Access the full text.

Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.

International Journal of Turbomachinery, Propulsion and Power
, Volume 5 (4) – Oct 26, 2020

/lp/multidisciplinary-digital-publishing-institute/an-extended-version-of-an-algebraic-intermittency-model-for-prediction-QhcV9rrXmP

- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Copyright
- © 1996-2020 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated Disclaimer The statements, opinions and data contained in the journals are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Terms and Conditions Privacy Policy
- ISSN
- 2504-186X
- DOI
- 10.3390/ijtpp5040028
- Publisher site
- See Article on Publisher Site

International Journal of Turbomachinery Propulsion and Power Article An Extended Version of an Algebraic Intermittency Model for Prediction of Separation-Induced Transition at Elevated Free-Stream Turbulence Level 1 2 2 3 , Slawomir Kubacki , Daniele Simoni , Davide Lengani and Erik Dick * Institute of Aeronautics and Applied Mechanics, Faculty of Power and Aeronautical Engineering, Warsaw University of Technology, Nowowiejska 24, 00-665 Warsaw, Poland; slawomir.kubacki@pw.edu.pl Dipartimento di Ingegneria meccanica, energetica, gestionale e dei trasporti (DIME), Università di Genova, Via Montallegro 1, I-16145 Genoa, Italy; daniele.simoni@unige.it (D.S.); davide.lengani@edu.unige.it (D.L.) Fluid Mechanics Research Group, Ghent University, St.-Pietersnieuwstraat 41, 9000 Ghent, Belgium * Correspondence: erik.dick@ugent.be Received: 12 June 2020; Accepted: 21 October 2020; Published: 26 October 2020 Abstract: An algebraic intermittency model for boundary layer ﬂow transition from laminar to turbulent state, is extended using an experimental data base on boundary layer ﬂows with various transition types and results by large eddy simulation of transition in a separated boundary layer. The originating algebraic transition model functions well for bypass transition in an attached boundary layer under a moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence level, and for transition by Kelvin–Helmholtz instability in a separated boundary layer under a low free-stream turbulence level. It also functions well for transition in a separated layer, caused by a very strong adverse pressure gradient under a moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence level. It is not accurate for transition in a separated layer under a moderately strong adverse pressure gradient, in the presence of a moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence level. The extension repairs this deﬁciency. Therefore, a sensor function for detection of the front part of a separated boundary layer activates two terms that express the eect of free-stream turbulence on the breakdown of a separated layer, without changing the functioning of the model in other ﬂow regions. The sensor and the breakdown terms use only local variables. Keywords: turbomachinery ﬂows; laminar-to-turbulent transition; separation-induced transition; bypass transition; algebraic transition model 1. Introduction Laminar boundary layer separation, followed by transition to turbulence in the separated layer, is a common phenomenon in low Reynolds number ﬂows over aerofoils and turbomachinery blades. A separated boundary layer becomes unstable and breaks down with the generation of ﬁne-scale turbulence [1]. The resulting small-scale unsteadiness creates increased momentum exchange in the wall-normal direction, and mostly leads to turbulent boundary layer reattachment with formation of a separation bubble. In a free stream with a low turbulence level, the inherent instability of the separated layer leads to transition after separation. The transition is accelerated in the presence of elevated free-stream turbulence, due to perturbations by ﬂuctuations from the free stream [2,3]. A small increase in ﬂow incidence may cause an abrupt increase in the bubble length and a signiﬁcant loss increase in an aerodynamic ﬂow with low turbulence level. This process is typically referred as bubble bursting [4]. Thus, proper accounting for boundary layer separation and transition is important for aircraft design and operation. In low pressure turbines of aero-engines, the chord-based Reynolds numbers are relatively low. So large portions of the boundary layers are laminar. The main Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28; doi:10.3390/ijtpp5040028 www.mdpi.com/journal/ijtpp Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 2 of 24 consequences of this are for suction surface boundary layers, which are subjected to an adverse pressure gradient. The laminar boundary layer may separate and cause a signiﬁcant decrease in eciency. Thus, proper accounting for transition in attached and separated boundary layers is also important for turbomachinery ﬂows. 2. Phenomena in Transitional Separated Boundary Layers The ﬂow phenomena during transition from laminar state to turbulent state in a separated boundary layer, subjected to an adverse pressure gradient, under various levels of free-stream turbulence, were recently reviewed by Z. Yang [5], based on direct numerical simulation (DNS) by McAulie and Yaras [6] and Balzer and Fasel [7] and experimental results by Simoni et al. [8] and Istvan and Yarusevych [9]. The ﬁndings were subsequently summarized by Li and Yang [10] and further interpretation was added, gained from large eddy simulation results (LES) by these authors. Based on the discussion by Li and Yang and conclusions from DNS by Hosseinverdi and Fasel [11], we summarize the relevant phenomena hereafter. In this paper, turbulence levels are categorised as low, moderately high and elevated for free-stream turbulence intensities at the position of transition lower than about 1%, in the order of 2% to 3%, and higher than about 4%. Adverse pressure gradients are quantiﬁed by the pressure gradient parameter K 6 2 =10 U (dU/dx) at the position of transition, where is the kinematic viscosity, U is the magnitude of the velocity at the boundary layer edge and dU/dx is the corresponding stream-wise gradient. The pressure gradient levels are quantiﬁed by the terms mild, moderately strong and strong for K-values of about one, two and three. Under a very low or low free-stream turbulence level, rolls are formed by Kelvin–Helmholtz instability in a separated laminar boundary layer (primary instability). At their origin, they cover the full span of the separated layer, group into pairs while they travel downstream, and become unstable themselves by spanwise perturbations (secondary instability). The secondary instability causes breakdown, leading to the production of turbulence. Unless the adverse pressure gradient is very strong, the separated layer, after becoming turbulent, reattaches due to increased momentum transfer in the transversal direction. Under increased free-stream turbulence, streaky structures, called Klebano streaks, develop in the attached part of the boundary layer upstream of separation. These are zones alternating in a spanwise direction with a streamwise velocity larger than the mean value (positive streak) and with a streamwise velocity lower than the mean value (negative streak) [12]. The streaks are induced by penetration into the laminar boundary layer of low-frequency components of ﬂuctuations from the free stream, while high-frequency components are ﬁltered out. The low-pass ﬁltering by the laminar layer is called the shear-sheltering eect [13,14]. The streaks are elongated in the streamwise direction and have a spanwise width comparable to the boundary layer thickness. Under a weak or mild adverse pressure gradient, without boundary layer separation, the streaks cause transition in attached boundary layer state. This form of transition is categorised as bypass transition, meaning that the instability patterns of Tollmien–Schlichting type, which occur under low free-stream turbulence in an attached boundary layer, are bypassed. When the boundary layer separates, the Klebano streaks perturb the Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls. When the streaks reach sucient strength due to excitation by the free-stream turbulence, they break the rolls up into part-span rolls. The breakdown of the separated layer is then much faster. In the past, this last type of transition in separated state was often described as being of bypass type with the meaning that it was believed that the Klebano steaks suppress the Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls. However, the research by McAulie and Yaras [6], Balzer and Fasel [7], Simoni et al. [8] and Istvan and Yarusevych [9] has proven that this does not happen. The Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls stay present in the separated boundary layer, but the Klebano streaks distort the rolls and break them into parts with formation of part-span rolls. The higher the free-stream turbulence level is, the more intense the distortions by the Klebano streaks are, the faster the Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls split into parts and Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 3 of 24 the faster the ﬁnal breakdown leading to turbulence is. So, streaks and rolls interact in the transition process. The transition may still be categorised as being of bypass type, but with the meaning that the spontaneous secondary instability phase by spanwise patterns of full-span Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls, which occurs under a low free-stream turbulence level, is bypassed, but not the primary instability of the separated boundary layer leading to the creation of the rolls themselves. Increased free-stream turbulence and an increased adverse pressure gradient cause stronger growth of the Klebano streaks, both in the attached part of the boundary layer upstream of the separation and in the front part of the separated boundary layer, downstream of the separation. McAulie and Yaras [6] showed that an instability by local inﬂectional velocity proﬁles develops in a separated boundary layer perturbed by streaks. It is similar to the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability under a low turbulence level, but it results in part-span rolls. The instability leads to the formation of a series of vortex loops—similar to a turbulent spot in an attached boundary layer—and causes entrainment of ﬂuid towards the wall. As a result, a patch of turbulent boundary layer develops downstream. Coull and Hodson [15] also observed the development of part-span rollup eddies in a separated boundary layer perturbed by moving wakes. They concluded that both streaks and part-span Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls contribute to earlier transition under wake impact. Further insight in the role of the streaks and the part-span rolls has been obtained by the DNS of Hosseinverdi and Fasel [11]. They showed that both have a role, but that the eect of the rolls is the largest at the lower free-stream turbulence level, while the eect of the streaks is the largest at larger free-stream turbulence level. Under lower free-stream turbulence, transition is dominated by Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls, which are broken into part-span rolls by the Klebano streaks, leading to faster breakdown than with full-span rolls. Under higher free-stream turbulence, the process of breaking the rolls into parts is stronger, but the streaks also cause the boundary layer breakdown directly. 3. Quantiﬁcation of the Eects Causing Transition in Separated Boundary Layers The conclusion from the above description of the phenomena is that a transition model connected to the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations (RANS), meant for transition in a separated boundary layer subjected to an adverse pressure gradient and to moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence, has to express the growth of perturbations by the combined eects of Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls and Klebano streaks and has to express when the distortion of the separated boundary layer becomes suciently strong for causing transition. Therefore, the eects of free-stream turbulence level, adverse pressure gradient magnitude and ﬂow Reynolds number have to be quantiﬁed. Clearly, the higher the turbulence level, the faster the transition occurs. The eect of the adverse pressure gradient is less clear from the research cited up to now, because the pressure gradient was not varied in any of the research studies. More insight comes from the recently composed experimental data base by Simoni et al. [16], on boundary layer ﬂows on a ﬂat plate, with four turbulence levels, four adverse pressure gradient levels and three Reynolds numbers and the interpretation of the eects by Dellacasagrande et al. [2,3]. Starting from a case with a rather strong adverse pressure gradient, it is observed that by lowering the adverse pressure gradient, the separation point is delayed, and the separated zone becomes longer. The explanation for this last phenomenon is that under the same level of free-stream turbulence and the same Reynolds number, the boundary layer is somewhat thicker at separation by the delayed separation, which makes the size of the Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls somewhat larger and their evolution path, thus, somewhat longer. This means that the size of the separation bubble scales with the thickness of the boundary layer at separation under a varying adverse pressure gradient. This scaling eect is clear from the correlations constructed by Dellacasagrande et al. [2,3] for the distance between the position of separation and the start of breakdown and for the distance between the start of breakdown and the position of reattachment. These correlations, in the form of a distance Reynolds number as a function of the momentum thickness Reynolds number and the free-stream turbulence level at the point of separation, do not contain the magnitude of the adverse pressure gradient. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 4 of 24 The eect of the Reynolds number is somewhat similar. With a larger Reynolds number, the position of separation only changes slightly under an unchanged adverse pressure gradient and free-stream turbulence level, and the height and length of the separation bubble become smaller. This means that under a varying Reynolds number, the size of the bubble also scales with the thickness of the boundary layer at separation, which becomes lower with an increased Reynolds number. From the correlations determined by Dellacasagrande et al. [2,3], the scaling eects can be seen. For the distances between separation and start of transition (ST) and transition to reattachment (TR), 0.65 0.5 0.9 the correlations are Re = 44.5Re /Tu and Re = 146Re , and these correlations express similar ST TR s s tendencies as earlier constructed ones. The adverse pressure gradient and ﬂow Reynolds number are not explicit in the correlations, but the eect of these parameters is present by the use of distance Reynolds numbers and the dependence on the momentum thickness Reynolds number at separation, Re . The scaling with the momentum thickness at separation is clear, but the proportionality is less than linear. The eect of the free-stream turbulence level on the length of the instability zone (ST) of the separated layer is explicit. The primary eect of an increased free-stream turbulence level is that the Klebano streaks become stronger upstream and downstream of the separation. The separation position remains almost the same under an unchanged adverse pressure gradient and Reynolds number, but the breakdown of the separated layer is faster with stronger streaks. The unchanged position of separation is a conﬁrmation of the feature, seen earlier with the bypass transition in an attached boundary layer state, that streaks are perturbations without noticeable associated Reynolds stress. From the correlations, it can be deduced that the free-stream turbulence level does not inﬂuence the distance between the start of breakdown and reattachment. It means that the free-stream turbulence aects the front zone of the separated boundary layer, which is the instability zone, but not the rear zone which is the zone of recovery towards attached state. This dierence in behaviour is also visible in the DNS results by McAulie and Yaras [6] and Hosseinverdi and Fasel [11]. 4. Transition Models Combined with Turbulence Models There are three main categories of transition models combined with turbulence models in RANS ﬂow description. In their basic form, they are designed for modelling bypass transition in an attached boundary layer state under a moderately high and elevated free-stream turbulence level and for modelling transition in a separated state by Kelvin–Helmholtz instability under low free-stream turbulence level. Hereafter, we summarize the main characteristics of the categories. For details we refer to the review paper by Dick and Kubacki [17]. Two categories use the concept of intermittency, , which is a variable equal to zero in laminar ﬂow and equal to unity in turbulent ﬂow. It is mostly used as a multiplier of the production term(s) of a turbulence model. These terms are suppressed in laminar ﬂow, grow in a transitional boundary layer and recover their full strength in turbulent ﬂow. In most models, the intermittency is obtained from a transport equation (Menter et al. [18], Langtry et al. [19], Ge et al. [20], Menter et al. [21]). However, an intermittency factor may also be expressed by an algebraic formula, either as a function of streamwise distance (Fürst et al. [22]) or as a function of wall-normal distance (Kubacki and Dick [23,24]). Most models using the intermittency concept employ empirical correlations in the equation for intermittency, but some obtain the intermittency by sensor quantities that are representative for some types of transition (Ge et al. [20], Kubacki and Dick [23,24]). With intermittency-based models, separation-induced transition is frequently described by a supplementary production term. An example is the model by Menter et al. [21] with an additional production term in the k-equation expressing the breakdown due to Kelvin–Helmholtz instability. A third category of transition models employs a transport equation for laminar ﬂuctuation kinetic energy in a laminar boundary layer perturbed by free-stream turbulence (Walters and Cokljat [25], Pacciani et al. [26], Lopez and Walters [27]). The breakdown process is modelled by equal and opposite transfer terms in the laminar and turbulent ﬂuctuation kinetic energy transport equations. Some models Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 5 of 24 have speciﬁc terms for transition in separated state (Pacciani et al. [26]), but some do not have such terms, yet capture the transition to some extent (Walters and Cokljat [25]). In the present work, an extended version of the algebraic intermittency model by Kubacki and Dick [24] is presented, aimed at improving the predictive qualities for separation-induced transition under moderately high and elevated free-stream turbulence levels. The extension was made thanks to an experimental data base on boundary layer ﬂows on a ﬂat plate under various Reynolds numbers, turbulence intensity levels and pressure gradients by Simoni et al. [16], and thanks to a large eddy simulation (LES) of transition in a separated boundary layer on a ﬂat plate under a moderately high free-stream turbulence level and a very strong adverse pressure gradient by Li and Yang [10]. 5. Formulation of the Algebraic Intermittency Model The transport equations for the turbulent kinetic energy, k, and speciﬁc dissipation rate, !, have the same form as in the previous model version [24]. The basic equations are those of the k ! turbulence model by Wilcox [28,29], but the production term in the k-equation is adapted for simulation of transition. The previous model version was designed for simulation of bypass transition in attached boundary layer state and for simulation of transition in separated boundary layer state under low free-stream turbulence. Two changes are made for the extension to transition in a separated boundary layer under moderately high and elevated free-stream turbulence. The transport equations are: " ! # Dk @ k @k = P + P k! + + , (1) e f f k sep Dt @x ! @x j j " ! # D! ! @ k @! @k @! = P ! + + + . (2) Dt k @x ! @x ! @x @x j j j j The coecient = f , where the function f is equal to unity in two-dimensional ﬂows and takes a value lower than unity in round jets. The coecients , , *, , * and are constants [28,29]. 0 d The ﬁrst production term in the k-equation is P = S , where is an eective intermittency e k e s e factor, is the eddy-viscosity of the small-scale turbulence (deﬁned below by Equation (13)) and S = 2S S is the magnitude of the shear rate tensor S . We also use the magnitude of the rotation ij ij ij rate tensor W = 2W W . The ﬁrst production term is the main term for modelling all kinds of ij ij transition. It is started by the intermittency factor, . The second production term, P , is a boosting e sep term, which has a role in modelling of transition in a separated boundary layer. The expressions of the intermittency factor, , and the boosting term, P , are extended with respect to these in the previous e sep model version (deﬁned below by Equations (7) and (8)). Bypass transition in an attached boundary layer is modelled by two ingredients. The ﬁrst is splitting of the turbulent kinetic energy k into a small-scale part k and a large-scale part k by k = f k, k = k k . (3) s SS s The ﬁltering is realised with the shear-sheltering function [24]: 2 3 0 1 6 7 B C 6 C 7 B SS C 6 7 B C 6 7 f = exp , with C = C (1 + f ), (4) B p C SS 6 7 SS S k @ A 4 5 ky where and f account for curvature eects: 0 1 B C W(SW) k B C B C = tanhB C, f = 1 tanh . (5) @ A C ! C ( !) Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 6 of 24 The values of the constants C , C and C (see Table 1) are the same as in the previous model S k version [24]. The shear-sheltering term (4) expresses the damping of small-scale turbulent ﬂuctuations by the shear in a laminar boundary layer, according to the observations by Jacobs and Durbin [13,14]. With the shear-sheltering function (Equation (4)), the large-scale turbulent ﬂuctuations, with ﬂuctuation kinetic energy k (Equation (3)), are allowed to penetrate into the near-wall zone of a laminar boundary layer. These large-scale ﬂuctuations generate the streaks, which are laminar ﬂuctuations. The small-scale turbulent ﬂuctuations are conﬁned to the upper zone of a laminar boundary layer and contribute to the production of turbulence by the production term P = S . e k e s Table 1. Transition model constants. Bypass Transition A C C C a S k 2 12.0 21.0 10.0 6.0 0.60 Separation-Induced Transition C A C C a b a b a KH KH KlebP Kleb ! ! Kleb 2 550 0.01 0.3 150 5 0.95 150 1 The shear-sheltering function in the form (4) was introduced by Walters and Cokljat [25] for splitting turbulent ﬂuctuations in small-scale and large-scale parts. However, in their modelling approach, there is an additional equation for laminar ﬂuctuation kinetic energy. In the model used here, laminar ﬂuctuations are not described. When the turbulent kinetic energy, k, reaches a critical value in the upper zone of a laminar boundary layer, production of turbulence is started deeper in the boundary layer by activation of the intermittency factor by 0 0 p 1 1 B B C C ky B B C C B B C C = minBmaxB 1, 0C, 1C. (6) @ @ A A This activation models the transition. The value of the constant A (see Table 1) is the same as in the previous model version. In the previous version of the model = , which is now extended into h i = max , C f , (7) sep e f f Kleb where f is a new function with a role in modelling of transition in a separated boundary layer sep and C is a new model constant. The function f is bounded by unity and the constant C is Kleb sep Kleb lower than unity. We detail f later (see the later Equation (10)). It is zero in an attached laminar sep boundary layer, such that the modelling of bypass transition in an attached laminar boundary layer is not changed. The activation of the intermittency is the second ingredient in the modelling of bypass transition. It expresses the excitation of the streaks by the ﬁne-scale turbulence in the edge zone of a laminar boundary layer, leading to the breakdown. After transition completion, the intermittency becomes unity in the turbulent part of a turbulent boundary layer. It stays zero at the wall and evolves towards unity inside the viscous sublayer. So, k represents the full turbulent kinetic energy in the turbulent part of a turbulent boundary layer. We refer to Kubacki and Dick [23] for an illustration of the functioning of the bypass model in an attached boundary layer. The second production term in the k-equation is P . It is a boosting term with a role in modelling sep of laminar-to-turbulent transition in a separated boundary layer. With respect to the previous model version, it is extended into h i P = max (1 )C f , C f S . (8) sep KH KH KlebP sep Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 7 of 24 The ﬁrst term between brackets, (1 )C f , is the term for separation-induced transition in KH KH the previous model version. It expresses breakdown due to Kelvin–Helmholtz instability under a low free-stream turbulence level. It is a similar term as in the intermittency model by Menter et al. [21] and has been borrowed from that model: y S f = min max 1, 0 , 1 , with R = . (9) KH V 2.2A KH The term becomes active when the “vorticity Reynolds number”, R , reaches a critical value set by the constant A , which may occur inside a separated layer due to the combination of the magnitude KH of the shear rate and the distance to the wall. This term has been maintained in the current model version. The f -function is active in a separated boundary layer under a suciently strong adverse KH pressure gradient, but it only contributes to the P -term when the local turbulence level is very low sep and thus, the activity zone of the f -term stays small. This typically happens for separation near a sep trailing edge under a low free-stream turbulence level, which can be understood from the behaviour of the f -function, discussed hereafter. The values of the constants A and C (see Table 1) are the sep KH KH same as in the previous model version. The function f is the same as in the expression of the eective sep intermittency (Equation (7)) and C is a new model constant. KlebP The model functions without the extension by the f -terms for bypass transition in attached sep boundary layer state, for transition in a separated layer caused by a moderately strong or strong adverse pressure gradient under a low free-stream turbulence level and for transition in a separated layer caused by a very strong adverse pressure gradient under a moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence level. The ﬁrst and second ways of functioning are as explained above, by the -expression (6) and the f -term (9). The third functioning comes also from the -expression. The intermittency is KH also activated when a large value of k appears together with a relatively large value of the distance to the wall, which occurs with a large separation zone caused by a very strong adverse pressure gradient combined with a high free-stream turbulence level. The previous model version has no ingredient for transition in a separated state, under a moderately strong adverse pressure gradient, in the presence of a moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence level. The previous model version functions for such combinations of ﬂow parameters, but the predictions are not very accurate, as will be shown later. For improving the modelling of transition in a separated boundary layer, with this combination of adverse pressure gradient and free-stream turbulence level, we deﬁne the function f , which detects a separated sep boundary layer. It is the product of two functions: f = f f , (10) sep ! with 1 1 f = h i , f = . (11) 1 + exp[b (Re a )] ! ! ! 