Application of flux vector splitting methods with SST turbulence model to wall-bounded flows

• Published in: Computers & fluids 2020-08, Vol.208, p.104611, Article 104611
• Main Authors: Manokaran, K., Ramakrishna, M., Jayachandran, T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Axisymmetric flow; Computational fluid dynamics; Configurations; Flat plates; Flow control; Fluid flow; Flux vector splitting; Incompressible flow; Laminar flow; Low speed; Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes method; Runge-Kutta method; Shear stress; Structured grids (mathematics); Supersonic flow; Three dimensional flow; Three dimensional models; Time integration; Transonic flow; Turbulence models; Turbulent flow
• ISSN: 0045-7930; 1879-0747
• DOI: 10.1016/j.compfluid.2020.104611

•Van Leer is unable to predict the skin friction coefficient at low speed flows.•Van Leer velocity profile over the transonic bump compares well with experiment.•Menters SST model under-predicts the turbulent shear stresses in the separated flow.•AUSM+-up2 perform well at low subsonic, transonic and supersonic flows.•Van Leer is free from carbuncle problem over a blunt body compared to AUSM+-up2. An explicit 3D Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes solver SURFS3D has been developed and run on a structured grid. A 4-stage Runge-Kutta (RK) method is used for the time integration and OpenMP is used to parallelize the solver. This is used as a platform to compare Van Leer’s Flux Vector Splitting Method (VLFVSM) to a variant of Liou’s Advection Upstream Splitting with velocity and pressure diffusion (AUSM+-up2). The code results are validated for wall bounded flows. Menter’s k−ω Shear Stress Transport (SST) turbulence model is employed and validated for turbulent flows. The SST turbulence model is selected due to its capability to predict the shock location and separation location in adverse pressure gradient accurately. The validation cases are laminar and turbulent incompressible flows and turbulent supersonic flow over flat plate, transonic flow over an axisymmetric bump, and supersonic flow over a blunt bi-conic configuration. It is observed that VLFVSM+SST lacks accurate viscous prediction capability for the wall-bounded flows at low speeds compared to AUSM +-up2+SST, which works well at low speed. In transonic flow conditions, both schemes perform well. AUSM +-up2 scheme exhibits mild carbuncle problem for Mach 3.0 flow over a blunt biconic configuration, whereas, VLFVSM is free from this problem. Overall, the SST turbulence model performance is good for all the validation cases studied.