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, higher drag for airfoils, )

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. 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, Inc. May 14, 2012

Turbulent separation

Natural Transition
Low freestream turbulence ( Tu~0-0.5%) Typical Examples:
Wind Turbine blades Fans of jet engines Helicopter blades Any aerodynamic body moving in still air

2 Tu =

3 U

100%
Picture from White: Viscous Fluid Flow, McGraw Hill, 1991
May 14, 2012

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Bypass Transition
External disturbance leading to instability

Bypass transition ( Tu~ 0.510%) 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, Inc. May 14, 2012

Turbulent spot

Picture from: S. Heiken, R. Demuth, Laurien, E.: Visualization of BypassTransition Simulations using Particles (ZAMM)

Separation Induced Transition

Strong Inflexional Instability Produces Turbulence in the Boundary Layer

Most important transition mechanism in engineering flows!

Laminar boundary layer separates and attaches as turbulent boundary layer Transition takes place after a laminar separation of the boundary layer. Leads to a very rapid growth of disturbances and to transition. Can occur in any device with a pressure gradients in the laminar region. If flow is computed fully turbulent, the separation is missed entirely. Examples: fans, wind turbines, helicopter blades, axial turbomachines.
2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

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

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

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 (-Re model)
8 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

Machinery: Non-local formulations

Algebraic Operations:
Find stagnation point Move downstream from boundary layer profile to boundary layer profile Compute Re for each profile Obtain Ret from correlation using Tu and at boundary layer edge and compare with Re If Re > Ret activate turbulence model Avoid any algebraic formulation and formulate conditions locally Use only transport equations (like in turbulence model) Transition onset

u = U 0

u 1 dy U

Re =

Tu =

2k / 3 U

Re Re t
Re t = 400Tu 5 / 8

New Formulation (LCTM):

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

Transition Onset Correlations

Transition onset is affected by:
Free-stream turbulence
turbulence intensity (Tu=FSTI) Pressure gradients ()

U Re =

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

Re t

Ret = f (Tu , )
10 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

ANSYS Model based on Intermittency

Intermittency: Laminar flow: Turbulent flow Transition
t turb = t lam + t turb
=0
=1
0 < <1

Goal is transport equation for using exp. correlations and local formulation
11 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

Transport Equation for Ret

~ ~ U R e t R e t j + = P t + t x j x j
P t = c t

~ R e t ( ) + t t x j

(Re

~ R e t (1 . 0 F t t

t=

500 U 2

The function Fonset requires the critical Reynolds number from the correlation Ret = f (Tu , ) Tu and are computed at the boundary layer edge non-local Second transport equation required to transport information on Ret into the boundary layer (by diffusion term) This second transport equation will be eliminated din future versions of the mode.

12

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

Modification to SST Turbulence Model

~ ~ ( k ) + ( u j k ) = Pk Dk + t x j x j ( + k t ) k x j

Pk = t S

Dk = * k
% = min ( max( , 0.1),1.0 ) D D k k

% =P P k k

The intermittency 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, Inc.

May 14, 2012

Summary Transition Model Formulation

2 Transport Equations Intermittency () Equation
Fraction of time of turbulent vs laminar flow Transition onset controlled by relation between vorticity Reynolds number and Ret

Transition Onset Reynolds number Equation (will be removed

from future versions)
Used to pass information about freestream conditions into b.l. e.g. impinging wakes

New Empirical Correlation Similar to Abu-Ghannam and Shaw, improvements for Natural transition Modification for Separation Induced Transition Forces rapid transition once laminar sep. occurs Locally Intermittency can be larger than one

-Re Model
14 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

Flat Plate Results: dp/dx=0

T3A: FSTI = 3.5 % (~ 39000 hexahedra)

15

Mesh guidelines: y+ < 1 wall normal expansion ratio ~1.1 good resolution of streamwise direction
2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

Flat Plate Results: dp/dx=0

T3B FSTI = 6.5 % T3A FSTI = 3.5 %

T3AFSTI = 0.9 %

Schubauer and Klebanoff FSTI = 0.18 %

16

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

Flat Plate Results: dp/dx (variation in Re number)

T3C5 FSTI = 2.5 % T3C2 FSTI = 2.5 %

T3C3 FSTI = 2.5 %

T3C4 FSTI = 2.5 %

17

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

Comparison CFX-Fluent
T3C2 (transition near suction peak) FSTI = 2.5 % T3C4 (separation induced transition) FSTI = 2.5 %

18

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

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, Inc.

May 14, 2012

McDonnell Douglas 30P-30N 3Element Flap

Re = 9 million Mach = 0.2 C = 0.5588 m AoA = 8 Exp. hot film transition location measured as f(x/c)
Main upper transition: CFX = 0.068 Exp. = 0.057 Error: 1.1 % Slat transition: CFX = -0.056 Exp.= -0.057 Error: 0.1 %

Tu Contour

Main lower transition: CFX = 0.587 Exp. = 0.526 Error: 6.1 % Flap transition: CFX = 0.909 Exp. = 0.931 Error: 2.2 %

20

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

Separation Induced Transition for LP-Turbine

Laminar separation bubble size f(Re, Tu)
Transition Model Experiment Transition Model Experiment

Pratt and Whitney Pak-B LP turbine blade Rex= 50 000, 75 000 and 100 000 FSTI = 0.08, 2.25, 6.0 percent Plateau indicates laminar separation bubble Model predicts that effect Computations performed by Suzen and Huang, Univ. of Kentucky

Transition Model Experiment

Increasing Rex
21 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

Test Cases: 3D RGW Compressor Cascade

Hub Vortex Laminar Separation Bubble Tip Vortex Transition

RGW Compressor (RWTH Aachen) FSTI = 1.25 % Rex = 430 000 Loss coefficient, (Yp) = 0.097 Yp = (poinlet - pooutlet)/pdynoutlet

22

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012

Test Cases: 3D RGW Compressor Cascade

Flow

Fully Turbulent Yp = 0.19

23 2011 ANSYS, Inc.

Experimental Oil Flow Yp = 0.097

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 - pooutlet)/pdynoutlet
May 14, 2012

Examples of Validation Studies: NASA Rotor 37 test case

Computations are performed on a series of hex scalable meshes with 0.4, 1.5, 4.5 and 11.5 million nodes for single passage The mesh with 4.5 million nodes provides for virtually grid-independent solution The -Re-SST model predicts the total pressure ratio of the compressor much better then the SST and k- models k- model on the coarse mesh produces correct results due to error cancellation

Total Pressure Ratio

2.2
2.2

k-epsilon
Total Pressure Ratio
2.1

experiment k- Mesh1 k- Mesh2 k- Mesh3

SST
Total Pressure Ratio
2.1

experiment SST Mesh1 SST Mesh2 SST Mesh3

2.2

SST-TM
Total Pressure Ratio
2.1

experiment SST+TM Mesh2 SST+TM Mesh3

0.4106 nodes 1.5106 nodes 4.5106 nodes 11.5106 nodes

0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1

1.9

1.9

0.9

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

1.9

2 0.9

24

Mass Flow / Choke Mass Flow 2011 ANSYS, Inc. May 14, 2012

Mass Flow / Choke Mass Flow

0.92

0.94

0.96

0.98

Mass Flow / Choke Mass Flow

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. 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, Validated for a wide range of 2-D and 3-D turbomachinery and aeronautical test cases Computational effort is moderate. Model implemented in CFX and Fluent

25

2011 ANSYS, Inc.

May 14, 2012