1.

INTRODUCTION
During the late 1800s, fluid mechanics was considered to be consist of two main branches
which are Theoretical Hydrodynamics and Hydraulics. Theoretical Hydrodynamics arose from
the Eulers equations of inviscid fluid motion. One the other hand, Hydraulics was developed by
the engineers whose interests are mostly practical problems of fluid mechanics and it was
depending on the experimental studies mostly.

These two approaches were both true and useful under specified conditions, however the
confliction caused by the foundations of these approaches made engineers and scientists
suspicious about the opposing one.

In the very beginning of the 20th century, it was Ludwig Prandtl who came up with the idea of
gathering these two approaches and showing that these two ideas are actually inseparable from
each other and the fluid mechanics problems contain them both at the same time. Prandtl
asserted that wall bounded flows of moderate to high Reynolds numbers consist of two regions.
One is a boundary layer in which viscous effects are highly dominant. The other one is free
stream region in which the velocity of the flow is equal everywhere this region. This kind of
approach made the confliction between the Theoretical Hydrodynamics and the Hydraulics
disappear.

Some of the most beneficial yields of the Boundary Layer Theory were the calculation of the
drag force exerted on the body upon which the fluid flows and the calculation of the exact
location where the separation starts.

Despite the Boundary Layer Theory was initially developed for only the laminar flow of an
incompressible fluid, with time efforts the theory extended to the turbulent flow. It was around
when Osborne Reynolds introduced his work on turbulent stress. However it was too early and
not sufficient to understand the turbulent flow. Almost a century later Prandtl came up with the
Mixing Length Idea ( Prandtl Mixing Length ) and with the help of following experimental
works, a huge improvement was obtained on turbulent flows.

Laminar to turbulent transition inside the boundary layer is also an extremely important part of
the fluid mechanics and this field of study was first visited by the famous Osborne Reynolds in
late 19th century. And again the one who came up with solid and meaningful results was Ludwig
Prandtl in 1925. He conducted experiments on transition from laminar to turbulent inside the
boundary layer and proved this transition was possible.

Within the scope of this project, it is our aim and desire to understand how the flow changes
from laminar to turbulent inside the boundary layer and where the transition occurs exactly. In
order to find answers to above questions, series of numerical studies are conducted and
compared to the experimental results in the ERCOFTAC Database of CFD and Turbulence
Mechanics Research Group in the School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering at
The University of Manchester.

2. BOUNDARY LAYER THEORY

Boundary layer inside of a wall bounded flow can be laminar or turbulent or having these two
region at the same time. When a boundary layer consists of laminar and turbulent regions, there
is also a third region called Transitional Boundary Layer or Boundary Layer Transition. So,
Boundary Layer type is determined with respect to Reynolds number and it can be Laminar
Boundary Layer, Turbulent Boundary Layer or Transitional Boundary Layer.

2.1 Laminar Boundary Layer on a Flat Plate at Zero Incidence

Before Prandtl presented his boundary layer theory at the Congress of Mathematicians in
Heidelberg, Germany in 1904, he had started to work from the very foundations of the fluid
mechanics under some assumptions:

Equations

- Continuity Equation

r ( r u ) ( r v) ( r w)
+ + + =0
t x y z

- Navier Stokes Equations

u u u u P 2u 2u 2u
r +u +v +w = r g - + m 2 + 2 + 2
z x y z
x
t x y x
v v v v P v v v
2 2 2
r +u +v +w
= r gy - + m 2 + 2 + 2
t x y z y x y z
w w w w P 2 w 2 w 2 w
r +u +v +w = r g - + m 2+ 2+ 2
t x y z z
z x y z

Assumptions:

- Steady Flow = 0

t
- Compressible Flow ( =constant )
- Negligible Body Forces ( gx=gy=gz=0 )
- 2-D Flow ( w=0 )
 u v
+ =0
x y

u u 1P 2
u 2
u
u +v =- +n 2 + 2
x y r x x y
v v 1P 2
v 2
v
u +v =- +n 2 + 2
x y r y x y

