You are on page 1of 25

Modelling LaminarTurbulent Transition Processes

Gilles Eggenspieler, Ph. D. Senior Product Manager
1 © 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

What is Laminar-Turbulent Transition in Wall Boundary Layers?
• Laminar boundary layer
– – – – Layered flow without any (or low level) of disturbances Only at moderate Reynolds numbers Low wall shear stress and low heat transfer Prone to separation under weak pressure gradients

• Turbulent boundary layer:
– – – – Chaotic three-dimensional unsteady disturbances present At moderate to high Reynolds numbers High wall shear stress and heat transfer Much less prone to separation under pressure gradients

• Laminar-Turbulent Transition:
– Disturbances inside or outside the laminar boundary layer trigger instability – Small disturbances grow and eventually become dominant – Laminar boundary layer switches to turbulent state (Flat plate transitional Reynolds numbers ~104 – 106)
2 © 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

Effects of Transition • Wall shear stress – Higher wall shear for turbulent flows (more resistance in pipe flow. Inc. …) • Heat transfer – Heat transfer is strongly dependent on state of boundary layer – Much higher heat transfer in turbulent boundary layer Laminar separation • Separation behaviour – Separation point/line can change drastically between laminar and turbulent flows. – Turbulent flow much more robust than laminar flow. 2012 Turbulent separation . Stays attached even at larger pressure gradients • Efficiency – Axial turbo machines perform different in laminar and turbulent stage – Wind turbines have different characteristics – Small scale devices change characteristics depending on flow regime 3 © 2011 ANSYS. higher drag for airfoils. May 14.

1991 May 14. .5%) • Typical Examples: – – – – Wind Turbine blades Fans of jet engines Helicopter blades Any aerodynamic body moving in still air 2 Tu = 3 Uδ kδ ⋅ 100% Picture from White: Viscous Fluid Flow. Inc. McGraw Hill. 2012 4 © 2011 ANSYS.Natural Transition • Low freestream turbulence ( Tu~0-0.

Bypass Transition External disturbance leading to instability • Bypass transition ( Tu~ 0. E.510%) • High freestream turbulence forces the laminar boundary layer into transition far upstream of the natural transition location • Typical Examples: – Turbomachinery flows – All flows in high freestream turbulence environment (internal flows) 5 © 2011 ANSYS.: Visualization of BypassTransition Simulations using Particles (ZAMM) . Heiken. R. Laurien. Demuth. 2012 Turbulent spot Picture from: S. May 14. Inc.

Leads to a very rapid growth of disturbances and to transition. 2012 . wind turbines.Separation Induced Transition Strong Inflexional Instability Produces Turbulence in the Boundary Layer Most important transition mechanism in engineering flows! • • • • • • 6 Laminar boundary layer separates and attaches as turbulent boundary layer Transition takes place after a laminar separation of the boundary layer. Inc. If flow is computed fully turbulent. the separation is missed entirely. axial turbomachines. helicopter blades. Examples: fans. Can occur in any device with a pressure gradients in the laminar region. May 14. © 2011 ANSYS.

May 14. 2012 . Inc.Transition Model Requirements • Compatible with modern CFD code: – – – – – Unknown application Complex geometries Unknown grid topology Unstructured meshes Parallel codes – domain decomposition Laminar Flow Fully Turbulent • Requirements: – Different transition mechanisms – Natural transition – Bypass transition – … – Robust – No excessive grid resolution Transitional 7 © 2011 ANSYS.

Challenges Transition Modelling • Combination of linear and non-linear physical processes • Linear process can be captured by linear stability analysis – Coupling of Navier-Stokes code with laminar boundary layer code and stability analysis code – very complex – Empirical criterion (en) required – Only applicable to simple and known geometries (airfoils) – Cannot capture all physical effects (no bypass transition) – Not suitable for general-purpose CFD codes • RANS Models – Have failed historically to predict correct transition location – Low Reynolds number models have been tested for decades but proved unsuitable • Local Correlation based Transition Models (LCTM) – Developed by ANSYS to resolve gap in CFD feature matrix (γ-ReΘ model) 8 © 2011 ANSYS. Inc. May 14. 2012 .

