Performance of various SST models in predicting typical separated flows

Li Wenhao; Rao Caiyan; Duan Yi; Wang Ding; Gao Yuan; Zhang Jian

doi:10.7638/kqdlxxb-2024.0179

English Version Journal Login

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

Performance of various SST models in predicting typical separated flows

更新时间：2026-05-28

- Performance of various SST models in predicting typical separated flows
- Vol. 44, Issue 2, Pages: 125-136(2026)
- 作者机构：
  
  空间物理重点实验室,北京,100076
- 作者简介：
- 基金信息：
- DOI：10.7638/kqdlxxb-2024.0179
  CLC： V211.3;O357.5;V211.1
- Published：2026
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
李文浩, 饶彩燕, 段毅, 等. 多种SST湍流模型对典型分离流动的预测性能[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2026, 44(2): 125−136.

Li Wenhao, Rao Caiyan, Duan Yi, et al. Performance of various SST models in predicting typical separated flows[J]. 2026, 44(2): 125-136.
李文浩, 饶彩燕, 段毅, 等. 多种SST湍流模型对典型分离流动的预测性能[J]. 空气动力学学报, 2026, 44(2): 125−136. DOI： 10.7638/kqdlxxb-2024.0179

Li Wenhao, Rao Caiyan, Duan Yi, et al. Performance of various SST models in predicting typical separated flows[J]. 2026, 44(2): 125-136. DOI： 10.7638/kqdlxxb-2024.0179.

摘要

流动分离现象对飞行器表面附近的流场结构以及飞行器的整体性能有着至关重要的影响。基于驼峰流动以及跨声速凸包流动两种典型的分离流动，采用CFL3D求解器对航空航天工程领域常用的shear-stress transport （SST）湍流模型及其多种修正形式的预测性能进行了评估与分析。通过将平均流场与湍流场的模拟结果分别与高精度实验及大涡模拟数据进行对比，发现：由于低估分离区剪切层中的湍流生成，SST模型在相应区域预测的湍流掺混强度不足，常常会过大地估计二维分离区的范围。在SST模型基础上考虑旋转/流线曲率因素的修正形式未取得明显的改善效果；考虑湍流各向异性的修正形式虽然提高了对雷诺应力的预测精度，但未能有效改善对平均流场的预测性能；相比之下，引入分离流动修正则可通过增大分离区剪切层的湍流生成来增强湍流掺混，从而显著减小分离区的范围。进一步地，通过结合分离流动修正与湍流各向异性修正，可以明显改善对平均流场与湍流场的预测精度。本文研究可对工程仿真计算中湍流模型的选取和进一步改进提供指导。

Abstract

The phenomenon of flow separation critically influences the flow field structure near aircraft surfaces and their overall performance. This study evaluated the predictive performance of the widely used shear-stress transport (SST) turbulence model and its various modifications for two canonical separated flows: the hump flow and the transonic bump flow

employing the CFL3D solver. Comparisons of both the mean flow and turbulence fields against high-fidelity experimental data and large eddy simulation (LES) results reveal that the standard SST model underestimates turbulence production in the shear layer of the separation zone

leading to insufficient turbulent mixing and a consequent overprediction of the two-dimensional separation region. Modifications incorporating rotation/streamline curvature effects yield no significant improvement. While modifications accounting for turbulence anisotropy enhance the prediction of Reynolds stresses

they do not effectively improve mean flow field predictions. In contrast

introducing a separation flow correction increases turbulence production in the separation shear layer

thereby enhancing turbulent mixing and significantly reducing the separation zone extent. Furthermore

coupling the separation flow correction with the anisotropy modification markedly enhances the predictive accuracy for both the mean flow and turbulence fields. This work provides valuable guidance for selecting and refining turbulence models in engineering simulations.

关键词

Keywords

references

Mabey D G. Some aspects of aircraft dynamic loads due to flow separation[J]. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1989, 26(2): 115−151. doi: 10.1016/0376-0421(89)90006-7

Masi A, Benton J, Tucker P G. CFD for prediction of flow separation on aircraft tail surfaces[C]//53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, Florida. Reston, Virginia: AIAA, 2015: 0286. doi: 10.2514/6.2015-0286

Spalart P R. Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations[J]. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, 2000, 21(3): 252−263. doi: 10.1016/S0142-727X(00)00007-2

Menter F, Kuntz M, Langtry R. Ten years of industrial experience with the SST turbulence model[C]// 4th International Symposium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, Antalya, Turkey, 2003.

