Langley Research Center

Turbulence Modeling Resource

Jump to: SA Results, Wilcox2006-klim-m Results, EASMko2003-S Results, K-e-Rt Results

Return to: High Mach Number Flat Plate Validation Intro Page

Return to: Turbulence Modeling Resource Home Page

2D Zero Pressure Gradient High Mach Number Flat Plate Validation Case

SST-Vm Model Results

Link to SST-Vm equations
SST-Vm - cf vs Retheta SST-Vm - u+ vs y+ at Retheta=10000

Previously on this page the results were reported as SST-V solutions, but more properly those from CFL3D and OVERFLOW should be referred to as SST-Vm. As discussed below, only relatively minor effects were noted.

Note that thorough grid studies were not performed for validation cases such as this one. Some effort was made to ensure reasonable grid resolutions, but there may still be small noticeable discretization errors. Therefore, these validation results shown should be considered representative, but not "truth."

Above, SST-V/SST-Vm results are from four independent CFD codes: CFL3D (NASA LaRC, USA), FUN3D (NASA LaRC, USA), JOE (Stanford, USA), and WIND (NASA Glenn, USA). Both CFL3D and FUN3D used freestream turbulence intensity=0.004% (M=2) and 0.002% (M=5) and freestream turbulent viscosity (relative to laminar)=0.009 (additional details can be found in the CFL3D User's Manual, Appendix H). WIND used freestream turbulence intensity=0.002% and freestream turbulent viscosity (relative to laminar)=0.001. Please read note 5 on Notes on running CFD page. The codes all used the same 545 x 385 grids, and gave fairly close results. Differences are due to discretization errors, iterative convergence differences, boundary condition differences, and/or possible code-to-code implementation-detail differences. The right-hand plot is extracted from the location where Retheta=10000. Note that these are compressible code results using the standard SST-V or SST-Vm model (no compressibility corrections). As for other two-equation model cases posted on the TMR website, the $- (2/3) \rho k \delta_{ij} \partial u_i / \partial x_j$ term in the production was ignored in CFL3D and FUN3D (often the default for codes whose predominant applications are low-speed or transonic cases): the lack of this term indicates the SST-Vm version, rather than SST-V. Generally speaking, for high-speed cases, the $- (2/3) \rho k \delta_{ij} \partial u_i / \partial x_j$ term could be significant. However, testing has revealed that for these particular high-speed flat plate cases, including or ignoring this term only makes relatively minor differences (on the order of the differences seen here between the codes). Note also that use of SST or SST-Vm yields nearly identical results for this case. The post-processed data files from CFL3D are given here for reference: highmach_cfl3d_cf_sstv.dat and highmach_cfl3d_u+_sstv.dat. A typical CFL3D input file is: ssflat_cfl3d_typical_sstv.inp. A typical FUN3D input file is: fun3d.nml_typical_sstv_m5t1p09.

Jump to: SA Results, Wilcox2006-klim-m Results, EASMko2003-S Results, K-e-Rt Results

Return to: High Mach Number Flat Plate Validation Intro Page

Return to: Turbulence Modeling Resource Home Page

Recent significant updates:
08/28/2020 - changed SST-V naming to SST-Vm

Privacy Act Statement

Accessibility Statement

Responsible NASA Official: Ethan Vogel
Page Curator: Clark Pederson
Last Updated: 03/12/2025