Figure 2.1.1 Boundary Layer over Flat Plate with Zero Incidence

Prandtl used an order of magnitude approach in order to move forward.

u U Putting these two into the above Continuity and Navier Stokes Equations and
d << c
application of Bernoulli Equation to the free stream flow yields;

u v
+ =0
x y

u u 2u
u +v =n
x y x2
These two equations are the Laminar Boundary Equations that we need to solve in order to
obtain detailed information on the region in which viscous forces are highly dominant.
Paul Richard Heinrich Blasius, who was one of the first students of Ludwig Prandtl, came up
with a solution for the laminar boundary layer equations. He turned the second order partial
differential equation that is derived from the x component of the Navier Stokes Equations into a
second order ordinary differential equation called Blasius Equation:

2 f + ff = 0
Blasius Equation can be solved by power series approach or a numerical ordinary differential
equation solution technique such as a 4th order Runge Kutta Method. For solving the Blasius
Equation MATLAB Programming Language is utilized and a 4th order Runge Kutta code is
written. Results are listed below and the MATLAB code is presented in the Appendix Section.

Figure 1. Blasius Solution

 Table 1. The numerical solutions of Blasius equation

f f f f f f
0 0 0 0.3321 4.1 2.40187907 0.96167283 0.05709816
0.1 0.0016605 0.03320977 0.33209081 4.2 2.49832065 0.96704892 0.05051495
0.2 0.00664186 0.06641632 0.33202648 4.3 2.59526783 0.97179393 0.04447521
0.3 0.0149434 0.09961139 0.33185195 4.4 2.69266021 0.97596169 0.03896781
0.4 0.02656331 0.13278121 0.33151236 4.5 2.79044269 0.97960467 0.0339762
0.5 0.04149817 0.16590655 0.33095333 4.6 2.88856535 0.98277341 0.02947926
0.6 0.05974234 0.19896277 0.33012128 4.7 2.98698319 0.98551616 0.02545215
0.7 0.08128744 0.23191996 0.32896393 4.8 3.08565592 0.98787856 0.02186716
0.8 0.10612187 0.26474303 0.32743074 4.9 3.18454767 0.98990332 0.01869456
0.9 0.13423026 0.29739197 0.3254736 5 3.28362667 0.99163016 0.01590335
1 0.16559298 0.32982211 0.32304747 5.1 3.382865 0.99309564 0.01346198
1.1 0.20018576 0.36198445 0.32011113 5.2 3.48223822 0.99433315 0.01133895
1.2 0.2379792 0.3938261 0.31662793 5.3 3.58172506 0.99537299 0.00950337
1.3 0.27893843 0.42529076 0.3125666 5.4 3.68130715 0.9962424 0.0079254
1.4 0.32302282 0.4563193 0.30790197 5.5 3.78096868 0.99696569 0.00657661
1.5 0.37018572 0.48685042 0.30261579 5.6 3.88069614 0.99756445 0.00543022
1.6 0.42037424 0.51682136 0.29669731 5.7 3.98047806 0.99805764 0.00446136
1.7 0.47352921 0.5461687 0.29014393 5.8 4.08030471 0.99846186 0.00364712
1.8 0.52958509 0.57482917 0.2829616 5.9 4.18016795 0.99879151 0.00296664
1.9 0.58847008 0.60274054 0.27516515 6 4.28006095 0.99905901 0.0024011
2 0.65010622 0.62984251 0.2667784 6.1 4.37997804 0.99927499 0.00193369
2.1 0.71440968 0.65607762 0.25783411 6.2 4.47991454 0.99944851 0.00154951
2.2 0.78129106 0.68139211 0.24837369 6.3 4.57986659 0.99958722 0.00123547
2.3 0.85065578 0.70573679 0.23844673 6.4 4.67983104 0.99969755 0.00098017
2.4 0.92240462 0.72906779 0.22811027 6.5 4.77980534 0.99978488 0.00077374
2.5 0.99643428 0.7513473 0.21742793 6.6 4.8797874 0.99985364 0.00060775
2.6 1.07263799 0.77254414 0.20646884 6.7 4.97977557 0.99990753 0.00047498
2.7 1.15090622 0.79263428 0.19530633 6.8 5.07976851 0.99994954 0.00036937
2.8 1.2311274 0.81160116 0.18401667 6.9 5.17976517 0.99998213 0.00028581
2.9 1.31318871 0.82943595 0.17267753 7 5.27976469 1.00000729 0.00022005
3 1.39697682 0.8461376 0.16136659 7.1 5.37976643 1.00002662 0.00016857
3.1 1.48237868 0.86171275 0.15015999 7.2 5.47976986 1.00004138 0.0001285
3.2 1.56928229 0.87617552 0.13913099 7.3 5.57977459 1.00005261 9.75E-05
3.3 1.65757741 0.88954716 0.1283486 7.4 5.6797803 1.00006111 7.35E-05
3.4 1.74715628 0.90185558 0.11787643 7.5 5.77978674 1.00006751 5.52E-05
3.5 1.83791422 0.91313469 0.10777167 7.6 5.87979375 1.0000723 4.13E-05
3.6 1.92975023 0.92342382 0.09808433 7.7 5.97980116 1.00007587 3.07E-05
3.7 2.02256746 0.93276688 0.08885658 7.8 6.07980889 1.00007852 2.27E-05
3.8 2.11627367 0.94121159 0.08012246 7.9 6.17981684 1.00008048 1.67E-05
3.9 2.21078154 0.94880868 0.07190769 8 6.27982497 1.00008191 1.22E-05
4 2.30600893 0.95561101 0.06422974
As we can see from the solution of Blasius Equation; when =5, u=(0.9916)U and we assume
that y = d and it yields;

