Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DOI 10.1007/s00193-009-0215-9
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Received: 13 February 2009 / Revised: 27 May 2009 / Accepted: 15 June 2009 / Published online: 8 July 2009
© Springer-Verlag 2009
123
488 S. Pirozzoli et al.
across the interacting shock, and they undergo a relaxation carried out within the framework of the European sixth
process downstream of the interaction. framework program UFAST (Unsteady effects in shock-
The interaction of a shock wave impinging on a flat plate wave-induced separation), with the main objective to vali-
turbulent boundary layer in the presence of mean flow sepa- date the use of LES and RANS models for the prediction of
ration has been experimentally investigated by Dussauge and SBLI, in particular with respect to the unsteady features.
coworkers (see [4] and references therein). The experiments
indicate the dominance of low-frequencies in the interaction
zone, which are related to the formation of a mixing layer
2 Computational strategy
near the mean separation point. With regard to the turbulence
statistical properties, the experimental data show a different
Upon suitable simplifications, the filtered- and the RANS
amplification of the tangential and normal Reynolds stresses,
equations have the same form (although the meaning of the
whose maxima are found to occur away from the wall and
variables is different), which allows to use similar strate-
to have strong association with the coherent structures of the
gies for numerical discretization [8]. In Cartesian coordinates
mixing layer.
(x1 = x corresponding to the streamwise direction, x2 = y
Experiments of SBLI under conditions of incipient flow
to the wall-normal direction, and x3 = z to the spanwise
separation have recently been performed at the Technical
direction), the equations are cast in conservation form as
University of Delft (TUD) [20–22] by means of dual PIV.
follows
Those authors have shown that, under the selected flow con-
ditions, a large region of slow-moving motion forms near the ∂ρ ∂(ρ u j)
+ = 0,
wall, with the occurrence of regions of instantaneous flow ∂t ∂x j
reversal, associated with substantial increase of the velocity u i ) ∂(ρ
∂(ρ ui u j) ∂p
fluctuations and Reynolds stress. The TUD experiments have + =−
∂t ∂x j ∂ xi
also confirmed anisotropy between the streamwise and the
∂
lateral fluctuation component (the peak value of the former +
σi j −τi j , i = 1, 2, 3,
being a factor of four larger than the latter), and a much faster ∂x j
return to equilibrium of the streamwise velocity fluctuations.
∂(ρ E) ∂(ρ E + p) uj ∂
+ = (
σi j − τi j ) ũ i
Garnier et al. [7] carried out the first large-eddy simulation ∂t ∂x j ∂x j
(LES) of an oblique shock wave impinging upon a turbulent ∂
boundary layer at conditions that mimic the experimental − q̃ j + Q j , (1)
∂x j
conditions of Dussauge et al. [4]. Those authors found gen-
erally good agreement between the computed mean global where ρ, u i , p, E, σi j and qi are the density, the velocity vec-
quantities, such as skin friction and displacement thickness, tor, the pressure, the total energy, the viscous stress tensor and
and experimental results. Mean and fluctuating longitudinal the heat flux vector, with
velocities were found to be in satisfactory agreement with
∂T
experimental data, while the Reynolds shear stress was some- σi j = 2 µ Si∗j , qi = −κ ,
what underestimated. ∂ xi
(2)
SBLI at conditions close to the ones considered by 1 ∂u i ∂u j 1 ∂u k
Si∗j = + − δi j .
Dussauge et al. [4] boundary layer has been investigated by 2 ∂x j ∂ xi 3 ∂ xk
means of direct numerical simulation (DNS) by Pirozzoli and
Grasso [13]. That study confirmed the experimental finding The molecular viscosity µ is evaluated using Sutherland’s
that turbulence amplification is primarily associated with the law, and the thermal conductivity κ is related to µ through
formation of a mixing layer, resulting in a different amplifi- κ = c p µ/Pr (Pr = 0.72). The overbar denotes the spa-
cation of turbulent kinetic energy and Reynolds shear stress. tial filtering operator for LES, and the Reynolds ensemble
The same authors [14] also proposed a simple analogy to averaging operator in the case of RANS models. The tilde
estimate the acoustic pressure load at the wall from the max- is used to denote density-weighted (Favre) averages, f =
imum of the Reynolds shear stress across the boundary layer ρ f /ρ; fluctuations with respect to Reynolds and Favre aver-
at a given location. ages are denoted with a single or double prime, respectively.
