Assessment of RANS-based Transition Models based on Experimental Data of the Common Research Model with Natural Laminar Flow

Abstract

Transition models based on auxiliary transport equations augmenting the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) framework often rely upon transition correlations that were derived from a limited number of low-speed experiments and these models often fail to account for all of the relevant transition mechanisms and/or the variation in those mechanisms with respect to changes in the significant flow parameters. Available data from a recent experiment on the Common Research Model with Natural Laminar Flow (CRM-NLF) in the National Transonic Facility at the NASA Langley Research Center are used to assess the current transition modeling capability in NASA's OVERFLOW 2.3b solver for a swept wing configuration with nonzero taper and transonic cruise conditions. Specifically, the OVERFLOW solutions are used to evaluate the accuracy and robustness of the transport-equation-based transition models. Results highlight that the Spalart-Allmaras-based amplification factor transport (AFT-2017b) equation model and Menter’s shear-stress transport equation (SST2003)-based Langtry-Menter transition models (either with or without the modeling of crossflow transition) significantly underpredict the reported extent of laminar flow region over the entire span of the wing, irrespective of which instability mechanism(s) is expected to dominate the onset of the transition process. We show that the transition correlations underlying these models fail to account for the stabilizing effect of compressibility on the Tollmien-Schlichting transition, which is likely to be a major contributor to the underprediction of the laminar flow region on the CRM-NLF. The SST-2003-based Langtry-Menter model also appears to inaccurately predict the chordwise pressure variation along the majority of the wing span at all the flow conditions studied herein, due to how the turbulence intensity levels were enforced in the computations and how that was interfering with the functioning of the underlying turbulence model within the boundary layer. The AFT and Langtry-Menter models appear to be sensitive to the level of the freestream turbulence intensity, but the degree of sensitivity varies across the models.