1 + exp b a By the value a = 0.95, the f -function is zero in the outer zone of a laminar boundary layer, also a separated one, in the turbulent part of an attached turbulent boundary layer and in the free stream. The b = 150 value determines the (strong) steepness of this function. The f -function is near to unity close to a wall. At walls, the boundary conditions of k and ! are [28,29]: k = 0 and ! = 6/ y . (12) The set of k–! Equations (1) and (2) has a solution with eddy-viscosity equal to zero, thus a 3.31 laminar-ﬂow solution. It is of form k ~ y in wall vicinity together with the expression of ! in Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 8 of 24 Equation (12). This solution is thus valid near a wall. Therefore, k = 0 is imposed at the wall itself and ! according to Equation (12) is imposed in the ﬁrst cell centre next to a wall. The Reynolds number Re = !y / is about 85 in the wall’s vicinity due to the wall boundary condition of !. This Reynolds number stays near to 85 in a large part near the wall of an attached laminar boundary layer and in the viscous sublayer of a turbulent boundary layer and it evolves to a larger value at the edge of an attached laminar boundary layer and in the turbulent part of a turbulent boundary layer. By the value a = 150, the f -function is near to unity away from a wall, ! ! outside an attached laminar boundary layer and outside the viscous sublayer of an attached turbulent boundary layer. The value b = 5 determines the steepness of this function. The f -function is near to ! ! zero close to a wall. By the value a = 150, the f -function reaches unity away from a wall, but still ! ! inside a separated laminar boundary layer, if this layer is suciently far away from the wall and if the free-stream turbulence level is suciently high. This way, the product of the f - and f -functions becomes dierent from zero in the outer zone of a separated laminar boundary layer under moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence. The value of a = 150 is quite critical for obtaining this property. We discuss the choice of a in the next section on the tuning of the model. Figure 1 shows contour plots of the f - and f -functions and the resulting f -function in the ﬂow ! sep on a ﬂat plate under a moderately strong adverse pressure gradient and a moderately high free-stream turbulence level (a case with boundary layer separation from the data base by Simoni et al. [16] with Tu 2.5% at the separation point), simulated using the extended model. The magniﬁed views show superimposed velocity vectors (on selected lines) on the contour levels. The separation bubble starts around x = 0.12 m and ends around x = 0.21 m. The f -function is active inside the boundary layer in the laminar state and inside the viscous sublayer in the turbulent state. The f -function is active in the outer zone of the boundary layer and the free stream. The resulting f -function is active in the outer sep zone of the separated laminar boundary layer and mainly in the front part of the separation bubble. The ﬁgure illustrates that by activation of production of turbulent kinetic energy in the zone deﬁned by the f -function, transition may be numerically simulated. Transition starts at the end of the zone sep deﬁned by the f -function (close to x = 0.18 m). The precise mechanism will be illustrated in the next sep section (see Figure 2). The f -function is used in two ways for modelling transition in a separated boundary layer, sep implemented by the two technically possible ways for changing the source term in the equation of turbulent kinetic energy with the previous version of the model. The ﬁrst way is by combining f with sep the expression of the intermittency for bypass transition in the eective intermittency, (Equation (7)). Transition is then imposed quite directly, but even with a quite large value of C (we obtain C Kleb Kleb = 0.3 by tuning), the eect of the intermittency is not immediate, because multiplies S and e s the small-scale eddy viscosity, , is very small at the start of separation due to the damping by the shear-sheltering function f . So, the development of the turbulent kinetic energy, k, needs some SS ﬂow distance and the rate of development depends on the free-stream turbulence level. The second way of using f is in the boosting term P (Equation (8)). C is set at a low value (we obtain sep sep KlebP C = 0.01 by tuning). The boosting term is small, but it is active in the whole area where f is sep KlebP active, because the coecient in P multiplies S , with the molecular viscosity coecient. There is sep thus a small production of turbulent kinetic energy, which ﬁnally triggers the intermittency function, (Equation (6)). The ﬂow distance needed for reaching the triggering depends on the free-stream turbulence level. The two ways of using f have a dierent purpose. The P -term acts quite gradually. By the sep sep f -term with coecient C (Equation (8)), we intend to express the gradually accelerated breakdown sep Kleb by the earlier splitting of the full-span Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls into part-span rolls by the Klebano streaks, when these increase in strength. The intermittency function acts more directly. With the f -term with coecient C in the intermittency expression (Equation (7)), we intend to express the sep Kleb accelerated breakdown of the separated layer by the direct eect of the Klebano streaks. Both actions Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 23 [16] with Tu ≈ 2.5% at the separation point), simulated using the extended model. The magnified views show superimposed velocity vectors (on selected lines) on the contour levels. The separation bubble starts around x = 0.12 m and ends around x = 0.21 m. The fγ-function is active inside the boundary layer in the laminar state and inside the viscous sublayer in the turbulent state. The fω- function is active in the outer zone of the boundary layer and the free stream. The resulting fsep- function is active in the outer zone of the separated laminar boundary layer and mainly in the front Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 9 of 24 part of the separation bubble. The figure illustrates that by activation of production of turbulent kinetic energy in the zone defined by the fsep-function, transition may be numerically simulated. by the Klebano streaks become stronger under the combined eects of a large adverse pressure Transition starts at the end of the zone defined by the fsep-function (close to x = 0.18 m). The precise gradient and a large free-stream turbulence level. mechanism will be illustrated in the next section (see Figure 2). Figure 1. Flat plate case with moderately strong adverse pressure gradient and moderately high Figure 1. Flat plate case with moderately strong adverse pressure gradient and moderately high turbulence level at separation). Contour plots of (a) f -function (Equation (11)), (b) f -function turbulence level at separation). Contour plots of (a) fγ- function (Equation (11)), (b) fω- function (Equation (11)) and (c) f -function (Equation (10)) for simulation of separation-induced transition. sep (Equation (11)) and (c) fsep- function (Equation (10)) for simulation of separation-induced transition. The magniﬁed views show velocity vectors along selected lines. The magnified views show velocity vectors along selected lines. Both ways of using f express explicitly the inﬂuence of the free-stream turbulence level, but there sep The fsep-function is used in two ways for modelling transition in a separated boundary layer, is no explicit inﬂuence of the Reynolds number and the adverse pressure gradient in the modelling implemented by the two technically possible ways for changing the source term in the equation of terms by f . However, the Reynolds number and the pressure gradient are taken into account in sep turbulent kinetic energy with the previous version of the model. The first way is by combining fsep the production of turbulent kinetic energy, because these parameters determine the thickness of the with the expression of the intermittency for bypass transition in the effective intermittency, γeff boundary layer at the separation position and thus the size of the activity zone of the f -function. sep The scaling eects of the Reynolds number and the adverse pressure gradient are thus taken into account. The way of modelling transition in a separated boundary layer does not correctly express the process of development of perturbations by Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls and Klebano streaks, because these are actually coherent ﬂuctuations which do not create turbulent shear stress. They are thus, laminar ﬂuctuations, which in a laminar ﬂuctuation kinetic energy model contribute to the laminar Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 10 of 24 ﬂuctuation kinetic energy. In the current model, there is some Reynolds stress produced in the instability zone of a separated laminar boundary layer, which is physically not present. This should be taken into account in the interpretation of the results of skin friction or boundary layer shape factor. The small- and large-scale turbulent viscosities are obtained by: " # k S = , with ! e = max !, C , (13) s s lim ! f a + (1 f )a s sep sep 1 Kleb k S = , with ! = max !, C . (14) l l lim ! e The eddy viscosity in the Navier–Stokes equations is = + The expressions contain a stress T l limiter, which limits the eddy viscosity in zones where ! becomes rather small, which mainly happens in reattachment zones of separated layers. The values in the k–! turbulence model by Wilcox [28,29] are C = 7/8 and a = 0.3. The value of a was determined by Wilcox by tuning the reattachment lim 1 1 length of a turbulent boundary layer separating from a backward-facing step. Without the limiter, the eddy viscosity is too large, and the separation zone is too short. The limiter value in the large-scale eddy viscosity expression (14) is higher: a = 0.6. This value has only a small inﬂuence on the reattachment length of a separated layer, because the large-scale part of the turbulence is then very small, but it critically determines the speed by which a boundary layer evolves towards a fully turbulent boundary layer after activation of bypass transition. With a = 0.3, the recovery to a fully turbulent layer is too slow. Moreover, the skin friction stays below the value produced by the original k–! model. This last eect is caused by the intermittency factor (Equation (6)) which sets to zero in the viscous sublayer and thus reduces the production of turbulent kinetic energy in wall proximity with respect to the production by the original turbulence model. In order to compensate the deﬁcit, the shear stress limiter, a , of the large-scale turbulence (Equation (14)) has to be enlarged with respect to the limiter, a , of the unmodiﬁed model. The value of a was obtained by 1 2 tuning and originally set to 0.45 [23,24]. Later, Fürst [30] reported that in some of his tests, the skin friction after transition stayed lower than obtained by the unmodiﬁed turbulence model. The tuning was then reconsidered and the value of a was enlarged to 0.6. This value was already employed in the model version by Kubacki et al. [31] and is maintained here. The limiter value in the small-scale eddy viscosity expression (13) is changed by the f -function. sep The limiter value is a in a turbulent boundary layer (f = 0). With active f -function, the limiter value 1 sep sep is unity by a = 1. This way, the small-scale eddy viscosity is enlarged in a separated boundary layer, Kleb which promotes the activation of transition under the inﬂuence of free-stream turbulence. The choice for the value of the stress limiter a = 1 is justiﬁed by the work of Zheng and Liu [32], who derived Kleb a weak realizability condition by imposing the Schwartz-inequality to the sum of the squares of P 2 0 0 2 2 the o-diagonal terms of the Reynolds stress tensor, leading to (u u ) 4k , thus S k or i j ! 