In the present paper, we report results of LES and The unresolved terms in the momentum and energy equa-
Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) turbulence mod- tions are to be interpreted as either the effect of the sub-
els under conditions similar to the ones used in the TUD grid scales of motion onto the resolved ones in LES, with
experiments. However, due to the limitations of today’s τi j = ρ ( u i u j − ui uj ), Q j = uj , or as the effect
Tuj − T
available computational resources, LES was performed at a of turbulent fluctuations on the mean flow in RANS models,
(substantially) reduced Reynolds number. The study has been with τi j = ρ u
i u j, Q j = T u j.
123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 489
2.1 Turbulence modeling The model constants are here set to cb1 = 0.1355, cb2 =
0.622, cw1 = 3.24, σ = 2/3, and the effect of the presence
A simple eddy-viscosity assumption is made for both LES of the solid wall is accounted for through the destruction term
and RANS to model τi j and Q j (last term at r.h.s. of (6)), and through the damping functions
f w , f v1 (for a full account of the model, see [23]).
1
τi j − δi j τkk = −2 ρ νt
Si∗j , (3)
3
∂T 2.2 Boundary conditions
Q j = −κt , (4)
∂ xi
Isothermal, no-slip boundary conditions are enforced at the
where νt denotes the eddy viscosity, and the turbulent thermal bottom boundary (with Tw = Taw ), and extrapolation of all
conductivity κt is determined as κt = c p ρ νt /Prt (Prt = flow variables is performed at the outlet. The shock is arti-
0.60). ficially generated by enforcing a jump in the flow variables
so as to satisfy the Rankine–Hugoniot relations at the upper
2.1.1 LES model boundary. Periodicity is enforced in the spanwise direction
to exploit homogeneity of the flow.
The mixed-time-scale subgrid-scale (SGS) model of Inagaki Large eddy simulation of turbulent flows requires the pre-
et al. [9] is selected for LES to model the effect of the SGS scription of three-dimensional, unsteady inflow boundary
motions onto the resolved ones, as it guarantees the correct conditions to get fast transition to a fully turbulent state. In the
asymptotic behavior to the eddy viscosity at solid walls with- present work we have implemented the synthetic turbulence
out using ad hoc wall damping functions. The turbulent vis- approach proposed by Sandham et al. [17], whereby time-
cosity is determined from dependent perturbations are introduced at the inlet (super-
CMTS posed onto a mean turbulent boundary layer profile), which
νt = −1
kes , (5) mimic coherent boundary layer structures. The synthetic
1 + (R CT )
√ velocity disturbances in the streamwise and wall-normal
where R = kes /( S ∗ ), and kes is the SGS turbulent directions are specified as follows
kinetic energy, kes = ( u −
u )2 . The hat symbol indicates
the test filter, derived from the trapezoidal rule [16], and ρw
4
u (x, y, z, t) = u∞ a j A1 j (y) F j (x, t) G j (z),
is the filter width. To avoid the uncertainties associated with ρ(y)
j=0
filtering in the (inhomogeneous) wall-normal direction [10],
filtering is only performed in the wall-parallel planes, and ρw
4
consistently the filter width is defined as = (x z)1/2 . v (x, y, z, t) = u∞ b j A2 j (y) F j (x, t) G j (z),
ρ(y)
As suggested by Touber and Sandham [24], the model con- j=0
stants are set to CMTS = 0.03, CT = 10. (8)
with
2.1.2 RANS model
A1 j (y) = (y/y j ) e−y/y j ,
The Spalart–Allmaras one-equation RANS model is used to
determine νt [23]. The standard formulation of the model A2 j (y) = (y/y j )2 e−(y/y j ) ,
2
123
490 S. Pirozzoli et al.
123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 491
relaxation regions. The size of the computation box is L x × temperature field in the x–y plane, reported in Fig. 2a for
L y × L z = 36δ0 × 7.4δ0 × 4.1δ0 . The computational domain LES, reveals the existence of complex organized motion in
for LES is discretized with a grid consisting of 448 × 151 × the outer part of the boundary layer, which is characterized by
141 points, and the grid resolution in wall units is + x × the occurrence of turbulent bulges inclined at an acute angle
+ yw × + = 43.5 × 1.76 × 15.54, with 90 grid points inside
z with respect to the wall. As observed experimentally both in
the boundary layer. The grid nodes are uniformly distributed subsonic and supersonic turbulent boundary layers [19] these
in the streamwise and spanwise directions and stretched in structures are separated from the surrounding essentially irro-
the wall-normal direction using a hyperbolic sine function tational fluid by sharp interfaces that have a three-dimen-
up to the edge of the computational domain. To guarantee sional character. The flow pattern observed in the RANS
a fair comparison of LES and RANS simulations, the com- simulation is much simpler, as all turbulent fluctuations are
putational grid for the RANS-LR simulation is taken to be filtered out, resulting in a steady flow.
