HLPW-4: Turbulence Model Verification Study
Turbulence Model Verification study for the Fourth High Lift Prediction Workshop to be held at Aviation 2021
Turbulence Model Verification↗
SEARCH · Search NASA
Results for “turbulence model verification”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Description of a Website Resource for Turbulence Modeling Verification and Validation
The activities of the Turbulence Model Benchmarking Working Group - which is a subcommittee of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) Fluid Dynamics Technical Committee - are described. The group s main purpose is to establish a web-based repository for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes turbulence model documentation, including verification and validation cases. This turbulence modeling resource has been established based on feedback from a survey on what is needed to achieve consistency and repeatability in turbulence model implementation and usage, and to document and disseminate information on new turbulence models or improvements to existing models. The various components of the website are described in detail: description of turbulence models, turbulence model readiness rating system, verification cases, validation cases, validation databases, and turbulence manufactured solutions. An outline of future plans of the working group is also provided.
Rumsey, Christopher L.↗
Turbulence Modeling Verification and Validation
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software that solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations has been in routine use for more than a quarter of a century. It is currently employed not only for basic research in fluid dynamics, but also for the analysis and design processes in many industries worldwide, including aerospace, automotive, power generation, chemical manufacturing, polymer processing, and petroleum exploration. A key feature of RANS CFD is the turbulence model. Because the RANS equations are unclosed, a model is necessary to describe the effects of the turbulence on the mean flow, through the Reynolds stress terms. The turbulence model is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in RANS CFD, and most models are known to be flawed in one way or another. Alternative methods such as direct numerical simulations (DNS) and large eddy simulations (LES) rely less on modeling and hence include more physics than RANS. In DNS all turbulent scales are resolved, and in LES the large scales are resolved and the effects of the smallest turbulence scales are modeled. However, both DNS and LES are too expensive for most routine industrial usage on today's computers. Hybrid RANS-LES, which blends RANS near walls with LES away from walls, helps to moderate the cost while still retaining some of the scale-resolving capability of LES, but for some applications it can still be too expensive. Even considering its associated uncertainties, RANS turbulence modeling has proved to be very useful for a wide variety of applications. For example, in the aerospace field, many RANS models are considered to be reliable for computing attached flows. However, existing turbulence models are known to be inaccurate for many flows involving separation. Research has been ongoing for decades in an attempt to improve turbulence models for separated and other nonequilibrium flows. When developing or improving turbulence models, both verification and validation are important steps in the process. Verification insures that the CFD code is solving the equations as intended (no errors in the implementation). This is typically done either through the method of manufactured solutions (MMS) or through careful step-by-step comparisons with other verified codes. After the verification step is concluded, validation is performed to document the ability of the turbulence model to represent different types of flow physics. Validation can involve a large number of test case comparisons with experiments, theory, or DNS. Organized workshops have proved to be valuable resources for the turbulence modeling community in its pursuit of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Workshop contributors using different CFD codes run the same cases, often according to strict guidelines, and compare results. Through these comparisons, it is often possible to (1) identify codes that have likely implementation errors, and (2) gain insight into the capabilities and shortcomings of different turbulence models to predict the flow physics associated with particular types of flows. These are valuable lessons because they help bring consistency to CFD codes by encouraging the correction of faulty programming and facilitating the adoption of better models. They also sometimes point to specific areas needed for improvement in the models. In this paper, several recent workshops are summarized primarily from the point of view of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Furthermore, the NASA Langley Turbulence Modeling Resource website is described. The purpose of this site is to provide a central location where RANS turbulence models are documented, and test cases, grids, and data are provided. The goal of this paper is to provide an abbreviated survey of turbulence modeling verification and validation efforts, summarize some of the outcomes, and give some ideas for future endeavors in this area.
Rumsey, Christopher L.↗
Reference Solutions for Benchmark Turbulent Flows in Three Dimensions
A grid convergence study is performed to establish benchmark solutions for turbulent flows in three dimensions (3D) in support of turbulence-model verification campaign at the Turbulence Modeling Resource (TMR) website. The three benchmark cases are subsonic flows around a 3D bump and a hemisphere-cylinder configuration and a supersonic internal flow through a square duct. Reference solutions are computed for Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes equations with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model using a linear eddy-viscosity model for the external flows and a nonlinear eddy-viscosity model based on a quadratic constitutive relation for the internal flow. The study involves three widely-used practical computational fluid dynamics codes developed and supported at NASA Langley Research Center: FUN3D, USM3D, and CFL3D. Reference steady-state solutions computed with these three codes on families of consistently refined grids are presented. Grid-to-grid and code-to-code variations are described in detail.
