Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-h4f6x Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-23T14:49:05.956Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A turbulence model study of separated 3Djet/afterbody flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

R. G. M. Hasan ,
J. J. McGuirk ,
D. D. Apsley  and
M. A. Leschziner
R. G. M. Hasan
Affiliation:
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
J. J. McGuirk
Affiliation:
Loughborough University, Loughborough, UK
D. D. Apsley
Affiliation:
Department of Civil Engineering, UMIST Manchester, UK
M. A. Leschziner
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, London, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three-dimensional RANS calculations and comparisonswith experimental data are presented for subsonicand transonic flow past a non-axisymmetric(rectangular) nozzle/afterbody typical of thosefound in fast-jet aircraft. The full details of thegeometry have been modelled, and the flow domainincludes the internal nozzle flow and the jetexhaust plume. The calculations relate to twofree-stream Mach numbers of 0-6 and 0-94 and havebeen performed during the course of a collaborativeresearch programme involving a number of UKuniversities and industrial organisations. The closeinteraction between partners contributed greatly tothe elimination of computational inconsistencies andto rational decisions on common grids and boundaryconditions, based on a range of preliminarycomputations. The turbulence models used in thestudy include linear and non-linear eddy-viscositymodels. For the lower Mach number case, the flowremains attached and all of the turbulence modelsyield satisfactory pressure predictions. However,for the higher Mach number, the flow over theafterbody is massively separated, and the effect ofturbulence model performance is pronounced. It isobserved that non-linear eddy-viscosity modellingprovides improved shock capturing and demonstratessignificant turbulence anisotropy. Among the lineareddy-viscosity models, the SST model predicts thebest surface pressure distributions. The standardk -ε model gives reasonableresults, but returns a shock location which is toofar downstream and displays a delayed recovery. Theflow field inside the jet nozzle is not influencedby turbulence modelling, highlighting theessentially inviscid nature of the flow in thisregion. However, the resolution of internal shockcells for identical grids is found to be dependenton the solution algorithm -specifically, whether itsolves for pressure or density as a main dependentvariable. Density-based time-marching schemes arefound to return a better resolution of shockreflection. The paper also highlights the urgentneed for more detailed experimental data in thistype of flow.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 108 , Issue 1079 , January 2004 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2004 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. AGARD 1986, Aerodynamics of 3D aircraft afterbodies, AGARD Advisory Report, (226).Google Scholar
2. AGARD 1995, Aerodynamics of 3D aircraft afterbodies, AGARD Advisory Report, (318).Google Scholar
3. Putnam, L.E. and Mercer, C.E., Pitot-pressure measurements in flow fields behind a rectangular nozzle with exhaust jet for free-stream Mach numbers of 00, 0.60 and 0.94, 1986, NASA TM-88990.Google Scholar
4. Apsley, D.D. and Leschziner, M.A, Advanced turbulence modelling of separated flow in a diffuser, 1999, Flow Turbulence and Combustion, 63, pp 81–112.Google Scholar
5. Apsley, D.D. and Leschziner, M.A. Investigation of advanced turbulence models for the flow in a generic wing-body junction, 2001, Flow Turbulence and Combustion (in press).Google Scholar
6. Hasan, R.G.M. and Mcguirk, J.J. Assessment of turbulence model performance for transonic flow over an axisymmetric bump, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, (1043), pp 17–31.Google Scholar
7. Carson, G.T. and Lee, E.E. Experimental and analytical investigation of axisymmetric supersonic cruise nozzle geometry at Mach numbers from 0.60 to 1.30, 1981, NASA TP 1953.Google Scholar
8. Reubush, D.E. Effects of finess and closure ratios on boattail drag on circular-arc-afterbody models with jet exhaust at Mach numbers up to 1.3, 1973, NASA TN D-7168.Google Scholar
9. Reubush, D.E. The effect of Reynolds number on boattail drag, AIAA Paper 75-63, AIAA 13th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, 1975.Google Scholar
10. Bachalo, W.D. and Johnson, D.A. Transonic turbulent boundary-layer separation generated on an axisymmetric flow model, 1986, AIAA J, 24, pp 437–443.Google Scholar
11. Baldwin, B.S. and Lomax, H. Thin layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows, 1978, AIAA Paper 78–257.Google Scholar
12. Goldberg, U.C., Separated flow treatment with a new turbulence model, AIAA J, 1986, 24, pp 1711–1713.Google Scholar
13. Peace, A.J., Turbulent flow predictions for afterbody/nozzle geometries including base effects, J Prop and Power, 1991, 7, (3), pp 396–403.Google Scholar
14. Newbold, C.M. Solution to the Navier-Stokes equations for turbulent transonic flows over axisymmetric afterbodies, 1990, Report ARA TR 90–16.Google Scholar
15. Carlson, J.R., Pao, S.P., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. and Jones, W.T. Aerodynamic performance predictions of single and twin jet afterbodies, AIAA Paper 95-2622, 1995.Google Scholar
16. Compton, W.B. Comparison of turbulence models for nozzle-afterbody flows with propulsive jets, NASA TP-3592, 1996.Google Scholar
17. Carlson, J.R., High Reynolds number analysis of flat plate and separated afterbody flow using non-linear turbulence models, AIAA Paper 95-2622 1996,.Google Scholar
18. Loyau, H., Batten, P. and Leschziner, M.A. Modelling shock/boundary-layer interaction with nonlinear eddy viscosity closures, Flow Turbulence and Combustion, 1998, 60, pp 257–282.Google Scholar
19. Batten, P., Clarke, N., Lambert, C. and Causon, D.M., 1997, On the choice of wave speeds for the HLLC Riemann solver, SIAM J Sci and Stat Comp, 1997, 18, (6), pp. 1553–1570.Google Scholar
20. Leschziner, M.A., Batten, P. and Craft, T.J. Reynolds-stress modelling of transonic afterbody flows, Aeronaut J, 2001, 105, (1048), pp 297–306.Google Scholar
21. Barakos, G. and Drikakis, D. 2000, Investigation of non-linear eddyviscosity models in shock/boundary-layer interaction, AIAA J, 38, pp. 461–469.Google Scholar
22. Berrier, B.L. A selection of experimental test cases for the validation of CFD codes, Technical report, 1988, AGARD AR-303, 2.Google Scholar
23. Menter, F.R., Two-equation eddy-viscosity models for transonic flows, AIAA J, 1994, 32, pp 1598–1605.Google Scholar
24. Compton, W.B., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. and Abeyounis, W.K. Comparison of algebraic turbulence models for afterbody flows with jet exhaust, 1992, AIAA J, 30, pp 2716–2722.Google Scholar
25. Compton, W.B., Abdol-Hamid, K.S. Navier-Stokes simulations of transonic afterbody flows with jet exhaust, 1990, AIAA Paper 90–3057.Google Scholar
26. Jones, W.P. and Launder, B. E. The prediction of laminarization with a two-equation model of turbulence, 1972, Int J Heat and Mass Transfer, 15, pp 301–314.Google Scholar
27. Wilcox, D. C., Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence models, AIAA J, 1988, 26, pp 1299–1310.Google Scholar
28. Craft, T. J., Launder, B.E. and Suga, K. Prediction of turbulent transitional phenomena with a non-linear eddy-viscosity model, 1997, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 18, pp 15–28.Google Scholar
29. Apsley, D. D. and Leschziner, M.A. A new low-Re non-linear twoequation turbulence model for complex flows, Int J Heat Fluid Flow, 1998, 19, pp 209–222.Google Scholar