GAMMA VE BC GEÇİŞ MODELLERİNİN DIŞ AKIŞLAR İÇİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ VE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

IF 0.4 4区 工程技术 Q4 ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL Isi Bilimi Ve Teknigi Dergisi-Journal of Thermal Science and Technology Pub Date : 2023-05-23 DOI:10.47480/isibted.1391106
Sami KARABAY, Özgür Ugras BARAN
{"title":"GAMMA VE BC GEÇİŞ MODELLERİNİN DIŞ AKIŞLAR İÇİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ VE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI","authors":"Sami KARABAY, Özgür Ugras BARAN","doi":"10.47480/isibted.1391106","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Modelling of transition from the laminar to turbulent flow became a hot topic due to recent developments in renewable energy, UAV technologies and similar aerospace applications. The transition from laminar flow to turbulence is challenging to model in CFD analysis. The drag is overestimated if the transition is neglected in CFD solutions by assuming the flow is fully turbulent. This results in missing the fundamental characteristics of the flow and inaccurate predictions of the flow field. The most popular transition models are Menter's models applied to the SST turbulence model and the Baş-Çakmakçıoğlu (BC) transition model applied to the Spalart-Almaras model. We have focused on Menter's simpler but more popular γ model and Baş Çakmakçıoğlu models. The γ model relies on the local turbulence intensity, which makes applying the model challenging in external flows. This difficulty stems from the complex relationship between turbulence decay and transition onset. BC transition model utilizes the free stream turbulence intensity. Both models are verified using the Klebanoff and ERCOFTAC flat plate cases and several 2D external flow cases. Skin friction coefficient results are compared to experimental data. Results show that both models predict transition very similarly. BC model is computationally cheaper and easier to implement than the γ model. Also, γ model suffers from boundary conditions ambiguity.","PeriodicalId":50272,"journal":{"name":"Isi Bilimi Ve Teknigi Dergisi-Journal of Thermal Science and Technology","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Isi Bilimi Ve Teknigi Dergisi-Journal of Thermal Science and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47480/isibted.1391106","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MECHANICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Modelling of transition from the laminar to turbulent flow became a hot topic due to recent developments in renewable energy, UAV technologies and similar aerospace applications. The transition from laminar flow to turbulence is challenging to model in CFD analysis. The drag is overestimated if the transition is neglected in CFD solutions by assuming the flow is fully turbulent. This results in missing the fundamental characteristics of the flow and inaccurate predictions of the flow field. The most popular transition models are Menter's models applied to the SST turbulence model and the Baş-Çakmakçıoğlu (BC) transition model applied to the Spalart-Almaras model. We have focused on Menter's simpler but more popular γ model and Baş Çakmakçıoğlu models. The γ model relies on the local turbulence intensity, which makes applying the model challenging in external flows. This difficulty stems from the complex relationship between turbulence decay and transition onset. BC transition model utilizes the free stream turbulence intensity. Both models are verified using the Klebanoff and ERCOFTAC flat plate cases and several 2D external flow cases. Skin friction coefficient results are compared to experimental data. Results show that both models predict transition very similarly. BC model is computationally cheaper and easier to implement than the γ model. Also, γ model suffers from boundary conditions ambiguity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
外部流量的伽马和 BC 转换模型的评估和比较
由于近年来可再生能源、无人机技术和类似航空航天应用的发展,层流到湍流过渡的建模成为一个热门话题。从层流到湍流的过渡是CFD分析中一个具有挑战性的问题。如果在CFD解决方案中假设流动是完全紊流而忽略过渡,则会高估阻力。这就导致了流的基本特征的缺失和流场预测的不准确。最常用的转换模式是应用于海温湍流模式的Menter模式和应用于Spalart-Almaras模式的baul -Çakmakçıoğlu (BC)转换模式。我们专注于Menter的更简单但更受欢迎的γ模型和baek Çakmakçıoğlu模型。γ模型依赖于局部湍流强度,这使得该模型在外部流动中的应用具有挑战性。这种困难源于湍流衰减和跃迁开始之间的复杂关系。BC转捩模型利用了自由流湍流强度。两种模型都使用k黎巴嫩夫和ERCOFTAC平板情况和几个二维外部流动情况进行了验证。皮肤摩擦系数计算结果与实验数据进行了比较。结果表明,两种模型对跃迁的预测非常相似。与γ模型相比,BC模型在计算上更便宜,更容易实现。此外,γ模型还存在边界条件模糊的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The “Journal of Thermal Sciences and Technology”, which started its publication in 1977 with the aim of encouraging the development of heat science and technology and enabling the publication of original, theoretical, numerical and experimental papers in its field, is published twice a year in April and October. Original and compilation articles on the subject of heat science and technology are included and each article is evaluated by at least two referees who are experts in their field.
期刊最新文献
GAMMA VE BC GEÇİŞ MODELLERİNİN DIŞ AKIŞLAR İÇİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ VE KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1