The full laminar-turbulent transition model is based on two transport equations, one for the intermittency and one for the transition onset criteria in terms of momentum thickness Reynolds number. It is called the Gamma Theta model and is the recommended transition model for general-purpose applications. It uses an empirical correlation (Langtry and Menter) that has been developed to cover standard bypass transition as well as flows in low free-stream turbulence environments. This built-in correlation has been extensively validated together with the SST turbulence model ([101], [102], [103]) for a wide range of transitional flows. The transition model can also be used with the BSL or SAS-SST turbulence models.
The Gamma Theta Model has the following limitations:
The Gamma Theta Model, like all other engineering transition models, is only valid for wall boundary layer flows. It cannot be applied to free shear flow transition. The model will predict free shear flows as fully turbulent.
Due to the specific formulation of the Gamma Theta equation, only classical boundary layers with a defined freestream region can be handled. This means that the model is not applicable to situations such as pipe or channel flow.
The model is currently not linked to the buoyancy production terms because buoyancy driven flows are outside the calibration space of the model. Therefore the model should not be used in conjunction with non-zero buoyancy forces.
The model is not Galilean invariant. This means it is only valid with respect to walls that are not moving relative to the coordinate system.
It should be noted that a few changes have been made to this model compared to original version (that is, the CFX-5.7 formulation, [101],[102]) in order to improve the transition predictions. These include:
An improved transition onset correlation that results in improved predictions for both natural and bypass transition.
A modification to the separation induced transition modification that prevents it from causing early transition near the separation point.
Some adjustments of the model coefficients in order to better account for flow history effects on the transition onset location.
You should use the new formulation [103], although the original version of the
transition model (that is, the CFX-5.7 formulation) can be recovered
by specifying the optional parameter "Transition Model
Revision = 0
" in the CCL in the following
way:
FLUID MODELS: … TURBULENCE MODEL: Option = SST TRANSITIONAL TURBULENCE: Option = Gamma Theta Model Transition Model Revision = 0 TRANSITION ONSET CORRELATION: Option = Langtry Menter END END END … END
In order to capture the laminar and transitional boundary layers
correctly, the mesh must have a of approximately
one. If the
is too large
(that is, > 5) then the transition onset location moves upstream with
increasing
. You should
use the High Resolution discretization scheme (which is a bounded
second-order upwind biased discretization) for the mean flow, turbulence
and transition equations.
Note: The default production limiter for the turbulence equations is the ‘Kato-Launder’ formulation when the transition model is used.
As outlined in Ansys CFX Laminar-Turbulent Transition Models in the CFX-Solver Modeling Guide, two reduced variants of the transition model are available besides the two-equation Gamma Theta transition model:
Specified Intermittency transition model — a zero-equation model.
Gamma transition model — a one-equation model.
The transport equation for the intermittency, , reads:
(2–136) |
The transition sources are defined as follows:
(2–137) |
where is the strain rate magnitude.
is an empirical correlation that controls the length
of the transition region. The destruction/relaminarization sources
are defined as follows:
(2–138) |
where is the magnitude of vorticity
rate. The transition onset is controlled by the following functions:
(2–139) |
(2–140) |
(2–141) |
is the critical Reynolds number where the intermittency
first starts to increase in the boundary layer. This occurs upstream
of the transition Reynolds number,
,
and the difference between the two must be obtained from an empirical
correlation. Both the
and
correlations are functions of
.
The constants for the intermittency equation are:
(2–142) |
The boundary condition for at a wall
is zero normal flux while for an inlet
is equal to
1.0.
The transport equation for the transition momentum thickness
Reynolds number, , reads:
(2–143) |
The source term is defined as follows:
(2–144) |
(2–145) |
(2–146) |
(2–147) |
The model constants for the equation
are:
(2–148) |
The boundary condition for at
a wall is zero flux. The boundary condition for
at
an inlet should be calculated from the empirical correlation based
on the inlet turbulence intensity.
The model contains three empirical correlations. is the transition onset as observed in experiments.
This has been modified from Menter et al. [101] in order to improve the predictions
for natural transition and is defined as follows:
Parameters entering the empirical correlations for are the local turbulence intensity,
, and the Thwaites pressure gradient coefficient,
, defined as:
(2–149) |
where is the acceleration in the streamwise direction.
is used in Equation 2–144.
is the length
of the transition zone and goes into Equation 2–137. The correlation for
is a function of
and
is defined as:
(2–150) |
A modification to is used in
order to avoid a sharp increase in the skin friction in the boundary
layer shortly after transition:
is the point where the model is activated in order
to match both
and
; it goes into Equation 2–140. The correlation between
and
is defined as follows:
(2–151) |
can be thought of as the location where turbulence
starts to grow while
is the location where the velocity profile first
starts to deviate from the purely laminar profile.
The modification for separation-induced transition is:
(2–152) |
The model constants in Equation 2–152 have been adjusted from those of Menter et
al. [101] in
order to improve the predictions of separated flow transition. The
main difference is that the constant that controls the relation between and
was changed from 2.193, its value for a Blasius
boundary layer, to 3.235, the value at a separation point where the
shape factor is 3.5 (see, for example Figure 2 in Menter et al. [101]).
The transition model interacts with the SST turbulence model, as follows:
(2–153) |
(2–154) |
(2–155) |
where and
are the original production and destruction terms
for the SST model and
is the original SST blending function. Note that
the production term in the
-equation is not modified. The
rationale behind the above model formulation is given in detail in
Menter et al. [101].
If the two-equation transition model is used together with rough walls, then an equivalent sand-grain roughness height must be specified at the wall and in addition the option Roughness Correlation must be selected on the Fluid Models tab of the Domain details view. Further information on the rough wall modifications can be found in Treatment of Rough Walls.