3S/2. Combining this formula with the stress-limiter formula by Wilcox, ! C S/a , results lim Kleb in a = 2C / 3 1.01. Therefore, we set a = 1, because we feel that we should obey at least Kleb lim Kleb the weak realizability condition. The limiter of the large-scale eddy viscosity (Equation (14)) is not modiﬁed in a separation zone, because this does not have much of an eect. We remark that the condition for positivity of the normal Reynolds stresses, derived by Park and Park [33] is S k, resulting in a maximum allowable limiter factor of about 0.7. We thus obey this stronger limit by a , but not by a . Kleb 6. Functioning of the Model for Transition in Separated State Figure 2 illustrates the functioning of the extended model for the same case with separation as in Figure 1 (70LTU12). Proﬁles of selected variables are shown in the laminar attached part of the boundary layer (x/L = 0.3), the laminar separated part (x/L = 0.5), the transitional part (x/L = 0.7) and the turbulent attached part (x/L = 0.9) (L = 300 mm is the length of the plate). The plotted variables Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 11 of 24 Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23 are the mean x-velocity normalised by the velocity at the boundary layer edge, U/U , the variable 1/2 Figure 2a shows that the shear sheltering is active in the whole laminar boundary layer. It also k y/, used in the shear-sheltering term (Equation (4)) and the intermittency term (Equation (6)), shows that the intermittency is set to zero in almost the whole boundary layer. Production of the P -term (Equation (8)) normalized by D = *k ! , with area-averaged inlet values of sep inlet inlet inlet turbulence is only allowed in the edge zone of the laminar boundary layer. Figure 2b shows that the k and !. Additionally, proﬁles of k/(S) are shown, which is a variable that may also be used in Psep-term is activated by detection of the separation. This causes a local increase in the turbulent the shear-sheltering term and the intermittency term. E.g., k/(W) was used as the variable in the kinetic energy, k, such that the intermittency becomes unity in a large part of the upper zone of the shear-sheltering term in a previous model version [23], following the formulation by Walters and boundary layer. The activation of the intermittency starts the production term Pk in the set of k-ω 1/2 Cokljat [25]. The horizontal lines show the critical value C = 21 (assuming C = C ) of k y/ in the ss ss s Equations (1) and (2), leading to the simulated transition, visible in Figure 2c,d. Once the separation shear sheltering term (Equation (4)) and A = 12 in the intermittency term (Equation (6)). ends, the Psep-term becomes zero. Figure Figure 2. 2. Functioning Functioning of the tr of the transition ansition mode modell in a separated in a separated boundary layer boundary layer . . 1/2 A ﬁrst observation is that the variations of the variables k y/ and k/(S) are largely equivalent in 7. Tuning of the Model for Transition in Separated State the laminar state of the boundary layer, and close to the wall in the transitional and turbulent states. The tuning of the model parameters for transition in separated boundary layer state was The dierence is somewhat larger in the transitional state. The comparison shows that it is possible to completed with selected cases from the experimental data base of Simoni et al. [16] for boundary 1/2 choose other sensor parameters than k y/. However, Figure 2 demonstrates that the variations of the layer flows on a flat plate. We refer to cases of the data base by the acronym UNIGE, which stands 1/2 parameter k y/ are very regular, which justiﬁes our preference for this parameter. for University of Genoa. The measured flow domain is a trapezoidal area, as shown in Figure 3, Figure 2a shows that the shear sheltering is active in the whole laminar boundary layer. It also shows bounded by the AB, BC and CD lines. The AB and CD sides of the trapezoid are 10 and 40 mm high, that the intermittency is set to zero in almost the whole boundary layer. Production of turbulence is only respectively. The AB side is at 60 mm downstream of the leading edge of the plate. The BC side begins allowed in the edge zone of the laminar boundary layer. Figure 2b shows that the P -term is activated by sep at 10 mm above the plate at 60 mm from the leading edge and ends 40 mm above the plate at the detection of the separation. This causes a local increase in the turbulent kinetic energy, k, such that the plate end (300 mm). Four cases were selected that are representative for separation-induced intetra rmn itsi teti non, two cases f cy becomes unio ty r b inypa a la ss tra rge pn asi rttioon a f thenu d ptwo c per zo an se es w of tih th a e bolamin undarayr bo layun er. dary The lay activ er w atiointhout of the intetransition rmittency. Th star e c tsa tses he p are rod list uced tion in T ter a m bleP 2. in The fr the see- et o stream turbul f k-!Equation ence s (1)in atensi nd (2 t) i, es lea ar d e ca ingtegorised in the to the simulated data base with the terms lowest, low, high and highest, corresponding to 1.5%, 2.5%, 3.5% and 5% at transition, visible in Figure 2c,d. Once the separation ends, the P -term becomes zero. sep the plate leading edge. The values at the transition point do not differ much. Thus, all turbulence 7. Tuning of the Model for Transition in Separated State intensities in the data base are actually rather high. With the terminology used here, we categorise the turbulence levels as moderately high to elevated. The adverse pressure gradients in the data base The tuning of the model parameters for transition in separated boundary layer state was completed range from zero pressure gradient to a magnitude with a K-value of about three at the point of with selected cases from the experimental data base of Simoni et al. [16] for boundary layer ﬂows on a transition. Thus, the three pressure gradient levels called mild, moderately high and strong in this ﬂat plate. We refer to cases of the data base by the acronym UNIGE, which stands for University of paper occur. However, the adverse pressure gradient may be stronger in practice. We discuss a case Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 12 of 24 Genoa. The measured ﬂow domain is a trapezoidal area, as shown in Figure 3, bounded by the AB, BC and CD lines. The AB and CD sides of the trapezoid are 10 and 40 mm high, respectively. The AB side is at 60 mm downstream of the leading edge of the plate. The BC side begins at 10 mm above the plate at 60 mm from the leading edge and ends 40 mm above the plate at the plate end (300 mm). Four cases were selected that are representative for separation-induced transition, two cases for bypass transition and two cases with a laminar boundary layer without transition. The cases are listed in Table 2. The free-stream turbulence intensities are categorised in the data base with the terms lowest, low, high and highest, corresponding to 1.5%, 2.5%, 3.5% and 5% at the plate leading edge. The values at the transition point do not dier much. Thus, all turbulence intensities in the data base are actually rather high. With the terminology used here, we categorise the turbulence levels as moderately high to elevated. The adverse pressure gradients in the data base range from zero pressure gradient to a magnitude with a K-value of about three at the point of transition. Thus, the three pressure gradient levels called mild, moderately high and strong in this paper occur. However, the adverse pressure Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23 gradient may be stronger in practice. We discuss a case with a stronger adverse pressure gradient in the next with a section. stronger adverse The focus of pressure gr the extension adient in the of the transition next section. modelThe focus of the extensio is not on cases with a very n of the strong adverse transi pr tiessur on model e gradient is not on combined cases wi with th a very strong a high free-str adverse pre eam turbulence ssure gr level adient , because, combined wit as explained h a high in free-stream turbulence level, because, as explained in Section 5, the transition model functions Section 5, the transition model functions already for such cases, without the proposed modiﬁcations. already for such cases, without the proposed modifications. Figure 3. UNIGE (University of Genoa) ﬂat plate. Computational domain (bounded by AB, BC, CD Figure 3. UNIGE (University of Genoa) flat plate. Computational domain (bounded by AB, BC, CD lines). The red AB and BC lines are inlets at which LDV data on mean and turbulent quantities are lines). The red AB and BC lines are inlets at which LDV data on mean and turbulent quantities are available. available The . The PIVPIV (Parti (Particlecle Image Imag V e Velocim elocimetry) etry domain ) domain is t is the he shaded z shaded zone. one. F Flow low i is s from from left to rig left to right. ht. Table 2. Summary of UNIGE test cases. The Reynolds number is based on the plate length and the Table 2. Summary of UNIGE test cases. The Reynolds number is based on the plate length and the mean free-stream velocity at the leading edge of the plate. The free-stream turbulence intensity, Tu, is mean free-stream velocity at the leading edge of the plate. The free-stream turbulence intensity, Tu, reported at the edge of the boundary layer at the inlet to the computational domain (60 mm downstream is reported at the edge of the boundary layer at the inlet to the computational domain (60 mm of the leading edge of the plate). The numbers 70, 150 and 220 refer to the Reynolds numbers (70k, 150k downstream of the leading edge of the plate). The numbers 70, 150 and 220 refer to the Reynolds and 220k). The turbulence levels are coded by LLTU (lowest), LTU (low), HTU (high), HHTU (highest). numbers (70k, 150k and 220k). The turbulence levels are coded by LLTU (lowest), LTU (low), HTU The adverse pressure gradients are coded by the opening angle of the diverging section of the wind (high), HHTU (highest). The adverse pressure gradients are coded by the opening angle of the tunnel (0 , 5 , 9 and 12 ). The acronym APG stands for adverse pressure gradient. diverging section of the wind tunnel (0°, 5°, 9° and 12°). The acronym APG stands for adverse pressure gradient. Test Case Re Tu [%] Pressure Gradient Transition Mode / Flow Test Case Re Tu [%] Pressure Gradient Transition Mode / Flow 70LLTU12 70,000 1.5 strong APG separation-induced 70LLTU12 70000 1.5 strong APG separation-induced 70LTU12 70,000 2.5 strong APG separation-induced 70LTU12 70000 2.5 strong APG separation-induced 70LTU9 70,000 2.5 moderate APG separation-induced 70LTU9 70000 2.5 moderate APG separation-induced 70HTU9 70,000 3.5 moderate APG separation-induced 70HTU9 70000 3.5 moderate APG separation-induced 150LTU5 150,000 2.5 mild APG bypass 150LTU5 150000 2.5 mild APG bypass 220LTU5 220,000 2.5 mild APG bypass 220LTU5 220000 2.5 mild APG bypass 70LL 70 TU5 LLTU5 770,000 0000 1.5 1.5 mild mild APGAPG lamina lamin r (nar o tra (no ntransition) sition) 150LLTU5 150000 1.5 mild APG laminar (no transition) 150LLTU5 150,000 1.5 mild APG laminar (no transition) The experiments deliver the mean velocity components in the x- and y-directions, the The experiments deliver the mean velocity components in the x- and y-directions, corresponding root mean square velocity fluctuation levels and the integral time-scale of the the corresponding root mean square velocity ﬂuctuation levels and the integral time-scale of the fluctuations on the inflow boundaries of the computational domain (the AB and BC lines). The mean ﬂuctuations on the inﬂow boundaries of the computational domain (the AB and BC lines). The mean velocity components were directly imposed on these lines and constant static pressure was imposed velocity components were directly imposed on these lines and constant static pressure was imposed on the outlet boundary (CD Line). The inlet profiles of k and ω were derived from the experimental data by the procedures described in Simoni et al. [16]. No-slip conditions were set along the plate, combined with the boundary conditions for k and ω by the Equations (12). Steady two-dimensional incompressible Navier–Stokes equations were used, discretized by the finite volume method, with second-order upwind approximation of convective fluxes and second- order central representation of diffusive fluxes, available in the ANSYS Fluent CFD-package (version 15). The transition model was implemented by the User Defined Function-facility. The solution of the equations was by the coupled pressure-based algorithm with iterations done until the normalised −6 residuals of the momentum and the transport equations dropped below 10 . A good-quality grid was generated with a structured part near the plate and an unstructured part away from the plate. The total number of cells was 36,000, with values of y below 0.01 along the plate. A grid sensitivity study was completed with a coarser grid of 25,000 cells, with y about one along the plate, and a finer grid of 77,000 cells. The shape factor distributions along the plate were Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 13 of 24 on the outlet boundary (CD Line). The inlet proﬁles of k and ! were derived from the experimental data by the procedures described in Simoni et al. [16]. No-slip conditions were set along the plate, combined with the boundary conditions for k and ! by the Equation (12). Steady two-dimensional incompressible Navier–Stokes equations were used, discretized by the ﬁnite volume method, with second-order upwind approximation of convective ﬂuxes and second-order central representation of diusive ﬂuxes, available in the ANSYS Fluent CFD-package (version 15). The transition model was implemented by the User Deﬁned Function-facility. The solution of the equations was by the coupled pressure-based algorithm with iterations done until the normalised residuals of the momentum and the transport equations dropped below 10 . A good-quality grid was generated with a structured part near the plate and an unstructured part away from the plate. The total number of cells was 36,000, with values of y below 0.01 along the plate. A grid sensitivity study was completed with a coarser grid of 25,000 cells, with y about one along the plate, and a ﬁner grid of 77,000 cells. The shape factor distributions along the plate were visually identical on all meshes (results not shown). The basic mesh was thus proven to be ﬁne enough and it was chosen for the simulations. In order to assess the quality of the imposed inlet conditions along the AB and BC lines, a comparison is made in Figure 4 between the mean x- and y-velocity components, and the turbulent kinetic energy, at the distance y/L = 0.04 (12 mm) from