U U x d 5
h=y => 5 = d .
=> =
nx nx x x Re x
This equation allows us to calculate laminar boundary layer thickness. Also, we can calculate
other parameters such as Boundary Layer Displacement Thickness ( d * = d 1 ) and Boundary
Layer Momentum Thickness ( q = d 2 ).

Boundary Layer Displacement Thickness ( d * = d 1 ): Displacement thickness is defined as the

distance that the inviscid flow has to be displace in order to equalize the volumes of viscous and
inviscid flows. Boundary layer thickness increases as the flow moves from leading edge to the
trailing edge ( as the Reynolds number increases ).

u
d
d = d 1 = 1 -
*
dy
0 U

Boundary Layer Momentum Thickness ( q = d 2 ): Momentum thickness is defined as the
distance that a flow has to be displaced in order to have the same amount of moment flux as a
inviscid flow of the same fluid under the same conditions.
 u d u
q = d 2 = 1 -
U dy

0 U

Another important outcome of the boundary layer analysis is the calculation of skin friction and
drag coefficients. In aerodynamics, Skin Friction and Drag Coefficients are of great importance
and with the solution of boundary layer equations, it is very easy to calculate these coefficients.

Skin Friction Coefficient ( Cf ): Skin friction coefficient can be defined as an indication of how
much the fluid exerts a local drag force to the solid surface in which the fluid is immersed.

u u U
t w = m
=> = U f (h )
y y =0 y nx
y = 0 => h = 0
r n U 2 f ( 0) tw n f ( 0)
t w = => 2
= f ( 0) =
U n x r U U x Re x
f ( 0) = 0.332
t w
f ( 0) 0.664
Cf = =2 =
1 2 Re x Re x
r U
2
Drag Coefficient ( CD ): Drag coefficient is the average skin friction coefficient over the solid
body.

l l
FDrag = bt w ( x)dx =t w ( x)dA
0 0

n
FDrag = bf ( 0) r U 2
2 l
U
FDrag
avg (C f ( x)) = CD =
1
r U 2 A
2
1.328
CD = = 2C f (l )
Rel