May 14.Machinery: Non-local formulations Algebraic Operations: • • • • Find stagnation point Move downstream from boundary layer profile to boundary layer profile Compute ReΘ for each profile Obtain ReΘt from correlation using Tu and λΘ at boundary layer edge and compare with ReΘ If ReΘ > ReΘt activate turbulence model Avoid any algebraic formulation and formulate conditions locally Use only transport equations (like in turbulence model) Transition onset u θ =∫ U 0 δ  u 1 − dy  U Reθ = ρUθ µ Tu = 2k / 3 U Re θ ≥ Re θ t Reθ t = 400Tu −5 / 8 • New Formulation (LCTM): • • 9 © 2011 ANSYS. 2012 . Inc.

Inc. May 14. λΘ ) 10 © 2011 ANSYS.Transition Onset Correlations Transition onset is affected by: − Free-stream turbulence − turbulence intensity (Tu=FSTI) Pressure gradients (λθ) ρUθ Reθ = µ θ =∫ δ u U 0  u 1 − dy  U Right: Correlation of AbuGhannam and Shaw − Low Tu – late transition − − (natural transition High Tu early transition (bypass transition) Effect of pressure gradient Reθ t Reθt = f (Tu . 2012 .

Inc. May 14. 2012 .ANSYS Model based on Intermittency • Intermittency: • Laminar flow: • Turbulent flow • Transition t turb γ = t lam + t turb γ =0 γ =1 0 <γ <1 • Goal is transport equation for γ using exp. correlations and local formulation 11 © 2011 ANSYS.

12 © 2011 ANSYS. 0 − F θ t θt ) ) t= 500 µ ρU 2 • The function Fonset requires the critical Reynolds number from the correlation Reθt = f (Tu .Transport Equation for Reθt ~ ~ ∂ U R e θt ρ ∂ ρ R e θt ∂ j + = Pθ t + ∂t ∂x j ∂x j Pθ t = c θ t ( ) ( ) ~  ∂ R e θt ( ) + σ µ µ  θt t ∂x j       ρ t (Re ~ − R e θ t (1 . λΘ ) • Tu and λΘ are computed at the boundary layer edge – non-local • Second transport equation required to transport information on ReΘt into the boundary layer (by diffusion term) • This second transport equation will be eliminated din future versions of the mode. 2012 . Inc. May 14.

1.Modification to SST Turbulence Model ∂ ∂ ∂ ~ ~ ( ρk ) + ( ρu j k ) = Pk − Dk + ∂t ∂x j ∂x j   (µ + σ k µ t ) ∂k  ∂x j      Pk = µ t S 2 Dk = β * ρkω % = min ( max(γ . 2012 .1). Inc. May 14.0 ) D D k k % =γP P k k • The intermittency γ is introduced into the source terms of the ST turbulence model • At the critical Reynolds number the SST model is activated • Main effect is through production term Pk 13 © 2011 ANSYS. 0.

2012 . occurs − Locally Intermittency can be larger than one γ-ReΘ Model 14 © 2011 ANSYS. e.l. improvements for Natural transition • Modification for Separation Induced Transition − Forces rapid transition once laminar sep.g.Summary Transition Model Formulation • 2 Transport Equations − Intermittency (γ) Equation Fraction of time of turbulent vs laminar flow Transition onset controlled by relation between vorticity Reynolds number and Reθt − Transition Onset Reynolds number Equation (will be removed from future versions) Used to pass information about freestream conditions into b. Inc. impinging wakes • New Empirical Correlation − Similar to Abu-Ghannam and Shaw. May 14.

5 % (~ 39000 hexahedra) 15 Mesh guidelines: • y+ < 1 • wall normal expansion ratio ~1.Flat Plate Results: dp/dx=0 T3A: FSTI = 3.1 • good resolution of streamwise direction © 2011 ANSYS. 2012 . May 14. Inc.

Inc.9 % Schubauer and Klebanoff FSTI = 0.18 % 16 © 2011 ANSYS. 2012 . May 14.5 % T3A FSTI = 3.Flat Plate Results: dp/dx=0 T3B FSTI = 6.5 % T3AFSTI = 0.

5 % T3C2 FSTI = 2.Flat Plate Results: dp/dx (variation in Re number) T3C5 FSTI = 2.5 % T3C3 FSTI = 2.5 % 17 © 2011 ANSYS. Inc. 2012 . May 14.5 % T3C4 FSTI = 2.

May 14. 2012 . Inc.5 % 18 © 2011 ANSYS.Comparison CFX-Fluent T3C2 (transition near suction peak) FSTI = 2.5 % T3C4 (separation induced transition) FSTI = 2.

