In order to assess the LES as a predictive tool for flow control, steady suction and zero net mass flux oscillatory control is applied to theM = 0.25 flow and compared with experimental data.
3.2.1
Steady Suction Control
Steady suction control is applied just before natural separation, and has the effect of locally thinning the boundary layer and delaying separation. The slight separation delay keeps the flow attached longer over the highly convex region of the hump (x/c ≈ 0.67). This deflects the shear layer downward and forms a smaller recirculation bubble, significantly decreasing the form drag.
The effect on the pressure coefficient is shown in figure3.7. The control creates a steep suction peak that closely resembles the attached flow, but still creates a small turbulent separated region that reattaches around x/c = 0.94. The LES is compared with two sets of experimental data in figure 3.7 of similar Cm values, showing excellent Cp agreement at separation and reattachment.
The LES control parameters match theCmvalues of the experiment, but have a lowerCµ value due
to the larger slot width of the computational model. Since the slot width differs from that in the experiments, it is impossible to match both the experimentalCmandCµ values simultaneously.
The average streamlines are shown in figure3.8compared with the 2D PIV data, and show a good prediction of average separation and reattachment. The separation bubble length is 2.2% longer than that determined from the experimental PIV data. Figure3.9displays the average velocity profiles for the steady suction case, which are well predicted in the reverse flow region (x/c= 0.8), as well surrounding reattachment (x/c≈1.0). x/c Cp LRCW S&P LES baseline LES 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2
Figure 3.7: Steady suction surface pressure coefficient at low Mach number of experimental data from LRCW (M = 0.1, Cm = 0.15%, Cµ = 0.24%), Seifert and Pack (M = 0.25, Cm = 0.18%,
Cµ= 0.25%), and LES (M = 0.25,Cm= 0.15%,Cµ= 0.11%).
3.2.2
Oscillatory Control
Oscillatory forcing just before the separation point has been experimentally shown to decrease the size of the separated region, and if enough momentum is added, decrease the drag on the model [21]. The alternating blowing and suction do not delay separation, but rather form large-scale vortices
Figure 3.8: Steady suction averaged streamlines of 2D PIV data from LRCW (top) and LES (bot- tom), control parameters are the same as figure3.7.
x/c y / c 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 0 0.1
(a) ¯uvelocity profiles
x/c y / c 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.1 (b) ¯vvelocity profiles
Figure 3.9: Velocity profiles of steady suction controlled flow, translated to corresponding locations on geometry, values of ¯uand ¯v scaled by 0.3 to fit all on the axis. Solid line is LES, dashed line is experimental PIV data [20].
that accelerate the flow’s reattachment to the wall.
Figure 3.10shows the experimental data compared with the LES low Mach number flow forced at F+ = 0.84. The LES C
p predictions are overall not as accurate as the steady suction results. However, the oscillatory flow has been more difficult to accurately predict than the baseline or steady suction cases [23,24]. The two sets of experimental results also have a differentCp behavior
just after separation, indicating that the vortex dynamics within 0.66 < x/c < 0.90 may be very sensitive to the slot geometry or slot thickness. Despite the discrepancy inCp just after separation,
the average separation bubble length is only slightly over-predicted by the LES, which is similar to the baseline results.
x/c Cp LRCW,F+ = 0.80 S&P,F+= 0.84 LES,F+= 0.84 baseline LES 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2
Figure 3.10: Oscillatory controlled averaged surface pressure coefficient for low Mach number from LRCW (M = 0.1, Cµ = 0.11%), Seifert and Pack (M = 0.25, Cµ = 0.13%), and LES (M = 0.25,
Cµ= 0.11%)
A qualitative comparison with the phase-averaged PIV spanwise vorticity contours is given in fig- ure3.11where a phase of 90◦
corresponds to the peak blowing cycle and a phase of 270◦
corresponds to the peak suction cycle. The phase-averaged data agrees well with the experiments, indicating the correct size as the vortex convects downstream and dissipates. The vortex core has slightly higher vorticity levels in the LES results but it dissipates rapidly as it is convected downstream, and
beyond x/c = 0.8 the levels of vorticity agree very well with the experimental data including the region surrounding reattachment.
The steady suction and oscillatory control cases demonstrate improvedCpresults from a previous
ILES [26] due to less numerical dissipation and the addition of constant Smagorinsky model terms for the subgrid scale stress tensors, as well as an improvement in the stability and robustness of the solver. Parameters such as the control slot size/geometry, grid resolution, and the LES model including numerical dissipation may further improve theCp prediction of the oscillatory control.
(a) phase=0◦
(b) phase=90◦
(c) phase=180◦
(d) phase=270◦
Figure 3.11: Phase-averaged spanwise vorticity contours of 2D PIV data (top) and LES (bottom). Shown are 15 contour levels from -70 to 70.