Engineering topics

David J Friedlander

Publications and source records attributed to David J Friedlander.

3 records

NASA NTRS2022

Prediction of Turbulent Diffusing Flows Using FUN3D

The FUN3D code was used to perform Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations to compute subsonic flow in an S-duct diffuser and transonic flow in a two-dimensional diffuser using the Speziale-Sarkar-Gatski/Launder-Rodi-Reece (SSG/LRR) Reynolds stress model (RSM). For comparison purposes, additional simulations were run with the one-equation Spalart-Allmaras (SA) and the two-equation Menter Shear-Stress Transport (SST) turbulence models. Each model was run with and without the quadratic constitutive relation (QCR) for computing the turbulent stresses. It was shown that the simulations that utilized the RSM had better overall predictions of the diffusive flow fields compared to the simulations that utilized the one and two equation turbulence models.

Inlet Distortion↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Numerical Simulations of an Axisymmetric Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interaction

A series of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations were performed of two Mach 2.5 axisymmetric shock-wave/boundary-layer interactions (SWBLIs) based off of the NASA Turbulent Computational Fluid Dynamics Validation Experiment (TCFDVE). The goals of the simulations were to (1) determine how well RANS can predict the flow physics of an axisymmetric SWBLI and (2) generate a new validation case for the NASA Turbulence Modeling Resource (TMR). The simulations were run with two different turbulence models and three different computational fluid dynamics (CFD) codes while looking at two different conical shock generator angles, one of which was shown to cause flow separation in the experiment. The results in this paper show that, as expected, the CFD simulations agreed well with each other and the experiment when SWBLI-induced separation was not present. When separation was present, differences in the predicted separation characteristics were noted. These included a stronger interaction and subsequently longer separation extent for the Menter Shear-Stress Transport k-ω (SST) turbulence model simulations compared to both the Spalart-Allmaras (SA) turbulence model simulations and the experiment.

Computational Fluid Dynamics↗

NASA NTRSDate not supplied

Cross-Measurement Comparisons for a CFD Validation Dataset on Mach 2.5 Axisymmetric Turbulent Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions

Experimental data for a shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction has been collected using multiple measurement techniques. Unfortunately, diversity of methods for acquisition begets an aggregation of data which does not directly quantify the same properties of the flowfield. The objective in this paper was to (a) present the collection of flowfield measurements in one venue in a format more usable for those validating CFD models against the data, (b) evaluate the degree to which the experimental data support each other, and (c) highlight the differences and relative advantages/shortcomings of each measurement techniques. To present the various measured quantities into common format, CFD results from a companion paper also submitted for presentation at this meeting are utilized. For the case where the boundary layer remains attached, there is agreement between the various measurements as well as with Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulation solutions. As the impinging shock strength is increased beyond the point of separating the boundary layer, the congruity of the data wanes. Generally, agreement among the measurements exceeds the degree to which the CFD solutions agree with experiments. This suggests that unmodeled physical phenomena, such as transient motion of the reflected shock and separation bubble, give rise to the discrepancies observed in the computational results.

Shock-wave Boundary-layer interaction↗