Inc.Aerospatial A Airfoil • Transition on suction side due to laminar separation • Transition model predicts that effect • Important: − The wall shear stress in the region − − past transition is higher than in the fully turbulent simulation The turbulent boundary layer can therefore overcome the adverse pressure gradient better Less separation near trailing edge 19 © 2011 ANSYS. May 14. 2012 .

2 C = 0.526 Error: 6. = 0.= -0.068 Exp.1 % Tu Contour Main lower transition: CFX = 0.McDonnell Douglas 30P-30N 3Element Flap Re = 9 million Mach = 0.931 Error: 2.057 Error: 1. = 0. Inc.057 Error: 0.2 % 20 © 2011 ANSYS.1 % Flap transition: CFX = 0.909 Exp.056 Exp. 2012 . = 0.587 Exp.5588 m AoA = 8° Exp. hot film transition location measured as f(x/c) Main upper transition: CFX = 0.1 % Slat transition: CFX = -0. May 14.

0 percent • Plateau indicates laminar separation bubble • Model predicts that effect • Computations performed by Suzen and Huang. 6. Inc. May 14.Separation Induced Transition for LP-Turbine Laminar separation bubble size f(Re. 2012 . 2. Tu) Transition Model Experiment Transition Model Experiment Pratt and Whitney Pak-B LP turbine blade • Rex= 50 000.25. 75 000 and 100 000 • FSTI = 0. of Kentucky Transition Model Experiment Increasing Rex 21 © 2011 ANSYS.08. Univ.

Test Cases: 3D RGW Compressor Cascade Hub Vortex Laminar Separation Bubble Tip Vortex Transition RGW Compressor (RWTH Aachen) FSTI = 1. (Yp) = 0. May 14. 2012 .25 % Rex = 430 000 Loss coefficient. Inc.pooutlet)/pdynoutlet 22 © 2011 ANSYS.097 Yp = (poinlet .

pooutlet)/pdynoutlet May 14.19 • • • • • 23 © 2011 ANSYS.097 Transition Model Yp = 0.11 3D laminar separation bubble on suction side of blade Fully turbulent simulation predicts incorrect flow topology Transition model gets topology right Strong improvement in loss coefficient Yp Transitional flow has lower Yp! Yp = (poinlet . Experimental Oil Flow Yp = 0.Test Cases: 3D RGW Compressor Cascade Flow Fully Turbulent Yp = 0. 2012 . Inc.

5 million nodes for single passage The mesh with 4.92 0. 1.5 and 11.9 24 Mass Flow / Choke Mass Flow © 2011 ANSYS.94 0.94 0.98 1 1.1 experiment k-ε Mesh1 k-ε Mesh2 k-ε Mesh3 SST Total Pressure Ratio 2.2 k-epsilon Total Pressure Ratio 2. Inc.9 0. May 14.98 1 Mass Flow / Choke Mass Flow .5 million nodes provides for virtually grid-independent solution The γ-ReΘ-SST model predicts the total pressure ratio of the compressor much better then the SST and k-ε models k-ε model on the coarse mesh produces “correct” results due to error cancellation Total Pressure Ratio 2.9 0.5.96 0.4.92 0.2 2.9 1. 4.1 experiment SST+TM Mesh2 SST+TM Mesh3 0.92 0.96 0.2 SST-TM Total Pressure Ratio 2. 2012 Mass Flow / Choke Mass Flow 0.96 0.5·106 nodes 4.9 0.9 2 0.98 1 2 2 1.Examples of Validation Studies: NASA Rotor 37 test case • • • • Computations are performed on a series of hex scalable meshes with 0.94 0.4·106 nodes 1.5·106 nodes 0.5·106 nodes 11.1 experiment SST Mesh1 SST Mesh2 SST Mesh3 2.

May 14. ω • Validated for a wide range of 2-D and 3-D turbomachinery and aeronautical test cases • Computational effort is moderate. • Correlation based transition model has been developed − Based strictly on local variables − Applicable to unstructured-grid massively parallelized codes • Onset prediction is completely automatically − User must specify correct values of inlet k. Inc. 2012 . • Model implemented in CFX and Fluent 25 © 2011 ANSYS.Summary • The Local Correlation-based Transition Modelling (LCTM) concept closes a gap in the model offering of modern CFD codes • Formulation allows the combination of detailed experimental data (correlation) with transport equations for the intermittency.