Numerical Investigation of the Effect of Different Inflow Conditions on Turbulent Boundary Layer Flow Characteristics using Large-Eddy Simulation

Authors

1 Mechanical Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran

3 Department of Aerospace Engineering, Shahid Sattari Aeronautical University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

In this study, the impacts of three different inflow conditions on turbulent boundary layer characteristics over a flat plate was numerically investigated. The investigated boundary conditions are uniform velocity profile at inlet with turbulent generation using strip, precursor-based simulation model (TVMF) and rescaling/recycling model purposed by Lund, which are applicable in large-eddy simulation (LES). The simulations are done using LES with dynamic smagorinsky coefficient in OpenFOAM software. Validation of the numerical method was done using direct numerical data and analytical solution. Comparison of the skin friction coefficient with analytical equation shows that the maximum deviation in simulations with precursor-based, Lund and strip model are 4.3%, 4.5%, 19.2% accordingly. The numerical values and development trend of intergral thicknesses, velocity components and the other characteristics obtained through simulations using precursor-based and Lund inlet models, are in good agreement with direct numerical simulation (DNS) results while the results obtained by using the strip model are more diverse from the DNS results. The results of this study indicate that using precursor-based and Lund inflow generation models in LES produces more realistic results accompanied with reduced computational cost.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Sandberg RD, Sandham ND (2008) Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow past a trailing edge and the associated noise generation. J Fluid Mech (596): 353-385.
[2] Winkler J, Moreau S, Carolus T (2010) Airfoil trailing edge noise prediction from large-eddy simulation: influence of grid resolution and noise model formulation. 16th AIAA/CEAS aeroacoustics conference.
[3] Afshari A, Dehghan AA, Kalantar V, Farmani M (2017) Experimental investigation of surface pressure spectra beneath turbulent boundary layer over a flat plate with microphone. Modares Mech Engin 17(1): 263-272.
[4] Khujadze G, Oberlack M (2004) DNS and scaling laws from new symmetry groups of ZPG turbulent boundary layer flow. Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics 18(5): 391-411.
[5] Khujadze G, Oberlack M (2007) New scaling laws in ZPG turbulent boundary layer flow. TSFP digital library online. Begel House Inc.
[6] Marusic I et al. (2015) Evolution of zero-pressure-gradient boundary layers from different tripping conditions. J Fluid Mech (783): 379-411.
[7] Schlatter P, et al. (2009) Turbulent boundary layers up to Reθ=2500 studied through simulation and experiment. Physics of Fluids 21(5): 051702.
[8] Örlü R, Schlatter P (2011) Inflow length and tripping effects in turbulent boundary layers. Journal of Physics Conference Series 318(2): 022018.
[9] Akselvoll K, Moin P (1993) Large eddy simulation of a backward facing step flow. Engineering Turbulence Modeling and Experiments, Elsevier: 303-313.
[10] Spalart P R (1988) Direct simulation of a turbulent boundary layer up to Reθ= 1410. J Fluid Mech (187): 61-98.
[11] Lund TS, Wu X, Squires KD (1998) Generation of turbulent inflow data for spatially-developing boundary layer simulations. J Comput Physics 140(2): 233-258.
[12] Lund TS, Moin P (1996) Large-eddy simulation of a concave wall boundary layer. Int J Heat and Fluid Flow 17(3): 290-295.
[13] Simens MP, et al. (2009) A high-resolution code for turbulent boundary layers. J Comput Physics 228(11): 4218-4231.
[14] Piomelli U, Yuan J (2013) Numerical simulations of spatially developing, accelerating boundary layers. Phys Fluids 25(10): 101304.
[15] Xiao F, Dianat M, McGuirk JJ (2017) An LES Turbulent Inflow Generator using A Recycling and Rescaling Method. Flow, Turb and Combus 98(3): 663-695.
[16] Lilly DK (1992) A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid‐scale closure method. Phys Fluids A: Fluid Dyn 4(3): 633-635.
[17] Germano M, et al. (1991) A dynamic subgrid‐scale eddy viscosity model. Phys of Fluids A: Fluid Dyn 3(7): 1760-1765.
[18] Wagner C, Hüttl T, Sagaut P (2007) Large-eddy simulation for acoustics. Cambridge University Pres.: 209.
[19] Zahiri A, Roohi E (2018) Implementation of the anisotropic minimum-dissipation (AMD) sub-grid scale model in OpenFOAM and its evaluation in treating turbulent channel flow. Modares Mech Engin. 17(12): 478-484.
[20] Bodling A, et al. (2017) Numerical Investigation of Bio-Inspired Blade Designs at High Reynolds Numbers for Ultra-Quiet Aircraft and Wind Turbines. 23rd AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference.
[21] Wu X, Moin P (2009) Direct numerical simulation of turbulence in a nominally zero-pressure-gradient flat-plate boundary layer. J Fluid Mech(630): 5-41.
[22] Komminaho J, Skote M (2002) Reynolds stress budgets in Couette and boundary layer flows. Flow, Turb and Comb 68(2): 167-192.
[23] Afshari A, Azarpeyvand M, Dehghan AA, Szoke M, Maryami R (2019) Trailing edge flow manipulation using streamwise finlets. Journal of Fluid Mechanics (Accepted/In press).
[24] Rai MM, Moin P (1993) Direct numerical simulation of transition and turbulence in a spatially evolving boundary layer. J Comput Phys 109(2): 169-192.
[25] Schlatter P, ÖRlÜ R (2010) Assessment of direct numerical simulation data of turbulent boundary layers. J Fluid Mech (659): 116-126.
Journal of Solid and Fluid Mechanics
Volume 9, Issue 2
June 2019
Pages 261-274

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics