English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We employ numerically implicit subgrid-scale modeling provided by the well-known streamlined upwind/Petrov–Galerkin stabilization for the finite element discretization of advection–diffusion problems in a Large Eddy Simulation (LES) approach. Whereas its original purpose was to provide sufficient algorithmic dissipation for a stable and convergent numerical method, more recently, it has been utilized as a subgrid-scale (SGS) model to account for the effect of small scales, unresolvable by the discretization. The freestream Mach number is 2.5, and direct comparison with a DNS database from our research group, as well as with experiments from the literature of adiabatic supersonic spatially turbulent boundary layers, is performed. Turbulent inflow conditions are generated via our dynamic rescaling–recycling approach, recently extended to high-speed flows. Focus is given to the assessment of the resolved Reynolds stresses. In addition, flow visualization is performed to obtain a much better insight into the physics of the flow. A weak compressibility effect is observed on thermal turbulent structures based on two-point correlations (IC vs. supersonic). The Reynolds analogy (u′ vs. t′) approximately holds for the supersonic regime, but to a lesser extent than previously observed in incompressible (IC) turbulent boundary layers, where temperature was assumed as a passive scalar. A much longer power law behavior of the mean streamwise velocity is computed in the outer region when compared to the log law at Mach 2.5. Implicit LES has shown very good performance in Mach 2.5 adiabatic flat plates in terms of the mean flow (i.e., Cf and UVD+). iLES significantly overpredicts the peak values of u′, and consequently Reynolds shear stress peaks, in the buffer layer. However, excellent agreement between the turbulence intensities and Reynolds shear stresses is accomplished in the outer region by the present iLES with respect to the external DNS database at similar Reynolds numbers.

Implicit Subgrid-Scale Modeling of a Mach 2.5 Spatially Developing Turbulent Boundary Layer