). Numerically stable.
• All k-ro models may have an issue with artificial turbulence
production behind strong normal shock.

25
 Direct Calculation Methods

• Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) - calculate all turbulent

scales down to the Kolmogorov scale - impractical for
engineering flows.
• Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) - directly calculate largest scales
and reserve modeling for smallest "subgrid-scale" stresses-
active research showing promise in combustor and jet plume
.
reg1ons.
• Hybrid RANS/LES - has become popular in recent years - most
effective use has been for flows where RANS can be used in
attached boundary layers and LES away from walls.
- Demarcated or zonal hybrid RANS/LES - clear distinction is made between RANS
and LES regions. Some physical mechanism is responsible for transition to
turbulence. This was intent behind design of Detached Eddy Simulation (DES).
- Continuous modeling - RANS and LES regions are not clearly separated -
solution is expected to adjust, based on resolution. Desirable in theory, but difficult
to achieve due to competing natures of RANS and LES.

26
 Smago rinsky SGS Model

r..usgs = 2(Cs Ll. pn

A)2- l/2(S- );: ..) --2 1LlA2-pnu· ~ ..
..lj --31 s-kku c
. lj 3 ~/

JT = slj..slJ.
~ = (LU~y~zY 13
• A few possibilitie s
~ = max(LU,~y,~z)
for the subgrid
l/2
turbulent length
Ll = (LU )2 + (Lly )2 + (Llz)2
scale:
3
• Note similarity of functional form to mixing-len gth RANS model
(i.e. Cebeci-Smith); gradient-d iffusion formulatio n; eddy
viscosity that adds to laminar viscosity just as is done in RANS.
• The effect on N-S equations, however, is very different- only
replacing subgrid turbulent stresses.

27
 Transiti on Modelin g

• Several RANS-base d models tried over the past several years - some solving
additional transport equations for intermittenc y, Re 9 •
• Some success for flows with high freestream turbulence intensity- i.e. turbine
cascades where bypass transition is dominant mechanism .
• Modal growth situations not easily represented by RANS-base d techniques.
• Work shown here is with a model based on the Menter SST k-ro turbulence model,
with transition modification s by Langtry, Sjolander, & Menter.
• Our work with the baseline published model indicated difficulties: (1) inability to
reproduce experimenta lly observed transition, (2) significant grid sensitivity, (3)
inability to become fully turbulent beyond transition. New formulation described in
Denissen, Yoder, Georgiadis, NASA TM 2008-215451 .

ak)
. opk apU·k
TKE equat1on a : a < = PT M · Pk - .8 p:»k
t X
j(

..!.. aaX . ( (Jl + CJkJlt) a X~

1 1 1

PTlvf = 1- 0.94(PTA11 + PTi\12) Fa tanh ( (y·' /17) 2 )

II ):! 1
F:5 = e·~ ( f (1- P(Rt)) + 2.P(Rt)
Modified model 2.5 - R t - .1 2
P(Rt) = -e 2
formulation : $
,. _ C { '(3.28E - 4)Rev - (3.94E - 7)Re~..!.. (1.43E - 10)&;]; Rev < 1000
• 'J. 1 -
PT' 1 - P'l' •\ fJ
· [0.12 + (1E - 5)Rev]; R ev > 1000

. 28
 Boundary Layer Transition Model
Incompressible Validation
Incompressible Validation:
• Transition locations and skin friction examined for T3A
benchmark data (ERCOFTAC)
• Several freestream intensities investigated.
• Grid sensitivity is high for incompressible cases.

·3
Ct for FSTI =2o/o Ct Variation with FSTI
X 10
7
\ - ssTModel
"' T3A Exp. - - · Mayle 91
6 I

' ·'·.... ...... - ·-· Correlations

1000
\ I
\~
- - AG-S 82
Error in Correlations
5 '~ 0 1xPTM1
800
L Ji\, \ 0
2xPTM1
4
I \
(.)

3
"' ' .
' .._
2
....... . 400 ' ... ....._ () .....