the plate, as measured using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and as numerically obtained. The comparison is made for four cases (70LLTU12, 70LTU12, 70LLTU5 and 150LTU5), but a similar level of agreement was obtained with the other four cases. The wall normal distance, y/L = 0.04, is four to ﬁve times ( is the boundary layer thickness) at the domain inlet (AB line) and 0.7 to 4 times at the domain outlet (CD line). The dierences in the boundary layer thickness are due to variability of the Reynolds number, the turbulence level and the pressure gradient. In the cases with bypass transition and the cases with a laminar boundary layer that is prone to separation, the y/L = 0.04 line is above the boundary layer edge on all streamwise positions. In the cases with the strong adverse pressure gradient and boundary layer separation, the y/L = 0.04 line enters the boundary layer on the rear part of the plate. Figure 4a,b show the comparison between the distributions of measured and predicted x- and y- mean velocity components and turbulent kinetic energy, k, for the cases with strong pressure gradient and separated boundary layer (70LLTU12 and 70LTU12). The agreement is good for x/L < 0.6, but for x/L > 0.6 the numerical k-values are much too low. This is caused by the inability of the steady two-dimensional RANS simulation to reproduce the ﬂow unsteadiness associated with the Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls. So, the dierence for x/L > 0.6 is not caused by an error in the inlet conditions. With a laminar boundary layer along the plate (70LLTU5: Figure 4c) and with bypass transition (150LTU5: Figure 4d), the agreement between measured and computed mean velocity components and k-values is good along the whole y/L = 0.04 line. Four constants determine the f -function. The constants a , b and b are not critical. This is in sep ! contrast to the constant a , which has to be chosen so that f does not become active in an attached ! sep laminar boundary layer and in the turbulent part of an attached turbulent boundary layer, and that it deﬁnes the front part of a separated laminar boundary layer. In order to ensure that the results of the previous version of the model are not changed much in a boundary layer that stays laminar, a sensitivity analysis to the value of a was performed. Figure 5a shows the shape factor evolution along the plate for the 70LLTU5 case, obtained with the previous model version and with the extended model, using a = 100, 150 and 200. The results produced by the previous model version are quite good. With a = 100 some dierences are observed between the results of the two versions. The results are almost unaltered for a = 150 and 200. It means that a = 100 is not high enough. We thus set ! ! a = 150. Figure 5b shows the shape factor evolution by the extended model version with a = 150 and ! ! the previous version for the second case without transition to turbulence before the end of the plate. No dierences are observed between the results of the two model versions, and the results agree well with the experiment. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23 visually identical on all meshes (results not shown). The basic mesh was thus proven to be fine enough and it was chosen for the simulations. In order to assess the quality of the imposed inlet conditions along the AB and BC lines, a comparison is made in Figure 4 between the mean x- and y-velocity components, and the turbulent kinetic energy, at the distance y/L = 0.04 (12 mm) from the plate, as measured using Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) and as numerically obtained. The comparison is made for four cases (70LLTU12, 70LTU12, 70LLTU5 and 150LTU5), but a similar level of agreement was obtained with the other four cases. The wall normal distance, y/L = 0.04, is four to five times δ (δ is the boundary layer thickness) at the domain inlet (AB line) and 0.7 to 4 times δ at the domain outlet (CD line). The differences in the boundary layer thickness are due to variability of the Reynolds number, the turbulence level and the pressure gradient. In the cases with bypass transition and the cases with a laminar boundary layer that is prone to separation, the y/L = 0.04 line is above the boundary layer edge on all streamwise positions. In the cases with the strong adverse pressure gradient and boundary layer separation, the y/L = 0.04 line enters the boundary layer on the rear part of the plate. Figure 4a,b show the comparison between the distributions of measured and predicted x- and y- mean velocity components and turbulent kinetic energy, k, for the cases with strong pressure gradient and separated boundary layer (70LLTU12 and 70LTU12). The agreement is good for x/L < 0.6, but for x/L > 0.6 the numerical k-values are much too low. This is caused by the inability of the steady two-dimensional RANS simulation to reproduce the flow unsteadiness associated with the Kelvin–Helmholtz rolls. So, the difference for x/L > 0.6 is not caused by an error in the inlet conditions. With a laminar boundary layer along the plate (70LLTU5: Figure 4c) and with bypass transition Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 14 of 24 (150LTU5: Figure 4d), the agreement between measured and computed mean velocity components and k-values is good along the whole y/L = 0.04 line. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23 Four constants determine the fsep-function. The const ants aγ, bγ and bω are not critical. This is in contrast to the constant aω, which has to be chosen so that fsep does not become active in an attached laminar boundary layer and in the turbulent part of an attached turbulent boundary layer, and that it defines the front part of a separated laminar boundary layer. In order to ensure that the results of the previous version of the model are not changed much in a boundary layer that stays laminar, a sensitivity analysis to the value of aω was performed. Figure 5a shows the shape factor evolution along the plate for the 70LLTU5 case, obtained with the previous model version and with the extended model, using aω = 100, 150 and 200. The results produced by the previous model version are quite good. With aω = 100 some differences are observed between the results of the two versions. The results are almost unaltered for aω = 150 and 200. It means that aω = 100 is not high enough. We thus set aω = 150. Figure 5b shows the shape factor evolution by the extended model version with aω = 150 and the previous version for the second case without transition to turbulence before the end of the plate. No Figure 4. UNIGE flat plate. Mean x- and y- velocity components and turbulent kinetic energy, k, along Figure 4. UNIGE ﬂat plate. Mean x- and y- velocity components and turbulent kinetic energy, k, along y/L = 0.04. Transition in the separated boundary layer (a,b), laminar boundary layer prone to differences are observed between the results of the two model versions, and the results agree well y/L = 0.04. Transition in the separated boundary layer (a,b), laminar boundary layer prone to separation separation (c) and bypass transition (d). Symbols denote the PIV results. with the experi (c) and bypass ment. transition (d). Symbols denote the PIV results. Figure 5. UNIGE ﬂat plate. Measured and predicted shape factor evolutions for cases without transition Figure 5. UNIGE flat plate. Measured and predicted shape factor evolutions for cases without before the end of the plate (a,b) and with bypass transition (c,d). transition before the end of the plate (a,b) and with bypass transition (c,d). With selected values of the constants aγ, bγ, aω and bω (Equation (11)) and the constant aKleb (Equation (13)), the values of CKlebγ (Equation (7)) and CKlebP (Equation (8)) have to be tuned. For this purpose, the cases with moderate and strong pressure gradients and a large separation bubble on the plate were used. Figure 6 shows the numerical results for the four cases. The cases are arranged with an increasing turbulence level (a to b and c to d) and decreasing adverse pressure gradient (a and b to c and d). The results by the previous and the modified versions of the algebraic model are represented by the same line types as in Figure 5. In all cases, the supplementary production term in the k-equation (the Psep-term on r.h.s. of Equation (1)) was active inside the separated boundary layer. This supplementary term triggers the transition in the separated-boundary layer, and further downstream (towards the end of the plate) the main production term (the Pk-term on r.h.s. of Equation (1)) takes over. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 15 of 24 With selected values of the constants a , b , a and b (Equation (11)) and the constant a ! ! Kleb (Equation (13)), the values of C (Equation (7)) and C (Equation (8)) have to be tuned. For this Kleb KlebP purpose, the cases with moderate and strong pressure gradients and a large separation bubble on the plate were used. Figure 6 shows the numerical results for the four cases. The cases are arranged with an increasing turbulence level (a to b and c to d) and decreasing adverse pressure gradient (a and b to c and d). The results by the previous and the modiﬁed versions of the algebraic model are represented by the same line types as in Figure 5. In all cases, the supplementary production term in the k-equation (the P -term on r.h.s. of Equation (1)) was active inside the separated boundary layer. This sep supplementary term triggers the transition in the separated-boundary layer, and further downstream (towards the end of the plate) the main production term (the P -term on r.h.s. of Equation (1)) takes over. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 23 Figure 6. UNIGE flat plate. Measured and predicted shape factor evolutions for cases with transition Figure 6. UNIGE ﬂat plate. Measured and predicted shape factor evolutions for cases with transition in a separated boundary layer influenced by free-stream turbulence. Strong adverse pressure gradient in a separated boundary layer inﬂuenced by free-stream turbulence. Strong adverse pressure gradient (a(,a b,) band ) and mode moderate rate gradient ( gradient (c,d c,). d). Two additional results are represented in Figure 6. The one denoted by C is with a deactivated Two additional results are represented in Figure 6. The one denoted by CKlebP is with a KlebP f -term in the intermittency expression (7), (C = 0). The other one denoted by C is with a sep deactivated fsep-term in the intermittency expression (7), ( Kleb CKlebγ = 0). The other one denoted by Kleb CKlebγ is deactivated f -term in the boosting production P term (8), (C = 0). The boosting term based with a deactsep ivated fsep -term in the boosting producti sep on Psep term (8), (CKlebP = 0). The boosting term KlebP on f is always active (ﬁrst part of Equation (8)). The eect of the f -term in the expression of the based on KH fKH is always active (first part of Equation (8)). The effect of sep the fsep-term in the expression of intermittency, when used alone (C ), increases in the order of the cases a to d, but cannot be tuned the intermittency, when used alone (CKlebγ), increases in the order of the cases a to d, but cannot be Kleb for good results in all four cases. With C = 0.3, the result of the fourth case, which is the one with tuned for good results in all four cases.Kleb Wit h CKlebγ = 0.3, the result of the fourth case, which is the one the highest free-stream turbulence level, becomes good. The f -term in the boosting production term, with the highest free-stream turbulence level, becomes goodsep . The fsep-term in the boosting production when used alone (C ), greatly improves the predictions and can be tuned for good results, albeit not term, when used alone KlebP (CKlebP), greatly improves the predictions and can be tuned for good results, perfect, in all four cases. The tuned value is C = 0.01. When both f -terms are active (full black albeit not perfect, in all four cases. The tuned value is CKlebP = 0.01. When sep both fsep-terms are active (full KlebP line), the results do not dier much from those with the C -term alone. It is thus not possible to black line), the results do not differ much from those with the KlebP CKlebP -term alone. It is thus not possible to accurately tune the value of CKlebγ, when the CKlebP-term is already used. However, clearly CKlebγ = 0.3 is an appropriate value. From Figure 6, we conclude that it is beneficial to add the CKlebP-term in the boosting production term (Equation (8)). We also conclude that it does not harm to add the CKlebγ-term in the expression of the intermittency (Equation (7)), but that this addition is not necessary for the cases studied. For completeness, we mention that the results shown in the previous Figures 4 and 5 do not change when the CKlebγ-term is not used in the expression of the intermittency. Based on the tuning in this section, one may conclude that the CKlebγ-term is not needed. We maintain it, however, because it allows a somewhat improved prediction for transition in a separated state under a very strong adverse pressure gradient and a high free-stream turbulence level, as we demonstrate in the next section. All results in Figure 6 have a somewhat too low predicted peak value of the shape factor. This is due, as discussed in Section 5, to production of turbulent kinetic energy by the model in the instability zone of the separated layer, which does not occur in reality. The choice for CKlebP = 0.01 is a compromise Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 16 of 24 accurately tune the value of C , when the C -term is already used. However, clearly C = 0.3 Kleb KlebP Kleb is an appropriate value. From Figure 6, we conclude that it is beneﬁcial to add the C -term in the KlebP boosting production term (Equation (8)). We also conclude that it does not harm to add the C -term Kleb in the expression of the intermittency (Equation (7)), but that this addition is not necessary for the cases studied. For completeness, we mention that the results shown in the previous Figures 4 and 5 do not change when the C -term is not used in the expression of the intermittency. Based on the tuning in Kleb this section, one may conclude that the C -term is not needed. We maintain it, however, because it Kleb allows a somewhat improved prediction for transition in a separated state under a very strong adverse pressure gradient and a high free-stream turbulence level, as we demonstrate in the next section. All results in Figure 6 have a somewhat too low predicted peak value of the shape factor. This is due, as discussed in Section 5, to production of turbulent kinetic energy by the model in the instability zone of the separated layer, which does not occur in reality. The choice for C = 0.01 is a compromise KlebP among the four cases shown in Figure 6 for a = 1. We mention that comparable results are obtained Kleb by a somewhat larger value of C together with a somewhat lower value of a . However, the best KlebP Kleb results are obtained by keeping C as low as possible, because a larger value of C advances the KlebP KlebP transition prediction of the bypass transition cases (Figure 5c,d), where the inﬂuence of the value of a is much less. Kleb With the results shown in Figures 5 and 6 in this section, one understands that the role of the added terms in the extended model is rather limited. Without the added terms, the transition model functions already for all transition types, but the added terms improve the predictions for transition in separated state under a moderately strong adverse pressure gradient, in the presence of a moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence level. 