Where b=width of the flat plate, l= length of the plate and the A=bl=Area of the flat plate
 2.2 Turbulent Boundary Layer on a Flat Plate at Zero Incidence
In a tegion very close to the leading edge of a flat plate, the flow and hence the boundary layer is
laminar. As the flow moves towards the trailing edge of the plate, at some point the
characteristics of the flow starts to change. This exact point is called critical point and the
Reynolds number at this point is called critical Reynolds number. For common inlet properties (
for low - moderate Turbulence intensities and velocities ) critical Reynolds number for flows
over flat plate is;

U xc
Rec = = 5 105
n
Value of the Rec is heavily dependent on the free stream conditions. Strong perturbations inside
the free flow means higher tendency to earlier transition from laminar to turbulent.

Speaking of which, these perturbations are highly important for understanding the turbulent flow.

Turbulent flow can be decomposed into a mean flow and a random fluctuating part.

If the all three velocity components, density and pressure are written as a fluctuating component
superimposed on the mean one,

u = u + u
v = v + v
w = w + w
r = r +r
P = P + P
and are put into the continuity and Navier Stokes equations with a time averaging applied on
every term in the equations, a new term that we have not been familiar until now arises. This
fresh term is called Turbulent Reynolds Stress. When written in the tensor form, last term on the
right hand side of the equation below represents the Reynolds Stress.
 u u
u

g uj i
x
=-
P
+m
2u
i
x x

- g
i j ( )
j xi j j xj

When the Reynolds stress term is written in terms of shear stress, a closure problem occurs since
calculations yields 3 equations with four unknowns. This undesired situation can be dealt with
the help of Prandtl Mixing Length concept. Mixing length physically means the distance along
which two fluid regions can mix and influence each other.

u u 1P 1t
u +v =- +
x y r x r y
v v 1P 1t
u +v =- +
x y r y r y
u
t =m - uv
y
u v
+ =0
x y
There are 4 unknowns u , v , P , uv and only 3 equations. In order to get rid of uv term, Prandtl
Mixing Length can be utilized.

u 2

uv= - l 2

y
l =k y
k = 0.4

Where l = Prandtl Mixing Length and k = Karman Constant

Turbulent boundary layer consists of three different zones that is called Viscous Sublayer, Buffer
Zone and Turbulent Region from the bottom to the top respectively.

In the viscous sublayer region molecular viscosity is very large compared to the eddy viscosity.

Buffer zone can be considered as a transition region inside which molecular and eddy viscosity
effects are of the same order. When it comes to turbulent region, eddies are large enough to
dominate the flow and eddy viscosity overcomes the molecular effets.

Viscous Buffer Zone Fully Turbulent

Sublayer Core
mt
10-2 ~ 10-1 1 102 ~ 103
m

For viscous sublayer, Law of the Wall is used ( y + 5 ):

u+ = y+
u Ut y tw
Where u+ = , y+ = and Ut =
Ut n r

For the fully turbulent region, Log - Law of the Wall is utilized ( y + 30 ):

1
u+ = ln y + + C
k
k = 0.4 and C = 5.5 are assumed most of the time.
Third and the last law is the law that is derived for the buffer zone. Since the Law of the Wall is
valid for y + 5 and the Log Law of the Wall is valid for y + 30 , buffer zone has to work for
5 y + 30 .

Near Wall Velocity Profile Profile for Buffer Zone:

u + = 5ln y + - 3.05
 2.3 Laminar to Turbulent Boundary Layer Transition on a Flat Plate at Zero
Incidence
Transition from laminar to turbulent from for a flow on a flat plate is caused by the perturbations
inside the incoming free stream flow. The higher the perturbations of free stream, the more
tendency to turbulent flow. Even the small disturbances grow in time and become dominant
enough to cause a transition. For flows on flat plate critical Reynolds number at which transition
occurs lies between 3.5x105 and 106.