-·-·-·-·-·-·-· ..... , '

. . -~ c: -::,_.,~ ~--·--· ~~ ·=----....~~:- =:_~=- -- c:

. . . .....
·- ·-·-·- ·-·- ·-·-·- 200 0

2 3 4 5 6 7
Rex 5 0.5 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
x10 FSTI

29
 Boundary Layer Transition Model
Hypersonic Validation
Hypersonic Validation:
• Mach 7.93, 7 degree straight cone investigated in AEDC Tunnel B, Tw I T 0 = 0.42.
• Heat transfer measurements by Kimmel, JFE 1997.
Integrated heat transfer: Transition-SST (6. 7°/o error), Fully turbulent SST (18 .5 °/o

l
•
error).
0.01
... Re/ m = 3.3E6
• Re/ m = 3.9E6
• Re/m = 6.6E6
=
+

- - -
Re/m 8.2E6
SST- fully turbulent
SST- transition, C PTMI = 1.0
I
- -- ---- SST - transition, C PTMI =2.0
' - - - -- --- __j

-
en .' ' --~- - ~--• •·...,..,.
0.001 r '
:.
~/
•
it•
...
~~ ot..t : •• I
~·'"'•••
... '*'- ~... • • ...' 1-~il I
.. ~-!t ......~· ••
....... -~+ I
+ ...... +
.......
.......

1E+06 1E+07

30
 Transition Modeling Conclusions

• RANS-based models only applicable for bypass transition

situations.
• Free-flight transition is normally modal growth -a reliable RANS-
based method is not likely promising.
• LES is not promising either because accurately capturing the
small disturbances is crucial -which LES will model/smear.
• Long Term Prospects- DNS, eN methods.

31
 Shock-Wave Turbulent Boundary
Layer Interactions (SWTBLis)
• Pervasive to the entire hypersonic propulsion flowpath.
• Major challenge to RANS, LES and hybrid RANS-LES techniques.
• Nominally 20 problems are inherently 30.

--~> # $"

32
•

UFAST- Mach 2.25 Test Case

• 2010 AIAA Workshop: UFAST and U. of Michigan cases, targeted
at representing supersonic aircraft inlets.
• Several organizations submitted results - RANS, LES, hybrids
--- -·----- . --------- -. -- - - ---
z

L,

I I I I I - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
200 250 300 350 400 450 500
X (mm)

33
 U Velocity Contours
Experiment:

300 320 x (mm) 340 360

SST: BSL:
20 1- 20 r- I
~-. . .~~~~:.;;;-~50;;5=
0 ~1~
5 fl_25_0 _35_0_450 5_ 5_0
e
.§.10
e • --~--~--~
.§.10 ~------------~
> >

.-~~-

300 320 x (mm) 340 360 300 320 x (mm) 340

SA: k-mASM:
20 I

• _ U LmJ~: -50 50 150 250 350 450 550 I

e
.§.1 0
>

0 28~0~----~3~
00~---·~3~2~
0~x-(_
m_m_)~34~0~----~
360 300 320 x (mm) 340 360

34
 UFAST Velocity Contours
Exploring minor change to Menter SST model's stress limiter.
Experiment Menter SST k-OJ, a 1 = 0.34
20

E' E'
.§.10 §.10
>- >-

300 360

Menter SST k-m Menter SST k-OJ, a 1 = 0.355

20 20

E' E'
§.10 .§.10
>- >-

0 28~
0--~--~
30~0~~--~
32~0--x-(m
_m_)~34~0------~
360
360

Menter BSL k-OJ Menter SST k-OJ, a 1 =0.37

20 20

E'
I U (m/s): -50 50 150 250 350 450 550 I E'
I U (m/s): -50 50 150 250 350 450 550 I
§.10 §.10
>- >-
 Mach 5 SWTBLI

'\ •0 Schulein, et al. (1996)

Schulein (2004) [optical]
I \
SST

r\ Wilcox k-oJ (1988 model)

Chien k-E
ASM k-E
0.008 l \, ASM k-w

<.) I . 0 0
c
•
-
.2 0.006
0
'i:
u.
0.004
I 0 0
•
() c
•
0

0.002

0.000

-0.002 L...-....I....---L.-~_,j_--L-..l-..__J_____J._.J___l...___J._..J._..J____.J._..._..J____.J._...l.,___J__j
300 350 400 450 500
x (mm)

37
 SWTBLI Modeling Conclusions

• k-c: models are generally overly optimistic on boundary layer

health -smaller separations than expt.
• k-co models usually work better for mild adverse pressure
gradients, small separations, Menter SST predicts larger
separations than expt.
• One equation models (i.e. SA) provide similar accuracy to multi-
equation models.
• EASMs offer minimal improvement.
• Some success using LES at AIM Workshop, inflow conditions &
matching Re are significant challenges.
• Hybrid RANS-LES also being investigated - however, where is
the switch from RANS to LES done?