Diskin, Boris↗
Grid Convergence for Three Dimensional Benchmark Turbulent Flows
Grid convergence studies are performed to establish reference solutions for benchmark three dimensional turbulent flows in support of the ongoing turbulence model verification and validation e ort at the Turbulence Modeling Resource website curated by NASA. The bench- mark cases are a subsonic flow around a hemisphere cylinder and a transonic flow around the ONERA M6 wing with a sharp trailing edge. The study applies widely-used computational fluid dynamics codes developed and supported at the NASA Langley Research Center: FUN3D, USM3D, and CFL3D. Reference steady-state solutions are computed for the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations with the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model on families of consistently-refined grids composed of different types of cells. Coarse-to- ne and code-to-code solution variation is described in detail.
Diskin, Boris↗
OVERFLOW Contribution to HiLiftPW-3
We plan to perform the following sets of computations: For all our contributions (except where stated) Code: OVERFLOW, Turbulence model: SAnegRCQCR2000. - 1. Results will be submitted for both the full chord flap gap (Case 1a) and partially-sealed Chord Flap gap (Case 1c): 1. Grid Refinement Study; 2. Grids: structured overset grids supplied by HiLiftPW committee; 3. Connectivity: Domain Connectivity Framework, DCF. - 2. Results will be submitted for JAXA Standard Model and Nacelle/Pylon Off (Case 2a), Nacelle/Pylon On (Case 2c): 1. Alpha Study; 2. Grids: structured overset grids supplied by HiLiftPW committee; 3. Connectivity: Pegasus 5 (Peg5). - 3. A study of the effects of different connectivity paradigms: 1. DCF vs Peg5 for HLCRM cases; 2. DCF vs. C3P (NASA Ames) vs. Peg5 for JSM cases; 3. JSM grids will be the focus where we will hopefully see some type of trends with reference to wind tunnel data. - 4. Adaption cases will be attempted for (and submitted where appropriate): 1. Cases 1c,1d: HLCRM; 2. Cases 2c and 2d: JSM; 3. Grid: Near Body grids provided by committee, OffBody grids Cartesian; 4. AMR NearBody and OffBody Adaption. - 5. Case 3 Turbulence model verification study: 1. Grid: Series of 3 finest grids as defined on http://turbmodels.larc.nasa.gov/airfoilwakeverif.html; 2. Turbulence models: SAneg and SAneg— RCQCR2000. OVERFLOW 2.2 is a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) code developed by NASA...
OVERFLOW↗
Turbulence Model Implementation and Verification in the SENSEI CFD Code
This paper outlines the implementation and verification of the negative Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model into the SENSEI CFD code. The SA-neg turbulence model is implemented in a flexible, object-oriented framework where additional turbulence models can be easily added. In addition to outlining the new turbulence modeling framework in SENSEI, an overview of the other general improvements to SENSEI is provided. The results for four 2D test cases are compared to results from CFL3D and FUN3D to verify that the turbulence models are implemented properly. Several differences in the results from SENSEI, CFL3D, and FUN3D are identified and are attributed to differences in the implementation and discretization order of the boundary conditions as well as the order of discretization of the turbulence model. When a solid surface is located near or intersects an inflow or outflow boundary, higher order boundary conditions should be used to limit their effect on the forces on the surface. When the turbulence equations are discretized using second order spatial accuracy, the edge of the eddy viscosity profile seems to be sharper than when a first order discretization is used. However, the discretization order of the turbulence equation does not have a significant impact on output quantities of interest, such as pressure and viscous drag, for the cases studied.
Jackson, Charles W.↗
Second-Moment RANS Model Verification and Validation Using the Turbulence Modeling Resource Website (Invited)
The implementation of the SSG/LRR-omega differential Reynolds stress model into the NASA flow solvers CFL3D and FUN3D and the DLR flow solver TAU is verified by studying the grid convergence of the solution of three different test cases from the Turbulence Modeling Resource Website. The model's predictive capabilities are assessed based on four basic and four extended validation cases also provided on this website, involving attached and separated boundary layer flows, effects of streamline curvature and secondary flow. Simulation results are compared against experimental data and predictions by the eddy-viscosity models of Spalart-Allmaras (SA) and Menter's Shear Stress Transport (SST).
Eisfeld, Bernhard↗
HLPW-4/GMGW-3: Overview and Workshop Summary
The Fourth AIAA CFD High Lift Prediction Workshop and the Third Geometry and Mesh Generation Workshop were held collaboratively with the common goal of assessing the numerical prediction capability of current-generation computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology for swept, medium/high-aspect-ratio wings in high-lift configurations. A key aspect of this joint endeavor was the use of Technology Focus Groups, an innovative new approach for workshops involving close collaboration between participants. These groups, which included both mesh generation and flow solver experts, worked to accelerate advancements for their particular methodologies by addressing key questions of importance {\em prior} to the workshop. The high-lift version of the NASA Common Research Model (CRM-HL) configuration was the focus of this workshop. Measured experimental wind tunnel data were available for comparison. The workshop also included a two-dimensional turbulence model verification exercise based on the CRM-HL wing shape. Altogether, 44 participants submitted a total of 184 data sets of CFD results. This paper provides a high-level summary of the results and conclusions from the workshop. Like at past workshops, fixed-grid Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes continued to be inaccurate and inconsistent for high lift. However, mesh adaptation definitively brought more consistency. Scale-resolving methods appeared most promising for predicting high-lift flow physics.
Christopher L Rumsey↗
Mixed-element USM3D Contributions to the 4th AIAA High-Lift Prediction Workshop
This paper discusses results of the mixed-element USM3D (USM3D-ME) simulations performed for the 4th AIAA High-Lift Prediction Workshop. The workshop was separated into six Technical Focus Groups to investigate the impact of geometry modeling, grid, and computational methods for predicting high lift flows. This work was performed under the Fixed Grid RANS Technical Focus Group. The primary geometry selected for the workshop was the High-Lift Common Research Model. The performed simulations included a flap deflection study and both a grid refinement study and pitch sweep for the nominal flap deflection configuration. The results show that USM3D-ME RANS solutions, generally, tends to underpredict the lift coefficient and to predict a less negative pitching moment relative to the experimental data. The predicted drag coefficient values agree better with experiment for smaller angles of attack but were observed to be larger than experiment for the largest angle of attack simulated. The results of the grid refinement study demonstrated a lack of grid convergence for the provided grid family. The results of the grid refinement study are consistent with the submissions to the Fixed Grid and Mesh Adaptation Technical Focus Groups. Grid convergence for the provided grid family remains elusive for the international community. A 2D Multielement Airfoil configuration was included to enable a turbulence model verification study, which illustrated favorable agreement between USM3D-ME and the solutions provided by other flow solvers.
CFD↗
Mixed-Element USM3D Contributions to the 4th AIAA High-Lift Prediction Workshop
This paper discusses results of the mixed-element USM3D (USM3D-ME) simulations performed for the 4th AIAA High-Lift Prediction Workshop. The workshop was separated into six Technical Focus Groups to investigate the impact of geometry modeling, grid, and computational methods for predicting high lift flows. This work was performed under the Fixed Grid RANS Technical Focus Group. The primary geometry selected for the workshop was the High-Lift Common Research Model. The performed simulations included a flap deflection study and both a grid refinement study and pitch sweep for the nominal flap deflection configuration. The results show that USM3D-ME RANS solutions, generally, tends to underpredict the lift coefficient and to predict a less negative pitching moment relative to the experimental data. The predicted drag coefficient values agree better with experiment for smaller angles of attack but were observed to be larger than experiment for the largest angle of attack simulated. The results of the grid refinement study demonstrated a lack of grid convergence for the provided grid family. The results of the grid refinement study are consistent with the submissions to the Fixed Grid and Mesh Adaptation Technical Focus Groups. Grid convergence for the provided grid family remains elusive for the international community. A 2D Multielement Airfoil configuration was included to enable a turbulence model verification study, which illustrated favorable agreement between USM3D-ME and the solutions provided by other flow solvers.
CFD↗
Consistency, Verification, and Validation of Turbulence Models for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Applications
In current practice, it is often difficult to draw firm conclusions about turbulence model accuracy when performing multi-code CFD studies ostensibly using the same model because of inconsistencies in model formulation or implementation in different codes. This paper describes an effort to improve the consistency, verification, and validation of turbulence models within the aerospace community through a website database of verification and validation cases. Some of the variants of two widely-used turbulence models are described, and two independent computer codes (one structured and one unstructured) are used in conjunction with two specific versions of these models to demonstrate consistency with grid refinement for several representative problems. Naming conventions, implementation consistency, and thorough grid resolution studies are key factors necessary for success.
Rumsey, Christopher L.↗
Verification of a quasi-linear model for gyrokinetic turbulent transport
The verification and calibration of a new quasi-linear transport model with a large database of gyrokinetic turbulence simulations is presented in this paper. In a previous paper (Staebler et al 2020 Plasma Phys. Control. Fusion 63 015013), a model for the saturated spectrum of electric potential fluctuations was developed based on the properties of the non-linear 3D spectrum. In this paper, a modification to the overall multiplicative factor in this model is found to be necessary to improve the fit to scans of the temperature and density gradients. The error in the fit of the quasi-linear fluxes of electron and ion energy fluxes is significantly better than for previous saturation models. The spectral shift model for the impact of equilibrium E × B velocity shear (Staebler et al 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 055003) and the zonal flow mixing model for electron-scale turbulence (Staebler et al 2016 Phys. Plasmas 23 062518) are both revised to be compatible with this new model. Furthermore, the models for the loss of bounce averaging and electron collisions in the TGLF reduced linear equations (Staebler et al 2005 Phys. Plasmas 12 102508) are also changed to improve the linear eigenmodes.
70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY↗
Verification Test Suite for Spalart-Allmaras QCR2000 Turbulence Model
The paper presents three benchmark cases for verification of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes solvers. The verification studies focus on a one-equation Spalart-Allmaras model, SA-[neg]-QCR2000, that uses a version of quadratic constitutive relations.The benchmark cases are a two-dimensional subsonic flow around a Joukowski airfoil, a three-dimensional supersonic flow through a square duct, and a three-dimensional flow over a wing-fuselage configuration. The turbulence-model formulation, geometry, flow conditions, grids, and the expected output are described in detail. Reference solutions computed by several established codes are shown
Computational Aerodynamics↗
Development and Verification of an Improved Wake-Added Turbulence Model in FAST.Farm
We introduce a generalized wake-added turbulence (WAT) model in the multiphysics, multiturbine simulation tool FAST.Farm. The WAT model introduces additional small-scale turbulence that represents the breakdown of vortical structures and shear layers in the wake. The article describes the development, implementation, calibration, and verification of the model. The novelties of the model include support for wake asymmetry, buildup of WAT across the wind farm, and secondary effects of wake-induced turbulence (e.g., wake meandering) driven by smaller-scale turbulence structures that arise from wake breakdown. Large-eddy simulations were run to support the calibration of the WAT parameters and verification of the model. Previous studies hypothesized that the lack of WAT modeling was the source of underprediction of fatigue loads, in particular for cases at low turbulence intensities and/or stable atmospheric boundary layers. This study confirms that the newly implemented WAT model enhances the loads predictions in these cases.
17 WIND ENERGY↗
HLPW-4: CRM-HL Fixed RANS TFG
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
turbulence model verification↗
Verification and Validation of Open-Source Computational Fluid Dynamics Capabilities in MOOSE
The Multiphysics Object Oriented Simulation Environment (MOOSE) advances predictive modeling in nuclear research by simplifying the application design process and making modeling more efficient and accessible to researchers and the broader community. Because of MOOSE’s critical role in the scientific computation field, verification and validation are important to evaluate the reliability and credibility of MOOSE’s code, simulations, and models. To assess MOOSE’s Navier Stokes module and turbulence models, the following verification and validation University of Manchester ERCOFTAC cases were simulated in MOOSE, and the results were compared: Case 032 Turbulent Flow in a 2D Channel Case 079 Natural Convection in an Enclosed Cavity
46 - INSTRUMENTATION RELATED TO NUCLEAR SCIENCE AN↗