Laminar to turbulent transition inside the boundary layer generally triggered by Bypass
Transition or Laminar Boundary Layer Separation. These two are the most common transition
triggering mechanisms. In bypass transition, laminar to turbulent transition inside the boundary
layer is caused by the high turbulence intensity of the incoming free stream flow. When the
transition will occur is dependent on the boundary conditions of the flow. On the other hand,
laminar boundary layer separation triggers transition due to adverse pressure gradient of the
laminar boundary layer and hence a separation. Once the flow separates, small disturbances
grows rapidly and an instant chaos occurs. The boundary layer re-attaches as turbulent. This type
of a transition mechanism can be observed in the flows with pressure gradient such as flows over
airfoils.

On the left side Bypass Transition caused by the external disturbances and on the right side
transition caused by the Laminar Boundary Layer Separation.

Turbulence intensity of the incoming free stream flow is defined as the ratio of fluctuating
velocity to the free flow velocity. Higher inlet turbulence intensity means earlier transition from
laminar to turbulent.
 u
Tu =
U

Since the transition from laminar to turbulence is not easy to capture, one can utilize
intermittency to determine whether the flow is transitional. Intermittency is defined as the ratio
of the time that the flow is turbulent to the total flow time. Since intermittency is the related to
how long a flow stays turbulent, it requires a transient solution for the transitional boundary layer
problems.

Transitional regions of different flows are statistically similar independent from the main cause
of the transition ( bypass or separation ) and also independent from whether the transition is long
or short.

Close to the leading edge, the boundary layer is always laminar but how long the boundary layer
stays laminar depends on the perturbations, existence of a pressure gradient, roughness of the
solid surface and so on. Flow passes some distance from the leading edge and flow starts to
change the way it behaves. Layered flow starts to distort and some 2-D waves called Tollmien
Schlichting Waves superimposed on the laminar flow arise. In the wake of this, Tollmien
Schlichting Waves turns into 3-D and forms vortices in time. Then decaying of the vortices
follows. Decayed vortices causes the formation of the turbulent spots and finally fully turbulent
flow occurs.
Another criterion to check whether the flow transition is happening is indifference Reynolds
number, defined as the smallest Reynolds number at which a neutral perturbation is still alive.
Re1,ind=520 means start of the transition for a flow on a flat plate.

U d1

= Re1,ind = 520 ( Indifference Point = Starting point of laminar to turbulent
n ind
transition )

There is also another critical point of indifference. Recrit,ind=950 points out to the ending of the
transition.

U d1

= Recrit ,ind = 950 ( Critical Point = Ending point of laminar to turbulent
n critical
transition )

As mentioned earlier in the turbulent boundary layer section, stability of the flow depends
heavily on the perturbations of the outer flow. How much perturbation lies inside the free flow
can be measured by the turbulence intensity. For a 3-D flow, turbulence intensity can be
measured by;

1 2 2
u + v + w2
( )
Tu = 3
U

For a wind tunnel, the flow assumed to be isotropic, which means in every direction the flow
tends to behave the ( u= v= w ), and the Turbulence Intensity becomes

1
3u2
( )
3 u
==> Tu =
U U

If we write turbulence intensity in terms of Turbulent kinetic Energy;

1 2 2 3
k= (u + v + w2 = u2 )
2 2
 2k
u=
3

2k
Tu = 3
U

2.4 Transition and Turbulence Models

Since the aim of this project study is to understand how the transition occurs and which
parameters actually triggers the transition, 4 and 3 equation transition models are used in the
CFD analysis. In addition to these two models, k- SST is used to compare the results of
transition models to a fully turbulent model and see what the transition models bring to the table.

2.4.1 k SST Turbulence Model

k - SST model is a combination of k and k- models. Most of the 2 equation turbulence
models, including k , over predict turbulent stresses in the wake region and this results with
poor performance of the models for boundary layers under adverse pressure gradient and
separated flows.

k - model has many good attributes and performs much better than k models for boundary
layer flows. However, k is overly sensitive to the freestream value of , while k is not.

As it can be seen from above properties of both models, it would be smart to gather the good
sides of the two models to form a new one. This is how k - SST model is created.

