Direct Numerical Simulation of Flow Past a Gaussian Bump at a High Reynolds Number

We present the results from a direct numerical simulation of a spanwise-periodic turbulent flow past a Gaussian bump. The problem setup is designed to investigate the interaction of an incoming turbulent boundary layer with the strong favorable and adverse pressure gradients generated by the Gaussian bump as the flow passes over it at a Reynolds number of 340000 based on the bump height, or 4 million based on the bump length. The statistical results from the present simulation are compared against our earlier results at a Reynolds number of 2 million. An internal layer, which forms beneath the strongly accelerated boundary layer over the windward side of the bump, is found to generate its near-wall turbulence stress peaks in closer proximity of the wall in the higher Reynolds-number case. Furthermore, the logarithmic layer of the higher Reynolds-number boundary layer appears more resistant to changes induced by strong acceleration and surface curvature effects over the same region. Despite a nearly identical flow separation point in the two flows, the detached shear layer grows at a faster rate and subsequently reattaches at an earlier point in the higher Reynolds-number flow. The surface pressure and skin-friction distributions over the attached flow region compare well against the corresponding experimental data for both flows. However, some differences appear in the separated flow region, which are attributed to the three-dimensionality of the experimental model setup that is not included in the simulation owing to the spanwise periodic assumption. Comparisons with the stereoscopic particle image velocimetry measurements on the central plane of the experimental model over the windward side of the bump show reasonable overall agreement in the mean velocity components, but the turbulence stress components do not agree well at some streamwise locations. Comparisons over the leeward side of the bump show that the mean separated shear layer in the simulation is tilted significantly more toward the wall than the experimental shear layer on the central plane. This mismatch in the mean shear layer orientation is due to the experimental model three-dimensionality and tunnel end-wall effects, which are not modeled in the present spanwise-periodic simulation.