8. Veriﬁcation of the Model for Transition in Separated State under a Very Strong Adverse Pressure Gradient and a Moderately High Free-Stream Turbulence Level 6 2 The pressure gradient parameter expressed by K = 10 U (dU/dx) is, at most, about three at the position of separation in the cases used for tuning in the previous section. Stronger adverse pressure gradients may occur in practice. Therefore, we verify the model on a case with a much larger adverse pressure gradient, with a K-value of about 4.75 at the position of separation. The free-stream turbulence intensity is moderately high. Figure 7 shows the geometry and the boundary conditions for the numerical simulation. The ﬂow over the ﬂat plate was experimentally studied by Coull and Hodson [15] and simulated using LES by Nagabhushana Rao et al. [34] and by Li and Yang [10]. The domain in Figure 7 is a two-dimensional section of the domain used by Li and Yang, with length 1315 mm, inlet height 644 mm and outlet height 377 mm. The length of the test area on the plate is S = 500 mm. The plate thickness is 12.8 mm. The leading edge is elliptical, with a semi-major axis equal to 38 mm. The Reynolds number is 84,000, based on the length S and the mean velocity in the free stream at the end of the test area (S = 500 mm). 0 0 Slip conditions were applied at the two contoured walls opposite to the plate, no-slip conditions along the plate, and the ﬂow velocity at the inlet was set to U = 1.34 m/s, as in the LES by Li and Yang [10]. The inlet values of the turbulence quantities, k and !, were obtained by tuning. Both in the experiment (Tu = 3.0%) and the LES by Li and Yang (Tu = 2.9%), the free-stream turbulence intensity at the leading edge of the plate was reported. In addition, the free-stream turbulent length scale at the leading edge was reported in the experiment (l = 30.1 mm). The wall-normal distance for the free-stream values of the turbulence level and the turbulent length scale was not speciﬁed in the experiment and neither in the LES. The distance y/S = 0.12 was selected by visual inspection of Figure 5 in the work by Coull and Hodson [15]. The inlet values of turbulence level, Tu = 6.5 %, and turbulent length scale, l = 22.7 mm, were iteratively determined until the turbulence level, Tu = 2.9%, and the turbulent length scale, l = 30.1 mm, were obtained at the plate leading edge. The same numerical algorithms were employed as in the cases discussed earlier. Iterations were done until the normalised residuals of the momentum and the transport equations dropped below 10 . Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 23 among the four cases shown in Figure 6 for aKleb = 1. We mention that comparable results are obtained by a somewhat larger value of CKlebP together with a somewhat lower value of aKleb. However, the best results are obtained by keeping CKlebP as low as possible, because a larger value of CKlebP advances the transition prediction of the bypass transition cases (Figure 5c,d), where the influence of the value of aKleb is much less. With the results shown in Figures 5 and 6 in this section, one understands that the role of the added terms in the extended model is rather limited. Without the added terms, the transition model functions already for all transition types, but the added terms improve the predictions for transition in separated state under a moderately strong adverse pressure gradient, in the presence of a moderately high or elevated free-stream turbulence level. 8. Verification of the Model for Transition in Separated State under a Very Strong Adverse Pressure Gradient and a Moderately High Free-Stream Turbulence Level 6 −2 The pressure gradient parameter expressed by K = −10 νU (dU/dx) is, at most, about three at the position of separation in the cases used for tuning in the previous section. Stronger adverse pressure gradients may occur in practice. Therefore, we verify the model on a case with a much larger adverse pressure gradient, with a K-value of about 4.75 at the position of separation. The free-stream turbulence intensity is moderately high. Figure 7 shows the geometry and the boundary conditions for the numerical simulation. The flow over the flat plate was experimentally studied by Coull and Hodson [15] and simulated using LES by Nagabhushana Rao et al. [34] and by Li and Yang [10]. The domain in Figure 7 is a two- dimensional section of the domain used by Li and Yang, with length 1315 mm, inlet height 644 mm Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 17 of 24 and outlet height 377 mm. The length of the test area on the plate is S0 = 500 mm. The plate thickness is 12.8 mm. The leading edge is elliptical, with a semi-major axis equal to 38 mm. The Reynolds number is 84,000, based on the length S0 and the mean velocity in the free stream at the end of the test A good quality grid was generated with 294,000 cells and y < 0.06 along the plate (basic grid). A grid area (S0 = 500 mm). Slip conditions were applied at the two contoured walls opposite to the plate, no- sensitivity study was performed by simulation on a coarser grid with 90,000 cells. The wall shear slip conditions along the plate, and the flow velocity at the inlet was set to U = 1.34 m/s, as in the LES stress distribution obtained on the coarser grid was the same as that on the basic one. This ensures by Li and Yang [10]. grid independency of the basic grid results. Figure 7. Flat plate by Li and Yang. Computational domain, boundary conditions and grid details close to the plate leading edge. Figure 7. Flat plate by Li and Yang. Computational domain, boundary conditions and grid details close to the plate leading edge. Figure 8a shows the evolution of the mean x-velocity at the boundary layer edge, as measured by Coull and Hodson, [15], simulated using LES by Nagabhushana Rao et al. [34] and by Li and Yang [10], The inlet values of the turbulence quantities, k and ω, were obtained by tuning. Both in the and predicted by both versions of the transition model. The evolution of the edge velocity is correct experiment (Tu = 3.0%) and the LES by Li and Yang (Tu = 2.9%), the free-stream turbulence intensity with both versions of the transition model. Figure 8b–d shows proﬁles of the mean x-velocity as a function of the wall-normal distance at the streamwise positions x/S = 0.65, 0.75, and 0.85, obtained by the experiments, by both LES and by two-dimensional RANS with the previous and the extended versions of the transition model. The position x/S = 0.65 is just downstream of the separation point (0.62), while the position x/S = 0.85 0 0 is just upstream of the reattachment point (0.87). The contoured walls were constructed by Nagabhushana Rao et al. and by Li and Yang with the objective to match the free-stream conditions of the experiment by Coull and Hodson. The walls dier slightly and they also dier from the wind tunnel walls of the experiment, which have bleeds for preventing boundary layer separation. Here, we use exactly the same wall and plate shapes as used by Li and Yang. So, we compare the two-dimensional RANS results, with the LES results by Li and Yang. The other results are shown for proving the realism of the simulations by Li and Yang. Both versions of the transition model produce results that show good agreement with the two LES results and the experiment at the ﬁrst two locations (Figure 8b,c), where the boundary layer ﬂow is experimentally still laminar. The correspondence with the LES of Li and Yang is somewhat better by the previous model version, however. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23 at the leading edge of the plate was reported. In addition, the free-stream turbulent length scale at the leading edge was reported in the experiment (lt = 30.1 mm). The wall-normal distance for the free- stream values of the turbulence level and the turbulent length scale was not specified in the experiment and neither in the LES. The distance y/S0 = 0.12 was selected by visual inspection of Figure 5 in the work by Coull and Hodson [15]. The inlet values of turbulence level, Tu = 6.5 %, and turbulent length scale, lt = 22.7 mm, were iteratively determined until the turbulence level, Tu = 2.9%, and the turbulent length scale, lt = 30.1 mm, were obtained at the plate leading edge. The same numerical algorithms were employed as in the cases discussed earlier. Iterations were done until the normalised residuals of the momentum and the transport equations dropped below −5 + 10 . A good quality grid was generated with 294,000 cells and y < 0.06 along the plate (basic grid). A grid sensitivity study was performed by simulation on a coarser grid with 90,000 cells. The wall shear stress distribution obtained on the coarser grid was the same as that on the basic one. This ensures grid independency of the basic grid results. Figure 8a shows the evolution of the mean x-velocity at the boundary layer edge, as measured by Coull and Hodson, [15], simulated using LES by Nagabhushana Rao et al. [34] and by Li and Yang Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 18 of 24 [10], and predicted by both versions of the transition model. The evolution of the edge velocity is correct with both versions of the transition model. Figure 8. Flat plate by Li and Yang. (a) mean velocity at the boundary layer edge and mean x-velocity Figure 8. Flat plate by Li and Yang. (a) mean velocity at the boundary layer edge and mean x-velocity profiles at streamwise distances: (b) x/S0 = 0.65, (c) x/S0 = 0.75, and (d) x/S0 = 0.85. LES: large eddy proﬁles at streamwise distances: (b) x/S = 0.65, (c) x/S = 0.75, and (d) x/S = 0.85. LES: large 0 0 0 simulation. eddy simulation. At Figure the position 8b–d shows profiles of the mean x/S = 0.85, thus just before x-veloc reattachment, ity as a function of the agreement the wall-normal d obtained by the modiﬁed istance at transition model with the LES results by Li and Yang is very good up to the wall-normal distance the streamwise positions x/S0 = 0.65, 0.75, and 0.85, obtained by the experiments, by both LES and by ytwo- /S =di 0.014. mensiona The pr l R evious ANS wi mode th the previ l versiono pr us edicts and the ex a somewhat tended v tooelate rsions of reattachment. the transi In tion model the boundary . The layer edge zone, between y/S = 0.014 and y/S = 0.026, the correspondence with the LES results is position x/S0 = 0.65 is just downstream of the separation point (0.62), while the position x/S0 = 0.85 is 0 0 less just up good strea by both m of the transition reattachment poi model versions. nt (0.8 This 7). is not surprising, because the physical unsteadiness, especially at the boundary layer edge, is not captured by the two-dimensional steady RANS simulations. Figure 9a shows the wall shear stress along the plate, obtained by the LES, the fully turbulent k-! model, and by the k-! model combined with four versions of the algebraic transition model. With the indications C and C is meant that only one of the extensions in the modiﬁed model is active Kleb KlebP (either Equation (7) or Equation (8)). With the reference LES, the separation and reattachment points are at x/S = 0.62 and 0.87. All variants of the algebraic transition model capture well the separation point (x/S = 0.62). The reattachment point is reproduced somewhat too, far downstream, with the previous version of the transition model (x/S = 0.91). An improved result is obtained with the modiﬁed model (x/S = 0.88), with both extensions for transition prediction in separated state active. The results with only one of the extensions active, (C or C ) are near to those of the previous model Kleb KlebP version. Thus, in this case, the combination of both extensions is necessary for improving the result. The asymptotic behaviour at a large streamwise distance (x/S = 1.1) is not correct with either version of the algebraic transition model, but, clearly this deﬁciency is caused by the k-! turbulence model. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 23 The contoured walls were constructed by Nagabhushana Rao et al. and by Li and Yang with the objective to match the free-stream conditions of the experiment by Coull and Hodson. The walls differ slightly and they also differ from the wind tunnel walls of the experiment, which have bleeds for preventing boundary layer separation. Here, we use exactly the same wall and plate shapes as used by Li and Yang. So, we compare the two-dimensional RANS results, with the LES results by Li and Yang. The other results are shown for proving the realism of the simulations by Li and Yang. Both versions of the transition model produce results that show good agreement with the two LES results and the experiment at the first two locations (Figure 8b,c), where the boundary layer flow is experimentally still laminar. The correspondence with the LES of Li and Yang is somewhat better by the previous model version, however. At the position x/S0 = 0.85, thus just before reattachment, the agreement obtained by the modified transition model with the LES results by Li and Yang is very good up to the wall-normal distance y/S0 = 0.014. The previous model version predicts a somewhat too late reattachment. In the boundary layer edge zone, between y/S0 = 0.014 and y/S0 = 0.026, the correspondence with the LES results is less good by both transition model versions. This is not surprising, because the physical unsteadiness, especially at the boundary layer edge, is not captured by the two-dimensional steady RANS simulations. Figure 9a shows the wall shear stress along the plate, obtained by the LES, the fully turbulent k- ω model, and by the k-ω model combined with four versions of the algebraic transition model. With the indications CKlebγ and CKlebP is meant that only one of the extensions in the modified model is active (either Equation (7) or Equation (8)). With the reference LES, the separation and reattachment points are at x/S0 = 0.62 and 0.87. All variants of the algebraic transition model capture well the separation point (x/S0 = 0.62). The reattachment point is reproduced somewhat too, far downstream, with the previous version of the transition model (x/S0 = 0.91). An improved result is obtained with the modified model (x/S0 = 0.88), with both extensions for transition prediction in separated state active. The results with only one of the extensions active, (CKlebγ or CKlebP) are near to those of the previous model version. Thus, in this case, the combination of both extensions is necessary for improving the result. The asymptotic behaviour at a large streamwise distance (x/S0 = 1.1) is not correct with either Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 19 of 24 version of the algebraic transition model, but, clearly this deficiency is caused by the k-ω turbulence model. Figure 9. Flat plate by Li and Yang. Wall shear stress along the plate. Verification of the model Figure 9. Flat plate by Li and Yang. Wall shear stress along the plate. Veriﬁcation of the model sensitivity to the terms with CKlebγ and CKlebP. Results with one extension active in either Equation (7) sensitivity to the terms with C and C . Results with one extension active in either Equation (7) Kleb KlebP or Equation (8) (a), and results with both extensions active in Equations (7) and (8) (setting different or Equation (8) (a), and results with both extensions active in Equations (7) and (8) (setting dierent values of the CKlebγ coefficient) (b). values of the C coecient) (b). Kleb The The fl ﬂat at p plate late ca case se st studied udied here here is is one one wit with h aa v very ery st strrong ong adverse adverse p prressur essure e gradient gradient and and a a moderately moderately hi high gh fr free-str ee-stream turbulence l eam turbulence level evel at at th thee position position o off separation. separation. W With ith such such a c a case, ase, the the pr previous ver evious version sion of t of the he t transition ransition mode modell funct functions ions alr alread eady y q quite uite well, well, beca because use t the he dominan dominantt model model ingr ingred edient ient is is the the bas basic ic algebraic algebraic form formula ula for for int intermittency ermittency ( (Equation Equation ( (6)), 6)), as as expl explained ained in in Sect Section ion 5. 5. Nevertheless, Nevertheless,an an imp improve roved pr d pred ediction iction is obtained is obtained by adding by addin the modiﬁcati g the modi ons ficbased ations ba on the sedf on t -function. he fsep- sep Contrary to the cases used for tuning in the previous section, the prediction has now some sensitivity to the value of C , which is illustrated in Figure 9b. The conclusion is that the value C = 0.3, Kleb Kleb derived in the previous section, is an appropriate value. We repeat that accurate tuning of the value of C is not possible with the data used in the previous section. Clearly, for accurate tuning, a case Kleb is needed with separation under a very strong adverse pressure gradient in the presence of a high turbulence level, such that the intermittency (Equation (7)) becomes the dominant ingredient of the transition model. 9. Veriﬁcation of the Extended Model on Previously Used Cases It is essential that the terms added to the transition model do not cause loss of quality of the results of the tuning cases of the previous model version. Therefore, veriﬁcation is demonstrated on some selected cases used in previous work: the four ERCOFTAC (European Research Community on Flow, Turbulence and Combustion) T3C ﬂat plate cases [35], the two ﬂows over the N3-60 turbine vane cascade, measured by Zarzycki and Elsner [36], and the two ﬂows over the V103 compressor blade cascade, simulated with DNS by Zaki et al. [37]. In all cases in this section, the inlet conditions for the mean and ﬂuctuating velocity components, grid resolution and discretisation schemes are the same as in previous work [23,24]. The simulations are completed with steady two-dimensional RANS. We mention that improved results of the V103 compressor cascade were obtained by simulations with three-dimensional unsteady RANS [23]. Table 3 lists the inlet conditions for the model veriﬁcation cases and the free-stream turbulence intensity in the leading edge plane. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 20 of 24 Table 3. Boundary conditions at the inlet of the computational domain and free-stream turbulence intensity in the leading edge plane for the ERCOFTAC ﬂat plates, the N3-60 and V103 cascades. U denotes the velocity normal to the inlet boundary. Test Case U (m/s) Tu (%) l (mm) Tu (%) t LE T3C5 8.95 ~3.0 7.0 3.0 T3C2 5.30 ~3.0 7.5 3.0 T3C3 3.85 ~3.0 9.8 3.0 T3C4 1.25 ~3.0 10.4 3.0 N3-60, Tu = 0.4% 8.20 ~0.4 2.0 0.4 N3-60, Tu = 3.0% 8.20 ~3.0 9.0 3.0 V103, Tu = 3.25% 9.95 3.25 8.0 2.5 V103, Tu = 6.5% 9.95 6.50 5.0 3.9 Figure 10 shows the skin friction along the plate for the T3C cases of ERCOFTAC [35]. The wall shear stress is normalised by the local dynamic pressure at the boundary layer edge. The transition is of bypass type in the ﬁrst three cases. There is a small separation bubble in the fourth case. With the extended model, the evolution of the free-stream turbulence along the plate at the edge of the boundary layer is the same as with the previous model version (not shown). There are small changes in the predicted transition positions. With the bypass cases, the transition zone is always too short, as with the previous model version. This is an inherent feature of the simple algebraic description of the intermittency variable. The extended model produces a better asymptotic behaviour in the turbulent boundary layer region, due to the higher value of the a constant. For the T3C4 case with transition in a separated state (Figure 10d), the experimental skin friction coecient is represented as zero in the separation bubble. The results by the extended model and the previous model version are almost identical, because the transition is under low free-stream turbulence level and is activated by the f -term, with almost no activity of the f -term. Both model versions predict a somewhat too strong sep KH reversed ﬂow in the separation bubble. The conclusion is that the extended model and the previous model version produce comparable results for the ERCOFTAC ﬂat plate cases. Figure 11 shows the shape factor evolutions along the suction side of the N3-60 turbine vane with low (Tu = 0.4%) and high (Tu = 3%) turbulence levels at the leading edge. The abscissa is the streamwise distance normalised by the surface length, S , on the suction side of the blade. The inlet value of the turbulent length scale was not measured in the experiments by Zarzycki and Elsner [36]. For the high turbulence case, the inlet value of the turbulent length scale was adjusted to match the measured turbulence level evolution at the distance 10 mm from the blade suction side [24]. In the low turbulence case, a much smaller value of the turbulent length scale was imposed at the inlet (no grid turbulence in the experiments). In this case (Tu = 0.4%), the results are not sensitive to the precise value of the turbulent length scale. With the previous model version, the agreement with the measurements is good for both cases. With the extended model, the result is identical to that by the previous model version for the low turbulence case (Figure 11a) with transition in separated state. The reason is the same as for the T3C4 ﬂat plate, i.e., that the transition is under low free-stream turbulence level and is activated by the f -term, with almost no activity of the f -terms. There is a small delay of the KH sep transition onset prediction by the extended model in the high turbulence case (Figure 11b) with bypass transition. So, as with the ﬂat plate bypass cases T3C5, T3C2 and T3C3, there is a small change in the predicted transition position. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23 Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 21 of 24 Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 20 of 23 Figure 10. Skin friction of the ERCOFTAC flat plate cases for (a) T3C5, (b) T3C2, (c) T3C3 and (d) T3C4 cases. Figure 11 shows the shape factor evolutions along the suction side of the N3-60 turbine vane with low (Tu = 0.4%) and high (Tu = 3%) turbulence levels at the leading edge. The abscissa is the streamwise distance normalised by the surface length, S0, on the suction side of the blade. The inlet value of the turbulent length scale was not measured in the experiments by Zarzycki and Elsner [36]. For the high turbulence case, the inlet value of the turbulent length scale was adjusted to match the measured turbulence level evolution at the distance 10 mm from the blade suction side [24]. In the low turbulence case, a much smaller value of the turbulent length scale was imposed at the inlet (no grid turbulence in the experiments). In this case (Tu = 0.4%), the results are not sensitive to the precise value of the turbulent length scale. With the previous model version, the agreement with the measurements is good for both cases. With the extended model, the result is identical to that by the previous model version for the low turbulence case (Figure 11a) with transition in separated state. The reason is the same as for the T3C4 flat plate, i.e., that the transition is under low free-stream turbulence level and is activated by the fKH-term, with almost no activity of the fsep-terms. There is a small delay of the transition onset prediction by the extended model in the high turbulence case Figure 10. Skin friction of the ERCOFTAC flat plate cases for (a) T3C5, (b) T3C2, (c) T3C3 and (d) (Figure 11 Figure b) 10. wiSkin th bypa friction ss tra of nsi the tion. ERCOFT So, asAC with th ﬂat plate e flat pla cases te bypass ca for (a) T3C5, ses T3 (b) T3C2, C5, T3 (c C2 ) T3C3 and T and 3C3, there (d) T3C4 cases. T3C4 cases. is a small change in the predicted transition position. Figure 11 shows the shape factor evolutions along the suction side of the N3-60 turbine vane with low (Tu = 0.4%) and high (Tu = 3%) turbulence levels at the leading edge. The abscissa is the streamwise distance normalised by the surface length, S0, on the suction side of the blade. The inlet value of the turbulent length scale was not measured in the experiments by Zarzycki and Elsner [36]. For the high turbulence case, the inlet value of the turbulent length scale was adjusted to match the measured turbulence level evolution at the distance 10 mm from the blade suction side [24]. In the low turbulence case, a much smaller value of the turbulent length scale was imposed at the inlet (no grid turbulence in the experiments). In this case (Tu = 0.4%), the results are not sensitive to the precise value of the turbulent length scale. With the previous model version, the agreement with the measurements is good for both cases. With the extended model, the result is identical to that by the previous model version for the low turbulence case (Figure 11a) with transition in separated state. Figure 11. N3-60 turbine cascade. Shape factor on the suction side with (a) low (Tu = 0.4%) and (b) The reason is the same as for the T3C4 flat plate, i.e., that the transition is under low free-stream high (Tu = 3%) turbulence levels. turbulence level and is activated by the fKH-term, with almost no activity of the fsep-terms. There is a small delay of the transition onset prediction by the extended model in the high turbulence case Figure 12 shows the skin friction distributions on the surfaces of the V103 compressor blade (Figure 11b) with bypass transition. So, as