The SST k-w model consists of zonal (blended) k - / k - equations and clipping of turbulent
viscosity so that turbulent stresses stay within what is dictated by the structural similarity
constant.
For the inner layer, equations are taken from the Wilcoxs original k model and for the outer
layer the equations are taken from the k model.

Dk Ui m k
r = t ij - b *k r w + m + t
Dt xj xj
s k xj

Dw g 1 U i 2
w
mt + 2 r (1 - F1 )s w 2 1 k w
r = t ij - b1 r w + m+
Dt n t xj
x j s w xj w xj xj

f = F1f 1 +(1 - F1 ) f 2
f = b ,s k ,s w ,g

2.4.2 Transition SST ( 4 Equation / Langtry Menter Model ) Model and the k kl
( 3 Equation ) Model
This model solves 2 transport equations for intermittency ( ) and Reynolds number based on
the boundary layer momentum thickness ( Re ) in addition to the turbulent kinetic energy ( k )
and dissipation rate ( ) equations.

Transport equation for the intermittency is;

Where P1 and E1 are the transition sources, S is the strain rate magnitude and Flength is the
empirical correlation for length of the transition region.

Where is the vorticity magnitude.

and the other transport equation which is used for computing the Re;
where Pk and Dk are the original production and destruction terms for the SST model
and F1orig is the original SST blending function.

The way that 3 equation transition model differs from the 4 equation model is that 3 equation
model solves only one transport equation for intermittency and calculates Re algebraically.

In order to obtain solid results using the transition models, one must get a good resolution near
the wall. Using a small growth ratio like y+~1 and Growth Ratio 1.1 leads to a good mesh.
Also, for commercial CFD code ANSYS FLUENT, which the numerical studies in this project
are conducted via, Coupled Pressure Based Navier - Stokes solution algorithm is recommended.
 2.5 Experiment Case
T3A and T3B experiment cases to which our numerical studies are going to be compared in the
following section are both conducted on the same set-up given below.

Figure 2. The experimental setup and its geometry properties

The wind tunnel that is used in the experiment set-up is closed circuit type. Air is blown by a
centrifugal fan. Working section is 2m long and 0.71m wide and its height is 0.26m. Tunnel is
made of Perspex ( Poly(methyl methacrylate) (PMMA) ), also known as acrylic glass for
providing a good sight of whats happening inside the tunnel. Bottom wall of the test set-up can
be inclined so that the pressure gradient on the plate is zero. Flat plate is also made of Perspex
(acrylic glass) and is hung from the ceiling. Flat plate is 0.2m wide, 1.7m long and 0.02m thick.
The distance between the upper side of the tunnel and the plate is 0.04m and the distance
between the lower side of the tunnel and the plate is 0.22m. The grid at the entrance of the tunnel
works as a turbulence generator. 0.01m far from the entrance, there is a boundary layer bleed. In
our CFD cases, we did not consider that bleeding so that there may arise some potential
differences between the experimental and numerical studies. Another important thing is, plate
material is perspex in the experiment but in the CFD analysis plate material is chosen as
aluminum since there no such material as perspex in the Fluents material database. This may
also cause some error.
Velocity and turbulence measurements are conducted by hot wire anemometers. Total wire
lengths are 1.5mm, sensing lengths are 0.5mm and wire diameters are 2.5mm.

T3a case has an inlet velocity of 5.4 m/s and Turbulence Intensity at the inlet of 3%. T3b case is
conducted in the same manner except the inlet velocity and the turbulence intensity. Inlet
velocity of the T3b case is 9.4 m/s and the turbulence intensity is 6%.