a two-dimensional slice of the grid used for LES. The com- Figure 3 depicts the instantaneous streamwise velocity
putational grid for the RANS-HR simulation has a similar distribution is wall-parallel planes at various distances from
resolution in terms of wall units, and therefore points are the wall (zones of instantaneous flow reversal are marked
more clustered toward the wall. A series of preliminary cal- with solid lines). The figure clearly shows the occurrence of
culations has shown that the RANS solutions presented in the elongated streaky patterns of alternating high- and low-speed
following are properly grid-converged. Different turbulence in the very near-wall region upstream of the interaction zone,
models, including the k–ω [26] and the Fares–Schröder [5] whose characteristic spacing in the spanwise direction is of
model, were also considered, which gave very similar results the order of 100 wall units, and whose length is of the order of
to Spalart–Allmaras. 1,000 wall units. Inside the interaction zone, scattered spots
The statistical properties of the flow are obtained from of flow reversal are observed, which are prevalently found
LES by averaging both in time and in the spanwise direc- upstream of the nominal impingement point. Moving away
tion. The first part of the computation (lasting approximately from the wall, the structures become less elongated, and more
200 δ0 /u ∞ non-dimensional time units) was necessary to get nearly isotropic, and the probability of instantaneous flow
a statistically steady state. Time averaging has then been per- reversal decreases. The analysis of the flow animations has
formed over additional 200 time units, which allows good further shown that excursions of the instantaneous separation
convergence of flow statistics up to second order. In the fol- line from a straight shape are associated to zones of high/low
lowing, the (inviscid) impingement point of the incoming u upstream of the shock [6].
oblique shock-wave xi (placed at a distance 28.78 δ0 from
the inlet) is used as origin for the streamwise coordinates,
3.2 Statistical properties
and lengths are made non-dimensional with respect to the
99% boundary layer thickness right upstream of the interac-
To assess the validity of LES and RANS simulations upstream
tion (δr ), conventionally measured at the streamwise location
of the interaction zone, in Fig. 4 we report the distribution of
(x − x0 )/δr = −4. Flow properties taken at such reference
the Van Driest-transformed mean streamwise velocity at the
station are hereafter denoted with the subscript r .
reference station in a semi-logarithmic plot. In the figure we
Several integral parameters are reported in Table 2 to
also report the universal logarithmic wall law
characterize the state of the boundary layer upstream of the
interaction, including the skin friction coefficient C f , the 1
‘incompressible’ displacement thickness δi∗ , and the ‘incom- u+
vd = C + log y + , (10)
k
pressible’ shape factor, Hi . The size of the interaction zone
is characterized in terms of the interaction lengthscale L, where, for supersonic boundary layers C ≈ 5.2, k ≈ 0.41
defined as the distance of the nominal shock impingement [15]. Figure 4 shows the occurrence in both LES and
point from the apparent origin of the reflected shock, L = RANS simulations of a (more or less extended) layer with
xi − xo (see Fig. 1). logarithmic dependence of velocity upon the wall distance.
In agreement with many previous LES studies (e.g.
Touber and Sandham [24]) the log-layer constant is found to
3 Results be of the order of 6. As expected, LES and RANS-LR sim-
ulations are far from the experimental data (which are only
3.1 Instantaneous properties reliable starting at about y + ≈ 200) being the Reynolds num-
bers vastly different. The structure of the incoming boundary
A qualitative understanding of the flow organization can layer is rather well reproduced by the RANS-HR simulation,
be gained from the analysis of instantaneous slices of the except for a shift in the log-law constant, which is found to
flow field, as reported in Figs. 2 and 3. The instantaneous be C ≈ 6.2 in the TUD experiment.
123
492 S. Pirozzoli et al.
Fig. 2 Iso-contours of
temperature (T /T∞ ) in x–y (a)
4
plane a LES, b RANS-LR
3 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
(b)
4
0
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4
Fig. 3 Iso-contours of
streamwise velocity (u/u ∞ ) for
-.10 -.05 -.00 .05 .10 .15
LES in x–z planes at a y + = 2,
b y + = 20, c y + = 100 (the
iso-line u = 0 is shown in black) 3
0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
-.1 -.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6
0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
.0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
0
-15 -14 -13 -12 -11 -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
The distributions of the skin friction, of the ‘incom- et al. [22] did not allow direct measurements of wall prop-
pressible’ shape factor and of the mean wall pressure are erties. Thus, the skin friction and shape factor data shown in
shown in Fig. 5. Note that the PIV study of Souverein Fig. 5 are based on extrapolation of the available data inside
123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 493
35 0.003
30 0.0025
0.002
(a)
25
0.0015
20
0.001
15 0.0005
10 0
-0.0005
5
-0.001
0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0 1 2 3 4
10 10 10 10 10
2.5
(b)
