scholarly journals Turbulent inflow conditions for large-eddy simulation based on low-order empirical model

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (7) ◽  
pp. 075107 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurent Perret ◽  
Joël Delville ◽  
Rémi Manceau ◽  
Jean-Paul Bonnet
Keyword(s):  
Large Eddy Simulation ◽  
Empirical Model ◽  
Eddy Simulation ◽  
Turbulent Inflow ◽  
Simulation Based ◽  
Large Eddy ◽  
Inflow Conditions ◽  
Low Order

Turbulent Inflow Conditions for Large-Eddy-Simulation of Compressible Wall-Bounded Flows

AIAA Journal ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 469-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Sagaut ◽  
Eric Garnier ◽  
Eric Tromeur ◽  
Lionel Larcheveque ◽  
Emmanuel Labourasse
Keyword(s):  
Large Eddy Simulation ◽  
Eddy Simulation ◽  
Turbulent Inflow ◽  
Large Eddy ◽  
Wall Bounded Flows ◽  
Inflow Conditions

Large Eddy Simulation of Laminar and Turbulent Shock/Boundary Layer Interactions in a Transonic Passage

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephan Priebe ◽  
Daniel Wilkin ◽  
Andy Breeze-Stringfellow ◽  
Giridhar Jothiprasad ◽  
Lawrence C. Cheung
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Layer ◽  
Large Eddy Simulation ◽  
Low Frequency ◽  
Boundary Layer Separation ◽  
Eddy Simulation ◽  
Turbulent Inflow ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Large Eddy ◽  
Constant Radius ◽  
Structure Boundary

Abstract Shock/boundary layer interactions (SBLI) are a fundamental fluid mechanics problem relevant in a wide range of applications including transonic rotors in turbomachinery. This paper uses wall-resolved large eddy simulation (LES) to examine the interaction of normal shocks with laminar and turbulent inflow boundary layers in transonic flow. The calculations were performed using GENESIS, a high-order, unstructured LES solver. The geometry created for this study is a transonic passage with a convergent-divergent nozzle that expands the flow to the desired Mach number upstream of the shock and then introduces constant radius curvature to simulate local airfoil camber. The Mach numbers in the divergent section of the transonic passage simulate single stage commercial fan blades. The results predicted with the LES calculations show significant differences between laminar and turbulent SBLI in terms of shock structure, boundary layer separation and transition, and aerodynamic losses. For laminar flow into the shock, significant flow separation and low-frequency unsteadiness occur, while for turbulent flow into the shock, both the boundary layer loss and the low-frequency unsteadiness are reduced.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document