Table 2. T3A Results

X(mm) Rex CF (mm) FSTI (%)
45 1.520E+04 0.005203 1.84 3.043
95 3.240E+04 0.003723 2.71 2.793
195 6.700E+04 0.002645 4.17 2.434
295 1.006E+05 0.002272 5.68 2.197
395 1.348E+05 0.002098 6.86 2.001
495 1.692E+05 0.002209 8.11 1.882
595 2.035E+05 0.002703 10.47 1.760
695 2.384E+05 0.003801 12.89 1.647
795 2.735E+05 0.004849 15.27 1.538
895 3.093E+05 0.004861 17.65 1.451
995 3.447E+05 0.004722 19.66 1.361
1095 3.822E+05 0.004553 21.71 1.295
1195 4.189E+05 0.004418 24.14 1.227
1295 4.548E+05 0.004292 26.20 1.206
1395 4.908E+05 0.004207 27.58 1.141
1495 5.273E+05 0.004079 29.50 1.101

NUMERICAL PROCEDURE
In this study, the numerical results obtained from the state of the art computational fluid
dynamics simulations (CFD) are validated with the experimental results obtained from Rolls-
Royce experimental datas(reference). The flat plate used in the experiments has 1700 mm length,
200 mm width and 20mm thichness. Also, the measurement region has 220 mm height as seen in
Figure 2.

The transitional boundary layer flow over the flat plate is simulated as 2D. Therefore, the
computational domain is generated as 1700 mm length and 220 mm height according to the
geomety sizes of the experimental setup as seen in Figure 2.

Figure 3. The computational domain

For the foregoing geometry, the boundary layer meshes are generated as hexahedral by using
ICEM-CFD. In order to perform mesh independency, 3 meshes are generated and their
properties are listed in Table 3. They are generated as approximately 4 times of the number of
nodes of the previous mesh. Additionally, they are enhanced along both the wall in the y-
direction and the leading edge in x-direction as seen in Figure 6 to resolve the boundary layer
over the flat plate accurately.

Table 3. Mesh Property and Quality

No. of First Layer Quality Skewness Aspect Ratio

elements Thickness (m)
24920 2x10-5 1 0 1-991
108054 10-5 1 0 1-730
396291 0.5x10-5 1 0 1-1000
In order to determine the independent mesh, skin friction coefficient (Cf) over the flat plate is
examined. The 108054 mesh has same results with the 396291 mesh. Therefore, the 108054
mesh is used for all simulations in this study.

0.0060
0.0055
0.0050
24920
0.0045
Cf

108054
0.0040
396291
0.0035
0.0030
0.0E+00 4.0E+05 8.0E+05 1.2E+06

Reynolds Number

Figure 4. Mesh Independence

Also, this mesh has y+ values lower than 1 as seen in Figure 5 since it is very important to
resolve the laminar and transitional boundary layers correctly.
 1.2

0.8
Y plus
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
X (m)

Figure 5. y+distribution over the flat plate for the 108054 elements

All simulations are conducted by using ANSYS Fluent 15.0 commercial code. As model, two
transition model are implemented such as the transition model (4 equation) and
transition model (3 equation) and turbulence model is implemented. As
boundary condition, velocity inlet (5.4m/s for T3A experiment and 9.4m/s for T3B experiment)
and pressure outlet (0 gauge pressure) are used. The flat plate is determined as no-slip wall in
addition, symmetry boundary condition is used for the upper wall as seen in Figure 3. All
simulations are performed as steady-state and second order discretization scheme in space.

Figure 6. The view of mesh having 108054 elements

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

T3A

0.010

0.008

0.006
Experiment (T3A)
Cf

Blasius
0.004
Transition (4 eqn)

0.002 Transition (3 eqn)

0.000
0.E+00 1.E+05 2.E+05 3.E+05 4.E+05 5.E+05 6.E+05 7.E+05
Reynolds Number

Figure 7. The skin friction coefficient according to T3A results, different transition and turbulence
models

Figure 7 shows the results of blasius solution, 4 equation transition model, 3 equation transition
model and the T3A test case. In the laminar region, both transition models give almost identical
results, however, while 3 equation model gives closer results to the experiment in the transition
region, in the turbulent region 4 equation model gives closer results.
 35
Boundary Layer Thickness (mm)
30

25

20 Experiment (T3A)

15 Transition (4 eqn)
Transition (3 eqn)
10

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
X (mm)

Figure 8. The boundary layer thickness according to T3A results, different transition and
turbulence models