38
• Several interacting phenomena - kinetics, turbulence, heat
transfer, thermal-structural effects.
• Practical state-of-the-art: Arrhenius form for reaction rates, 2 eqn
turbulence model, constant Prt, Set. Specified wall temperatures
or heat fluxes.
• Most practical scramjet experiments: only centerline pressures

University of Virginia Supersonic

Combustion Facility (UVA SCF):
u
available; More data and/or unit problems are desirable.
Mach 2 nozzle / ramp injector

Side View

~isolator
• Mach 5 enthalpy, Mach 2 isolator
• overall pressure ratio- 4
( I ""~ combustionI
• H2 fueled, clean air and vitiated air. duct
• Documented heat transfer rates and
wall temperatures.
• NASA-sponsored experiments
- - - - - - - - --- -- --- -El- -1------------- Top View
focused on mode transition behavior.
• Continuing experiments through
National Center.
X IH: -55.60 -47.72 -5.85 9.97 57.77

39
 Turbulent transport in energy
and species equations
Turbulent heat flux:

Turbulent Prandtl number:

Turbulent species flux:

Turbulent Schmidt number: SeT == ~

D
The turbulent Prandtl and Schmidt number are frequently set
equal to 0.9. However, it is believed that realistic values can
be significantly different for many flows- particularly in
extreme environments such as scramjets.

40
 Set Sensitivity for UVA SCF

~= 0.26, Clean Air

x/H = -45 Beginning of
isolator
x/H = 0 Fuel exit/
ramp base
x/H = 57 Nozzle exit to Expt., Clean Air
- - - Wind-US, Pr1:.9, Sc1:.5
ambient -·--------· Wind-US, Pr1=.9, Sc1=.7
- - - Wind-US, Pr1=.9, Sc1=.9

..
'

.
..
..
- 2.5
~
a.
........ .
a. 2 ..

1.5

x/H

41
 Prt and Set Sensitivity for USAF

Fuel Injectors Cavity Flameholder ~

--~------------------~~:;~~~_c~~~~~~----~------------~~1
~ I
Facility Nozzle lsola1or Combustor Aft Nozzle

300.0
275.0
250.0
225.0

1250.0

...~ 1000.0

750.0
100.0
75.0 Pr1::0.89, Sc.=0.5
500.0 Pr1=0.89, Sc1=0-5
50.0 Pr1=1.8, Sct=O.S Prtm1.8, Sct•O.S
250.0 Prt=0.89, Sc1z0.25
25.0 Pr,~0.89, Sct=0.25

O.Q1~2-L.I...I...i::-L..L..J.....I.~l....L..L.~...L.U:-'-'-~.L...L...I.~l....L..L.~..I...L.l~~

An ~optimized" Prt and Set for one case do

not guarantee optimal performance for Figure: Courtesy of Robert A. Baurle, NASA LaRC
other ¢ 's, turb. models, kinetics, etc. 42
 Prt Sensitivity for USAF Scramjet

Pr,= 1.8
Figure: Courtesy of Robert A. Baurle, NASA LaRC
43
 Burrows-Kurkov "Unit" Test Case

• Mach 2.4 vitiated air I sonic hydrogen experiment (1973).

• Used extensively for investigations/validation of H2 -air CFD methods
(kinetics, variable Prt, Set, hybrid RANS-LES ... ), perhaps overused.
• Measurements of species concentrations and temperatures.
Test section intermediate
meas uremer:1t station,
Test section initial 18. 3 em Test section exit
measurement station, measurement station,
0 em 35.6 em

~~~mn~~~k4~~
Static pressure ports
.----18.18.3 em-- · ·· ~
t--------35. 6em--------+

44
 Set Effects on Ignition Point for
Burrow-Kur kov Test Case
Prt =0. 7 (constant) for all cases
10

Set= 0.5
-
-
E
()
5
>

Oo~~:5~~~1:o~~1~5~~~~o:=::2:5::::3:o~~~35
x (em)
T(K) I
10 2200 I

-E
()
1950
• 11oo I
1450 i
12oo I
-> 5
Set= 0.7 ~~~ I
450

0o~~~5~~:1o~~~15~~~~o~==*-25~~3~o~.--j
200
- J

x (em)

T(K) I
10 2200

-E
()
1950
1700
1450
1200

Set= 0.9 -> 5 950

700
450

0 o~~~5~~:10~~~15~~;~0~~*-25~==3~0~~3~5
200

x (em)

45
 Hybrid RANS/LES Calcu lations of UVA
=
Dual-M ode Scram jet, <I> 0.17

____ __ - ...
- ~- --
Tempera ture

Eddy
viscosit y

Figure: Courtesy of Jack Edwards, NCSU

46
 Hybrid RANS/LES Calculations of UVA
Dual-Mode Scramjet, <I> =0.17
CARS comparisons (temperature): (X/H =6, 12, 18)

X/H=6

X/H=12

X/H=18

ZM

RANS LES/RANS CARS LES/RANS

(interpolated)
Figure: Courtesy of Jack Edwards, NCSU
47
 Compressible Mixing

• Most recent free shear layer mixing research has been in support of jet
aeroacoustics research (subsonics and supersonics).
• Practical state-of-the-art for RANS is also two-equation modeling.
• Some research in variable Prt for hot jet cases.

• Most research support is towards LES-based methods.

• Key LES issues:
1. Inflow boundary treatment
2. Grid resolution/sensitivity
3. Farfield noise propagation techniques.

48
 Jets and Mixing - RANS

RANS Findings:
• RANS underpredict mixing for incompressible jets - initial shear layer is difficulty.
• Uncorrected RANS models overpredict mixing rate for supersonic jets and mixing layers.
• Effects of temperature and 30 jet effects are not modeled correctly.
• Compressibility corrections (i.e. Sarkar) are highly empirical and do not reproduce correct
fluid dynamic effects.

Mach 0.5 Jet Mach 2.0 Jet

1.2
0 Seln er Data
1.1 ' - - SST
- - SST-V, CFL3D - - - - - - SST w ith Sarkar
~,W~~~.~ ---,
0.8 t-----+----'~
- -
c
- - SST-V, WINO
exp
0 '-'
- - Chten k·r.
- ----- Chien k· • with Sarkar
0
oo \:, ' - - - - -- -- - - . . . . . J
0.9 0 ,,
0 ..
0 \
0.6 0.8 €1 \
o;
Ci =:J- . 0 "
::::>- 0 '~,
.........
....... 0.7 0 ':,
:l 0 '',
0.4 0.6 0
0
',',
' '
0 ' .. :.....
0.5 o<S> ', ',
O.o ', ',

0.2 0.4 CJ 0
0
'->-'''
0 '
0
0.3 0

00 5 10 15 20 0.2 L-L-.L...-~...L....J......J.......L.~....L..J.-L...:J......J...._L......i...-.L..-J....::b....!....=
x/Dlot

49
 Jet Mixing - LES

• Acoustic Reference Nozzle (ARN) and Simple Metal Chevron (SMC)

configurations- tested at GRC, investigated by several LES researchers.
• Two Mach 0.9 jet simulations considered here: (1) DeBonis (GRC) DRP with 4
stage RK, 3.5 - 9.2 million points and (2) Uzun (FSU), 4th order compact scheme
with 4 stage RK, 50- 400 million points.
DeBonis {GRC) grid:

50
 ,.;.\) [1'11(·

ARN - Centerline Statistics (GRC} ~

Axial Turbulent Intensity Radial Turbulent Intensity

Mean Axial Velocity

1.2

0.2 - - - Coarse Grid 0.2 - - - Coarse Grid

- - - Medium Grid - - - Medium Grid
Fine Grid - - FineGrid
D Experiment o Experiment

0.15 0.15

0.8
-;:)-
:::-
:J 0.1
0.6

--- Coarse Grid

0.4
- -- Medium Grid
- -- - Fine Grid
c Experiment

0·2 o~--'---'----'---=-
