Numerical solution of the three-dimensional boundary layer on a spinning sharp body at angle of attack

1973 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 317-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles B. Watkins
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Layer ◽  
Numerical Solution ◽  
Angle Of Attack ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Dimensional Boundary

Three-dimensional boundary layer near the plane of symmetry of a spheroid at incidence

1970 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 187-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. C. Wang
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Layer ◽  
Angle Of Attack ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Prolate Spheroid ◽  
Boundary Layer Region ◽  
Dimensional Boundary ◽  
The Common ◽  
Implicit Finite Difference ◽  
Layer Region

This paper presents incompressible laminar boundary-layer results on both the leeside and windside of a prolate spheroid. The results are obtained by an implicit finite difference method of the Crank–Nicolson type. Particular attention has been given to the determination of separation and of embedded streamwise vortices. No restriction on the angle of attack or the thickness ratio is imposed, nor are there invoked any of the common assumptions such as similarity, conical flow and others. The results suggest an embedded vortex region existing between the regular boundary-layer region and the separated region. At higher angle of attack, the vortex region becomes so thick that it itself may be more appropriately called ‘separated’ also. The latter possibility leads to questions of applicability for existing theories on three-dimensional separation.

An Assessment of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Boundary Layer Prediction Methods

1973 ◽  
Vol 95 (3) ◽  
pp. 415-421 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. J. Wheeler ◽  
J. P. Johnston
Keyword(s):  
Boundary Layer ◽  
Eddy Viscosity ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
High Sensitivity ◽  
Boundary Layer Flows ◽  
Mean Velocity ◽  
Eddy Viscosity Model ◽  
Separating Flow ◽  
Dimensional Boundary ◽  
Stress Models

Predictions have been made for a variety of experimental three-dimensional boundary layer flows with a single finite difference method which was used with three different turbulent stress models: (i) an eddy viscosity model, (ii) the “Nash” model, and (iii) the “Bradshaw” model. For many purposes, even the simplest stress model (eddy viscosity) was adequate to predict the mean velocity field. On the other hand, the profile of shear stress direction was not correctly predicted in one case by any model tested. The high sensitivity of the predicted results to free stream pressure gradient in separating flow cases is demonstrated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document