with the flat plate bypass cases T3C5, T3C2 and T3C3, there with high (Tu = 3.25%) and very high (Tu = 6.5%) free-stream turbulence levels at the inlet of the is a small change in the predicted transition position. computational domain, placed 40 % of the axial chord upstream of the cascade leading edge line. The turbulence levels at the leading edge are Tu = 2.5% and 3.9% and are thus quite high. Good matching was obtained of the evolution of the free-stream turbulence level at mid-span with the DNS data [24] (not shown). The ﬂow is subjected to a very strong adverse pressure gradient, with a K-value of about four, on the blade suction side, from 20% of the blade chord on. This causes boundary layer separation, despite the high level of free-stream turbulence. Both transition model versions properly predict the quite large size of the separation bubble for Tu = 2.5% (Figure 12a). The predicted transition positions are near to each other on the suction side with both model versions for both turbulence levels (Figure 12a,c). The explanation is that the modelled transition is by the basic intermittency term for bypass transition (Equation (6)), which functions here for transition in a separated state under a high Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 23 Figure 11. N3-60 turbine cascade. Shape factor on the suction side with (a) low (Tu = 0.4%) and (b) high (Tu = 3%) turbulence levels. Figure 12 shows the skin friction distributions on the surfaces of the V103 compressor blade with high (Tu = 3.25%) and very high (Tu = 6.5%) free-stream turbulence levels at the inlet of the computational domain, placed 40 % of the axial chord upstream of the cascade leading edge line. The turbulence levels at the leading edge are Tu = 2.5% and 3.9% and are thus quite high. Good matching was obtained of the evolution of the free-stream turbulence level at mid-span with the DNS data [24] (not shown). The flow is subjected to a very strong adverse pressure gradient, with a K-value of about four, on the blade suction side, from 20% of the blade chord on. This causes boundary layer separation, despite the high level of free-stream turbulence. Both transition model versions properly predict the quite large size of the separation bubble for Tu = 2.5% (Figure 12a). The predicted Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 22 of 24 transition positions are near to each other on the suction side with both model versions for both turbulence levels (Figure 12a,c). The explanation is that the modelled transition is by the basic intermittency term for bypass transition (Equation (6)), which functions here for transition in a free-stream turbulence level, as explained in Section 5. There is almost no activity by the f -terms. sep separated state under a high free-stream turbulence level, as explained in Section 5. There is almost Both models produce a comparable level of agreement with the DNS results obtained by Zaki et al. [37] no activity by the fsep-terms. Both models produce a comparable level of agreement with the DNS on the pressure side of the blade (Figure 12b,d), where the transition is of bypass type. The asymptotic results obtained by Zaki et al. [37] on the pressure side of the blade (Figure 12b,d), where the behaviour in the turbulent boundary layer region is not correct by both transition models, caused by transition is of bypass type. The asymptotic behaviour in the turbulent boundary layer region is not underprediction of the skin friction by the k-! turbulence model, also present on the suction side correct by both transition models, caused by underprediction of the skin friction by the k-ω (Figure 12a,c) in fully turbulent ﬂow. turbulence model, also present on the suction side (Figure 12a,c) in fully turbulent flow. Figure 12. V103 compressor cascade. Skin friction coefficient on the suction (a,c) and pressure (b,d) Figure 12. V103 compressor cascade. Skin friction coecient on the suction (a,c) and pressure (b,d) sides for Tu=2.5% (a,b) and Tu = 3.9% (c,d). sides for Tu=2.5% (a,b) and Tu = 3.9% (c,d). 10. 10. Conc Conclusions lusions A modiﬁed algebraic intermittency model has been developed, which improves predictions of RANS simulations by the previous model version [24], for separation-induced transition under a moderately high or elevated turbulence level. Two extensions have been made in the production term of the equation for turbulent kinetic energy of a k-! turbulence model. The extensions express the eect of Klebano streaks generated upstream of separation on the splitting in the separated part of the layer of full-span Kelvin–Helmholtz instability rolls into part-span structures, which accelerates the breakdown, and the direct eect of the Klebano streaks on the breakdown of the separated layer. By the Klebano streaks, the breakdown is faster and occurs under the combined eects of a large adverse pressure gradient and a large free-stream turbulence level. The algebraic intermittency model is a simple alternative for commonly used transition models with transport equations for simulation of turbomachinery ﬂows. Author Contributions: Analysis of the literature: S.K. and E.D.; model development: S.K. and E.D.; preparation of inﬂow data of the data base test cases: D.S. and D.L.; numerical testing: S.K.; analysis of the numerical results: Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 23 of 24 S.K. and E.D.; writing of the paper: S.K. and E.D.; veriﬁcation and improvement of the paper text: D.S. and D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: The ﬁrst author acknowledges ﬁnancial support from a research project funded by the Polish National Science Centre (Contract number DEC-2018/31/B/ST8/01717). The authors acknowledge the Interdisciplinary Centre for Mathematical and Computational Modelling (ICM) at the University of Warsaw (Grant no. GB78-11) for granting the computational power for the numerical simulations. Acknowledgments: The authors thank H.J. Li and Z. Yang for providing the geometry of the ﬂat plate test case of Section 8. Conﬂicts of Interest: The authors declare no conﬂict of interest. References 1. Jones, L.E.; Sandberg, R.D.; Sandham, N.D. Direct numerical simulations of forced and unforced separation bubbles on an airfoil at incidence. J. Fluid Mech. 2008, 602, 175–207. [CrossRef] 2. Dellacasagrande, M.; Guida, R.; Lengani, D.; Simoni, D.; Ubaldi, M.; Zunino, P. Correlations for the prediction of intermittency and turbulent spot production rate in separated ﬂows. J. Turbomach. 2019, 141, 031003. [CrossRef] 3. Dellacasagrande, M.; Lengani, D.; Simoni, D.; Ubaldi, M.; Zunino, P. Evaluation of turbulent spot production rate in boundary layers under variable pressure gradients for gas turbine applications. J. Turbomach. 2020, 142, 061003. [CrossRef] 4. Marxen, O.; Henningson, D.S. The eect of small-amplitude convective disturbances on the size and bursting of a laminar separation bubble. J. Fluid Mech. 2011, 671, 1–33. [CrossRef] 5. Yang, Z. On bypass transition in separation bubbles: A review. Propuls. Power Res. 2019, 8, 23–34. [CrossRef] 6. McAulie, B.R.; Yaras, M.I. Transition mechanisms in separation bubbles under low- and elevated freestream turbulence. J. Turbomach. 2010, 132, 011004. [CrossRef] 7. Balzer, W.; Fasel, H.F. Numerical investigation of the role of free-stream turbulence in boundary-layer separation. J. Fluid Mech. 2016, 801, 289–321. [CrossRef] 8. Simoni, D.; Lengani, D.; Ubaldi, M.; Zunino, P.; Dellacasagrande, M. Inspection of the dynamic properties of laminar separation bubbles: Free-stream turbulence intensity eects for dierent Reynolds numbers. Exp. Fluids 2017, 58, 66. [CrossRef] 9. Istvan, M.S.; Yarusevych, S. Eects of free-stream turbulence intensity on transition in a laminar separation bubble formed over an airfoil. Exp. Fluids 2018, 59, 52. [CrossRef] 10. Li, H.J.; Yang, Z. Separated boundary layer transition under pressure gradient in the presence of free-stream turbulence. Phys. Fluids 2019, 31, 104106. 11. Hosseinverdi, S.; Fasel, H.F. Numerical investigation of laminar-turbulent transition in laminar separation bubbles: The eect of free-stream turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 2019, 858, 714–759. [CrossRef] 12. Zaki, T.A. From streaks to spots and on to turbulence: Exploring the dynamics of boundary layer transition. Flow Turbul. Combust. 2013, 91, 451–473. [CrossRef] 13. Jacobs, R.G.; Durbin, P.A. Shear sheltering and the continuous spectrum of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation. Phys. Fluids 1998, 10, 2006–2011. [CrossRef] 14. Jacobs, R.G.; Durbin, P.A. Simulations of bypass transition. J. Fluid Mech. 2001, 428, 185–212. [CrossRef] 15. Coull, J.D.; Hodson, H.P. Unsteady boundary-layer transition in low-pressure turbines. J. Fluid Mech. 2011, 681, 370–410. [CrossRef] 16. Simoni, D.; Lengani, D.; Dellacasagrande, M.; Kubacki, S.; Dick, E. An accurate data base on laminar-to-turbulent transition in variable pressure gradient ﬂows. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2019, 77, 84–97. [CrossRef] 17. Dick, E.; Kubacki, S. Transition models for turbomachinery boundary layer ﬂows: A review. Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2017, 2, 4. [CrossRef] 18. Menter, F.R.; Langtry, R.B.; Likki, S.R.; Suzen, Y.B.; Huang, P.G.; Völker, S.A. Correlation-based transition model using local variables, Part 1: Model formulation. J. Turbomach. 2006, 128, 413–422. [CrossRef] 19. Langtry, R.B.; Menter, F.R.; Likki, S.R.; Suzen, Y.B.; Huang, P.G.; Völker, S.A. Correlation-based transition model using local variables, Part 2: Test cases and industrial applications. J. Turbomach. 2006, 128, 423–434. [CrossRef] Int. J. Turbomach. Propuls. Power 2020, 5, 28 24 of 24 20. Ge, X.; Arolla, S.; Durbin, P.A. Bypass transition model based on intermittency. Flow Turbul. Combust. 2014, 93, 37–61. [CrossRef] 21. Menter, F.R.; Smirnov, P.E.; Liu, T.; Avancha, R.A. One-equation local correlation-based transition model. Flow Turbul. Combust. 2015, 95, 583–619. [CrossRef] 22. Fürst, J.; Pr ˇíhoda, J.; Straka, P. Numerical simulation of transitional ﬂows. Computing 2013, 95, S163–S182. [CrossRef] 23. Kubacki, S.; Dick, E. An algebraic model for bypass transition in turbomachinery boundary layer ﬂows. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2016, 58, 68–83. [CrossRef] 24. Kubacki, S.; Dick, E. An algebraic intermittency model for bypass, separation-induced and wake-induced transition. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2016, 62, 344–361. [CrossRef] 25. Walters, D.K.; Cokljat, D. A three-equation eddy-viscosity model for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simulations of transitional ﬂow. J. Fluids Eng. 2008, 130, 12401. [CrossRef] 26. Pacciani, R.; Marconcini, M.; Fadai-Ghotbi, A.; Lardeau, S.; Leschziner, M.A. Calculation of high-lift cascades in low pressure turbine conditions using a three-equation model. J. Turbomach. 2011, 133, 031016. [CrossRef] 27. Lopez, M.; Walters, D.K. A recommended correction to the k -k -! transition-sensitive eddy-viscosity T L model. J. Fluids Eng. 2017, 139, 024501. [CrossRef] 28. Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Modelling for CFD; DCW Industries: La Canada Flintridge, CA, USA, 2006. 29. Wilcox, D.C. Formulation of the k-! turbulence model revisited. AIAA J. 2008, 46, 2823–2838. [CrossRef] 30. Fürst, J. (Czech Technical University in Prague, Prague, Czech Republic). Personal communication, 2017. 31. Kubacki, S.; Jonak, P.; Dick, E. Evaluation of an algebraic model for laminar-to-turbulent transition on secondary ﬂow losses in a low-pressure turbine cascade with an endwall. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2019, 77, 98–112. [CrossRef] 32. Zheng, X.; Liu, F. Staggered upwind method for solving Navier-Stokes and turbulence model equations. AIAA J. 1995, 33, 991–998. [CrossRef] 33. Park, C.H.; Park, S.O. On the limiters of two-equation turbulence models. Int. J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 2005, 19, 79–86. [CrossRef] 34. Nagabhushana Rao, V.; Tucker, P.G.; Jeerson-Loveday, R.J.; Coull, J.D. Large eddy simulations in low-pressure turbines: Eect of wakes at elevated free-stream turbulence. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 2013, 43, 85–95. [CrossRef] 35. ERCOFTAC. Data Base of Transition Modelling Test Cases. Available online: http://cfd.mace.manchester.ac. uk/ercoftac/ (accessed on 5 April 2020). 36. Zarzycki, R.; Elsner, W. The eect of wake parameters on the transitional boundary layer on a turbine blade. IMechE Part A J. Power Energy 2005, 219, 471–480. [CrossRef] 37. Zaki, T.A.; Wissink, J.G.; Rodi, W.; Durbin, P.A. Direct numerical simulations of transition in a compressor cascade: The inﬂuence of free-stream turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 2010, 665, 57–98. [CrossRef] Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations. © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY-NC-ND) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

International Journal of Turbomachinery, Propulsion and Power – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

**Published: ** Oct 26, 2020

Loading...

You can share this free article with as many people as you like with the url below! We hope you enjoy this feature!

Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.

System error. Please try again!

Already have an account? Log in

Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.

To save an article, **log in** first, or **sign up** for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.

Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote

Access the full text.

Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.

All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.