The inlet, isolation section, and other internal flow components are important parts of the aircraft propulsion system. Their performances affect the stability of the entire propulsion system. According to those components, complicated shock wave/boundary layer interaction (SBLI), flow separation, and secondary flow phenomena would occur. The commonly used turbulence models, SA and SST, cannot predict the anisotropy of turbulence. This deficiency makes the calculated results differ significantly from the experimental results and cannot accurately predict their aerodynamic performance. This paper validates the feasibility and effectiveness of the turbulence models based on quadratic constitutive relation (QCR) correction applied to the flow of square duct, compression corners, diffusing 3D S-Duct, and axisymmetric cylindrical isolator. This can support future calculations of complex flow fields with flow separation and secondary flow phenomena in the subsonic or supersonic inlet. The results show that the turbulence model with QCR correction is better than the original turbulence model. Among them, the SA-QCR2020 turbulence model is the best, which is able to predict the presence of secondary flows and large boundary layer separated flows well.
Malo-MolinaFJGaitondeDVEbrahimiHB, et al.Three-dimensional analysis of a supersonic combustor coupled to innovative inward-turning inlets. AIAA J2010; 48(3): 572–582.
2.
PowellOAEdwardsJTNorrisRB, et al.Development of hydrocarbon-fueled scramjet engines: The hypersonic technology (HyTech) program. J Propul Power2001; 17(6): 1170–1176.
3.
BertinJJCummingsRM. Fifty years of hypersonics: Where we’ve been, where we’re going. Prog Aerosp Sci2003; 39: 511–536.
4.
WangSFuXYangXL, et al.Progresses and challenges of high-order-moment turbulence closure. Adv Mech2021; 51(1): 29–61.
5.
AkkermansRADBernickePEwertR, et al.Zonal overset-LES with stochastic volume forcing. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2018; 70: 336–347.
6.
AnanthanVBBernickePAkkermansRAD. Aeroacoustic analysis of a circulation-controlled high-lift flap by zonal overset large-eddy simulation. AIAA J2020; 58(12): 5294–5305.
7.
ZhangHCraftTIacovidesH. Application of linear and nonlinear two-equation turbulence models in hypersonic flows. AIAA J2022: 1–15.
8.
SpalartPR. Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2000; 21(3): 252–263.
9.
ManiMBabcockDWinklerC, et al.Predictions of a supersonic turbulent flow in a square duct. In: 51st AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, grapevine (Dallas/Ft. Worth Region). 2013, p. 860.
10.
RumseyCLCarlsonJRPulliamTH, et al.Improvements to the quadratic constitutive relation based on nasa juncture flow data. AIAA J2020; 58(10): 4374–4384.
11.
DandoisJ. Improvement of corner flow prediction using the quadratic constitutive relation. AIAA J2014; 52(12): 2795–2806.
12.
YamamotoKTanakaKMurayamaM. Effect of a nonlinear constitutive relation for turbulence modeling on predicting flow separation at wing-body juncture of transonic commercial aircraft. In: 30th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference. New Orleans: Louisiana, 2012, p. 2895.
13.
LaflinKRKlausmeyerSMZickuhrT, et al.Data summary from second AIAA computational fluid dynamics drag prediction workshop. J Aircr2005; 42(5): 1165–1178.
14.
VassbergJCTinocoENManiM, et al.Abridged summary of the third AIAA computational fluid dynamics drag prediction workshop. J Aircr2008; 45(3): 781–798.
15.
KeyeSBrodersenO. Investigations of fluid-structure coupling and turbulence model effects on the DLR results of the fifth AIAA CFD drag prediction workshop. In: 31st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference. 2013, p. 2509.
16.
RumseyCLSlotnickJPSclafaniAJ. Overview and summary of the third AIAA high lift prediction workshop. J Aircr2019; 56(2): 621–644.
17.
MonierJFPoujolNLaurentM, et al.Les investigation of boussinesq constitutive relation validity in a corner separation flow. In: Turbo expo: Power for land, sea, and air. Oslo, Norway: American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2018. 75792.
18.
MoensF. Design of a generic wing model for basic stall phenomena. In: CASI 2019, LAVAL, Canada, 2019.
19.
HuiZYaobingZJangtaoC, et al.The effects of quadratic constitutive relation of turbulence models on the drag prediction of wing-body configuration. Acta Aerodyn Sin2020; 38(5): 901–907.
20.
DiskinBAhmadNNAndersonWK, et al.Verification Test Suite for Spalart-Allmaras QCR2000 Turbulence Model. AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum, Virtual Event, 2021; vol. 11, p. 1552.
21.
CarnesJCoderJG. Impact of Off-body Schemes on Hovering Rotor Wake Breakdown and Predicted Performance. In: AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum. San Diego: CA and Virtual, 202; p. 1684.
22.
ZastawnyMLardeauS. Application of Simcenter STAR-CCM+ for analysis of CFD sensitivities in NASA Juncture Flow Simulation. AIAA Aviation 2020 Forum, Virtual Event2020; 15–19: 2736.
23.
SpalartPAllmarasS. A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In: 30th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. 1992, p. 439.
RumseyCLLeeHCPulliamTH. Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Computations of the NASA Juncture Flow Model Using FUN3D and OVERFLOW. In: AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum. 2020, p. 1304.
26.
DavisDOGessnerFB. Further experiments on supersonic turbulent flow development in a square duct. AIAA J1989; 27(8): 1023–1030.
SettlesGSBogdonoffSM. Separation of a supersonic turbulent boundary layer at moderate to high Reynolds numbers. In: 6th Fluid and PlasmaDynamics Conference, 1973, p. 666.
29.
SettlesGSFitzpatrickTJBogdonoffSM. Detailed study of attached and separated compression corner flowfields in high Reynolds number supersonic flow. AIAA J1979; 17(6): 579–585.
30.
SettlesGSVasIEBogdonoffSM. Details of a shock-separated turbulent boundary layer at a compression corner. AIAA J1976; 14(12): 1709–1715.
31.
ZhaoRYanC. Evaluation of engineering turbulence models for complex supersonic flows. J B Univ Aeronaut Astronaut2011; 37(02): 202–205.
32.
WellbornSRReichertBAOkiishiTH. An experimental investigation of the flow in a diffusing S-duct. In: 28th joint propulsion conference and exhibit. Nashville, TN, 1992, p. 3622.
33.
WellbornSRReichertBAOkiishiTH. Study of the compressible flow in a diffusing S-duct. J Propul Power1994; 10(5): 668–675.
34.
PrandtlL. Essentials of fluid dynamics. NewYork, USA: Hafner Publications, 1952, p. 148.
35.
WaltrupPJBilligFS. Structure of shock waves in cylindrical ducts. AIAA J1973; 11(10): 1404–1408.
36.
FiévetRKooHRamanV, et al.Numerical investigation of shock-train response to inflow boundary-layer variations. AIAA J2017; 55(9): 2888–2901.