5 __.___._.......___,__.,..,o=--'"---'----'---'---,1:'=-5_,__,__._~2o·
15 20
x/Di

Figure: Courtesy of Jim DeBonis, NASA GRC

51
 Turbulence Intensity

Axial Turbulent Intensity

0 0.04 0.08- 0.12
- --
0.16 0.2

1.5
Q) ·- 1
c: 0
';:::
t;: 0.5

5 0
1.5
,....;
a. 0-
>< ';::: 0.5
Q)

0
5
x/D;

Radial Turbulent Intensity 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

1.5
Q) ·- 1
c: ~
t;: 0.5

5 10 15
1.5 ~ --· - - --
...,a. 0- 1I
>< ';:::
Q) 0.5 ' l
01 --'
0 5 10 15
Figure: Courtesy of Jim DeBonis, NASA GRC x/Di
OL
 1.2
1.1
1
0.9
·--, 0.8
~
.......... 0.7
~

·--
~
:... 0.6
~
,..,
(;) 0.5
~~
0.4
SMCOOO Round Jet Experbnent
0.3 Coarse Mesh (50M Points) - Turbulent Inflow
0.2 Fine Mesh (400M Points) - Turbulent inflow
0.1 Fine Mesh (400M Points)- Laminar inflow
00 5 10 15 20
x!D.J

Figure: Courtesy of Ali Uzun, FSU

53
Figure: Courtesy of Ali Uzun, FSU
54
 Combustor/Exhaust System
Modeling Enhancement Needs
• RANS:
- Better prediction of 30, compressible mixing; highly separated/recirculating
flow in flameholder/cavity, SWTBLis, turbulent-chemistry interactions.
- More accurate boundary conditions for thermal state.
- Variable Prt and Set capability.
• LES:
- Capability to handle wall bounded and free shear layer regions. Hybrid
RANS/LES methods are under investigation - but location of RANS-to-LES
switch has significant effect.
- Significant uncertainty remains in how to best perform jet/mixing
simulations. Highly desirable to establish "best practices" if possible.
- Models for turbulent/chemistry interactions, i.e. Filtered Density Functions
(FDFs).

55
 Exper imenta l -Valid ation Data Needs

• Centerl ine pressu re distribu tions are not sufficie nt for validati on I
calibra tion of turbu lent flow CFD. There are too many interac ting
feature s in scramj et flowpa ths- unlike subson ic/trans onic
aerody namics .
• More comple te turbule nt statisti cs for momen tum, therma l, and
species transpo rt are needed .
• -A dvance d Diagno stics-: CARS, PLIF, PIV- for unit problem s, then
more comple x cases.
• Quanti fy uncert ainty- e.g. PIV is powerf ul techniq ue, but prone to
high uncerta inty in crucial regions such as initial mixing regions .
• Consid er revisitin g experim ents such as Burrow s-Kurk ov with the
advanc ed techniq ues.
• Design experim ents to avoid contam ination of focus region - i.e.
SWBLI cases - nearly all experim ents are in small tunnels where
sidewa ll separa tions domina te region of interes t.

56
 Con clus ions

• Many extre mely diffic ult chall enge s rema in in turbu lence mode ling
for air-b reath ing prop ulsio n flows .
• Statu s of RANS Mode ling for high spee d prop ulsio n flowp aths:
Not much adva ncem ent in pract ical state -of-th e-art in 2 deca des.
• Dom inant featu res of 3-D flow, large sepa ratio ns, SWT BLis,
chem ically react ing flow, comp ressi bility , turbu lent trans port of
heat and spec ies - overw helm the capa bilitie s of curre nt RANS
meth ods.
• Twea king one turbu lence mode ling para mete r while holdi ng all
other s fixed until cente rline press ure distr ibutio n matc hes
expe rimen tal data (typic al pract ice for scram jets) is of minim al
value .
• LES and relate d meth ods are demo nstra ting some prom ise, but
have their own mode ling issue s and (1) are not of suffic ient
matu rity for most prob lems , (2) comp uting powe r is not read ily
avail able to use in a prod uctio n engin eerin g envir onme nt, (3)
minim al cons isten cy betw een grou ps in how to achie ve most
accu rate resul ts.

57