Fig. 4 Distribution of Van Driest-transformed mean streamwise
velocity upstream of interaction in inner scaling. Symbols denote data 2
from Souverein et al. [22] (open circle dual-PIV, open square boundary
layer zoom), solid line LES, dashed line RANS-LR, dashed dotted line
RANS-HR, dotted line law-of-the-wall 1.5
also predicts the correct trend of the skin friction coefficient 1.4
past the interaction. However, as also seen from Table 2, the
RANS-HR simulation significantly underpredicts the extent 1.2
123
494 S. Pirozzoli et al.
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
2 2
1 4 7 10 13 16 1 4 7 10 13 16
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
2 2
-3.5 -2 -0.5 1 2.5 -3.5 -2 -0.5 1 2.5
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
the one found in the RANS-HR simulation, even though the tions of Pirozzoli and Grasso [13], who pointed out that the
overall scale of the interaction there is much smaller. Note generation of turbulent stress is strictly related to the unsteady
that, as pointed out by Delery and Marvin [2], and seen from shedding of coherent vortical structures associated with the
Table 2, the results would be more similar if reported in terms occurrence of inflection points in the instantaneous velocity
of the reference displacement thickness. profiles. The same scenario is also observed in the experi-
The distributions of the normalized turbulent shear stress ment, where, however, strong stresses are only found past
are reported in Fig. 8. For clarity of interpretation we point out the foot of the impinging shock, perhaps due to the above
that the Reynolds stresses reported for LES do not account for mentioned difficulties in measuring very-near-wall veloci-
the contribution of the subgrid scales, whereas in the RANS ties. The peak shearing stress is found at about the same
simulations they are reconstructed from (3). In both LES and distance of about 0.18δr in the experiment and in the
RANS simulations , strong shearing stresses are produced RANS-HR simulation, whereas in the LES and RANS-LR
near the apparent origin of the reflected shock, which are simulations the shear stress peak lies at a distance of about
subsequently transported away from the wall in the down- 0.3 δr from the wall, with substantial underestimation of the
stream direction. Such pattern is consistent with the observa- peak value.
123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 495
0.5 0.5
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
2 2
-1 0 1 2 3 4 -1 0 1 2 3 4
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
0.05 0.05
0 0
-3 -2 -1 0 -3 -2 -1 0
168
fluctuating pressure loads occurring in the interaction zone.
4
1 150 6 16
LES is a natural candidate to get such information, but, as we 17
164
shall see, some reasonable estimate of the incurred unsteady 156
5 1 70
pressure loads can also be gained from RANS simulations.
0
164
16
168
We preliminarily observe that, although no mean flow 166
0
reversal is observed, the adverse pressure gradient is suffi- -3 -2 -1 0 1
ciently strong to locally cause scattered spots of reversed flow
in the interaction zone. The distribution of the intermittency
of local flow reversal, defined as the statistical frequency of Fig. 10 Map of r.m.s. pressure fluctuations from LES in the interaction
points where u < 0, is shown in Fig. 9. The figure indi- zone (dB scale)
cates that a shallow region with non-zero probability of flow
reversal is found in the LES for −2.5 ≤ (x − xi )/δr ≤ 0, levels upstream of the interaction zone are relatively uniform
with maximum probability of approximately 60% inside the across the boundary layer, and attain values of O(155) dB.
separation bubble. Such pattern differs somewhat from the Noise levels become much larger in the interaction zone,
experimental data, which show a much taller zone (extending with a maximum of about 177 db in the proximity of the
up to y/δr ≈ 0.15), which is less extended in the streamwise mean position of the incoming shock foot, and which is likely
direction. related to its unsteady movement. Large values of the fluctu-
The distribution of the r.m.s. pressure fluctuations esti- ating pressure of approximately 166 dB are also found away
mated from LES, reported in Fig. 10, shows that the noise from the wall in the region where the mixing layer develops.
123
496 S. Pirozzoli et al.
f · P SD
0
10 0
10
−2.4 (b), 0.16 (c), 3.96 (d) -1
10 -1
10
-2
10 -2
10
-3
10 -3
-3 -2 -1 0 1
10 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 2
10 10
1 (c) 1 (d)
10 10
0 0
10 10
-1 -1
10 10
-2 -2
10 10
-3 -3
10 -3 -2 -1 0 1
10
-3 -2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
123
Computational analysis of impinging shock-wave boundary layer interaction 497
123