As it is explained in the previous chart, 3 equation model gives closer results and follows the
trend of experimental results.
 3.5

2.5
FSTI (%)

2 Experiment (T3A)

1.5 Transition (4 eqn)

1 Transition (3 eqn)

0.5

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
X (mm)

Figure 9. The freestream turbulence intensity according to T3A results and different transition
models
 0.010

0.008

0.006
Cf

5.4 m/s
0.004 9.4 m/s

0.002

0.000
0.E+00 2.E+05 4.E+05 6.E+05 8.E+05 1.E+06 1.E+06
Reynolds Number

Figure 10. The effect on skin friction coefficient of the different incidence velocity

Figure 10 shows tha there is no effect on skin friction coefficient with respect to Reynolds
number. However, as incidence velocity increases the point at which transition is triggered gets
closer to the leading edge.
 0.010

0.008

0.006
I=1%
Cf

I=3%
0.004
I=5%

0.002 Blasius

0.000
0.E+00 1.E+05 2.E+05 3.E+05 4.E+05 5.E+05 6.E+05 7.E+05
Reynolds Number

Figure 11. The effect on skin friction coefficient of the different turbulence intensity

As freestream turbulence intensity increases, higher Cf values are observed at the same Reynolds
numbers. This means transition is triggered closer to the leading edge as the turbulence intensity
increases on condition that the free stream velocity stays the same.

T3B
 0.010

0.008

Experiment (T3B)
0.006
Blasius
Cf

0.004 Transition (4 eqn)

Transition (3 eqn)
0.002 Turbulence (SST)

0.000
0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.2E+06
Reynolds Number

Figure 12. The skin friction coefficient according to T3B results, different transition and turbulence
models

Figure 12 shows that the results of blasius solution, 4 equation transition model, 3 equation
transition model and the T3B test case. while 4 equation model gives closer results to the
experiment in the laminar and transition regions, in the turbulent region 3 equation model gives
closer results. Since model is a fully turbulent model and cannot resolve the
transition region inherently, it is not possible to see the jump in the skin friction coefficient.
 35
Boundary Layer Thickness (mm)
30

25

20 Experiment (T3B)
Transition (4 eqn)
15
Transition (3 eqn)
10 Turbulence (SST)

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
X (mm)

Figure 13. The boundary layer thickness according to T3B results, different transition and
turbulence models

Contrary to the results in the previous chart, 3 equation model gives closer results and follows
the trend of experimental results.
 7

T3B
FSTI (%)

4
Transition (4 eqn)
3
Transition (3 eqn)
2 Turbulence (SST)

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
X (mm)

Figure 14. The freestream turbulence intensity according to T3B results and different transition
and turbulence models
 0.010

0.008

0.006
I=3%
Cf

I=6%
0.004
I=9%

0.002

0.000
0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.2E+06
Reynolds Number

Figure 15. The effect on skin friction coefficient of the different turbulence intensity

As freestream turbulence intensity increases, higher Cf values are observed at the same Reynolds
numbers. This means transition is triggered closer to the leading edge as the turbulence intensity
increases on condition that the free stream velocity stays the same.
 0.010

0.008
Experiment (T3B)
0.006 1% vis. ratio
10% vis. ratio
Cf

0.004 20% vis. ratio

30% vis. ratio
40% vis. ratio
0.002

0.000
0.0E+00 2.0E+05 4.0E+05 6.0E+05 8.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.2E+06
Reynolds Number

Figure 16. The skin friction coefficient according to T3B results, different incidence turbulent
viscosity ratios

As the turbulence viscosity ratio increases from 1% to 40 %, the exact point at which turbulence
is triggered gets closer to the one experiment.
 7

6
T3B
5
symmetry
FSTI (%)

4 1% vis. ratio
3 10% vis. ratio
20% vis. ratio
2 30% vis. ratio
1 40% vis. ratio

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
X (mm)

Figure 17. The freestream turbulence intensity according to T3B results, different incidence
turbulent viscosity ratios

1. CONCLUSION

2. REFERENCES