Spalart P R, Shur M. On the sensitization of turbulence models to rotation and curvature[J]. Aerospace Science and Technology, 1997, 1(5): 297−302. doi: 10.1016/S1270-9638(97)90051-1

Smirnov P E, Menter F R. Sensitization of the SST turbulence model to rotation and curvature by applying the spalart–shur correction term[J]. Journal of Turbomachinery, 2009, 131(4): 041010. doi: 10.1115/1.3070573

Rumsey C L. Exploring a method for improving turbulent separated-flow predictions with kappa-omega models[M]. Hampton, Va. : National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Langley Research Center, 2009.

Monier J F, Gao F, Boudet J, et al. Budget analysis of turbulent kinetic energy in corner separation: RANS vs LES[C]// VII European Congress on Computational Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS Congress 2016), Crete Island, Greece. Institute of Structural Analysis and Antiseismic Research School of Civil Engineering National Technical University of Athens (NTUA) Greece, 2016. doi: 10.7712/100016.2313.7719

Greenblatt D, Paschal K B, Yao C S, et al. Experimental investigation of separation control part 1: baseline and steady suction[J]. AIAA Journal, 2006, 44(12): 2820−2830. doi: 10.2514/1.13817

Greenblatt D, Paschal K B, Yao C S, et al. Experimental investigation of separation control part 2: zero mass-flux oscillatory blowing[J]. AIAA Journal, 2006, 44(12): 2831−2845. doi: 10.2514/1.19324

Bachalo W, Johnson D. An investigation of transonic turbulent boundary layer separation generated on an axisymmetric flow model[C]// 12th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, Williamsburg, VA. Reston, Virginia: AIAA, 1979: 1479. doi: 10.2514/6.1979-1479

Bachalo W D, Johnson D A. Transonic, turbulent boundary-layer separation generated on an axisymmetric flow model[J]. AIAA Journal, 1986, 24(3): 437−443. doi: 10.2514/3.9286

Debonis J, Rumsey Cm Malik M. Test cases for NASA's revolutionary computational aerosciences technical challenge: NF1676L-20545 [R]. NASA, 2015.

Spalart P R, Deck S, Shur M L, et al. A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities[J]. Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics, 2006, 20(3): 181−195. doi: 10.1007/s00162-006-0015-0

Krist S L, Biedron R T, Rumsey C L. CFL3D user's manual (version 5.0): NASA/TM-1998-208444[R]. NASA, 1998.

Naughton J W, Viken S, Greenblatt D. Skin friction measurements on the NASA hump model[J]. AIAA Journal, 2006, 44(6): 1255−1265. doi: 10.2514/1.14192

Rumsey C L, Gatski T B, Sellers W L, et al. Summary of the 2004 computational fluid dynamics validation workshop on synthetic jets[J]. AIAA Journal, 2006, 44(2): 194−207. doi: 10.2514/1.12957

Uzun A, Malik M R. Large-eddy simulation of flow over a wall-mounted hump with separation and reattachment[J]. AIAA Journal, 2017, 56(2): 715−730. doi: 10.2514/1.J056397

Uzun A, Malik M R. Wall-resolved large-eddy simulations of transonic shock-induced flow separation[J]. AIAA Journal, 2019, 57(5): 1955−1972. doi: 10.2514/1.J057850

Horstman C C, Johnson D A. Prediction of transonic separated flows[J]. AIAA Journal, 1984, 22(7): 1001−1003. doi: 10.2514/3.48539

Johnson D. Predictions of transonic separated flow with an eddy-viscosity/Reynolds-shear-stress closure model[C]//18th Fluid Dynamics and Plasmadynamics and Lasers Conference, Cincinnati, OH. Reston, Virginia: AIAA, 1985: 1683. doi: 10.2514/6.1985-1683

Views

下载量

CSCD

Alert me when the article has been cited

提交

Tools

Publicity Resources

Impact of key area optimization on the aerodynamic characteristics of a high-speed train in crosswind

Static aerodynamic characteristics of symmetrical wind turbine airfoils considering the influence of near-ocean underlying surface

Numerical simulation of liquid film cooling on hypersonic oblique plate

Aerodynamic characteristics of combined wing-tip link UAV

Aerodynamic characteristics of seagull bionic airfoil based on breathable structure

Related Author

Jiang Jiyun

Liu Tanghong

Wang Xinran

Gao Hongrui

Wang Lei

Jia Xiaofeng

Huang Wen

Hu Chuanxin

Related Institution

中南大学交通运输工程学院，轨道交通安全教育部重点实验室

中南大学轨道交通安全关键技术国际合作联合实验室

中南大学轨道交通列车安全保障技术国家地方联合工程研究中心

中车长春轨道客车股份有限公司

School of urban construction, Wuhan University of Science and Technology, Wuhan

AI问答

⁰