A New Type of WENO Scheme for Large Eddy Simulation of Turbomachinery Flows

1. Introduction

2. WENO-ZQ Scheme

2.1. WENO-ZQ Scheme in One Dimension

This section introduces the higher-order WENO-ZQ scheme of the finite volume form of Navier-Stokes (N-S) equations. We first consider the one-dimensional N-S equation:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}{u}_t+f_x^{inv}\left(u\right)+f_x^{vis}\left(u\right)=0\\ u\left(x,0\right)=u_0\left(x\right)\end{array}\right.$$

(1)

To simplify matters, the computational mesh is divided into several cells $I_i=\left[x_{i-1/2},x_{i+1/2}\right]$, each with a uniform size $h=x_{i+1/2}-x_{i-1/2}$ and associated cell centers are $x_i=\frac{1}{2}\left(x_{i+1/2}+x_{i-1/2}\right)$. Utilizing the intervals I_i as our control volumes, we can reformulate the semi-discretization of Eq. (1) as follows:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\frac{d\overline{u}\left(x_i,t\right)}{dt}& \begin{array}{cc}+& \begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{h}\left(f^{inv}\left(u\left(x_{i+1/2},t\right)\right)-f^{inv}\left(u\left(x_{i-1/2},t\right)\right)\right)& \end{array}\end{array}\\ & \begin{array}{cc}+& \begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{h}\left(f^{vis}\left(u\left(x_{i+1/2},t\right)\right)-f^{vis}\left(u\left(x_{i-1/2},t\right)\right)\right)& =0\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}$$

(2)

where $\overline{u}\left(x_i,t\right)=\frac{1}{h}{\displaystyle {\int }_{x_{i-1/2}}^{x_{i+1/2}}u}(x,t)dx$ is the cell average. We represent Eq. (2) with the following conservative formulation:

$$\frac{d{\overline{u}}_i(t)}{dt}=L\left(u_i\right)=-\frac{1}{h}\left({\widehat{f}}_{i+1/2}^{inv}-{\widehat{f}}_{i-1/2}^{inv}\right)-\frac{1}{h}\left({\widehat{f}}_{i+1/2}^{vis}-{\widehat{f}}_{i-1/2}^{vis}\right)$$

(3)

where ${\overline{u}}_i(t)$ is the numerical approximation to the cell average $\overline{u}\left(x_i,t\right)$, and the non-viscous numerical flux ${\widehat{f}}_{i+1/2}^{inv}$ is defined by ${\widehat{f}}_{i+1/2}^{inv}={\widehat{f}}^{inv}\left(u_{i+1/2}^{-},u_{i+1/2}^{+}\right)$ cedures narrated latter. A sixth order scheme [38] is adopted for the viscous numerical flux ${\widehat{f}}_{i\pm 1/2}^{vis}$.

If we can reconstruct $u_{i+1/2}^{\pm }=u\left(x_{i+1/2},t\right)+O\left(h^r\right)$, then Eq. (3) is the r-th order approximation to Eq. (2). Now we provide a detailed explanation of the reconstruction procedure of $u_{i+1/2}^{-}$to approximate $u\left(x_{i+1/2},t\right)$ up to third-order and fifth-order, respectively. Additionally, the reconstruction procedure for $u_{i+1/2}^{+}$is symmetrically mirrored with respect to $x_{i+1/2}$ of that for $u_{i+1/2}^{-}$.

Step 1. Select the larger stencil $T_1=\{I_{i-\mathcal{l}},\dots ,I_{i+\mathcal{l}}\},\mathcal{l}=1$ for the third-order case (or $\mathcal{l}=2$ for the fifth-order case). Then, a quartic polynomial is derived from the cell averages of $T_1$ is obtained by ensuring

$$\frac{1}{h}{{\displaystyle \int }}_{I_j}{p}_1(x)dx={\overline{u}}_j,j=i-\mathcal{l},\dots ,i+\mathcal{l}; \mathcal{l}=1\begin{array}{cc}& \left(\begin{array}{cc}or& \mathcal{l}=2\end{array}\right)\end{array}$$

(4)

Step 2. Then, select two smaller stencils $T_2=\left\{I_{i-1},I_i\right\}$ and $T_3=\left\{I_i,I_{i+1}\right\}$. Subsequently, two linear polynomials based on the cell averages of $T_2$ and $T_3$are obtained by requiring

(5)

and

$$\frac{1}{h}{{\displaystyle \int }}_{I_j}{p}_3(x)dx={\overline{u}}_j,j=i,i+1$$

(6)

Step 3. According to the construction idea of the central WENO scheme [20,21], we reformulate $p_1\left(x\right)$ as:

$$p_1(x)={\gamma }_1\left(\frac{1}{{\gamma }_1}{p}_1(x)-\frac{{\gamma }_2}{{\gamma }_1}{p}_2(x)-\frac{{\gamma }_3}{{\gamma }_1}{p}_3(x)\right)+{\gamma }_2{p}_2(x)+{\gamma }_3{p}_3(x)$$

(7)

Note that Eq. (7) holds for any choice of the linear weights ${\gamma }_1$,${\gamma }_2$, ${\gamma }_3$with ${\gamma }_1\ne 0$. In order to ensure the numerical stability of spatial discretization, we require these linear weights to be positive numbers and satisfy ${\gamma }_1+{\gamma }_2+{\gamma }_3=1$.

Step 4. Compute the smoothness indicators ${\beta }_{\mathcal{l}},\mathcal{l}=1,2,3$ to assess the smoothness of the functions $p_{\mathcal{l}}(x),\mathcal{l}=1,2,3$ within the target cell $I_i$. The smaller ${\beta }_{\mathcal{l}}$ is, the smoother the polynomial $p_{\mathcal{l}}(x)$ is on the target grid $I_i$. The computation of these smoothness indicators follows the same methodology outlined in [18,28,29]:

$${\beta }_{\mathcal{l}}={\displaystyle \sum }_{\kappa =1}^r{{\displaystyle \int }}_{I_i}{h}^{2\kappa -1}{\left(\frac{d^{\kappa }{p}_{\mathcal{l}}(x)}{d{x}^{\kappa }}\right)}^{2}dx,\mathcal{l}=1,2,3$$

(8)

where r=2 (or r=4 ) for r=1 and for $\mathcal{l}=2,3$. The associated explicit expressions are

$${\beta }_1=\frac{13}{12}{\left({\overline{u}}_{i-1}-2{\overline{u}}_i+{\overline{u}}_{i+1}\right)}^2+\frac{1}{4}{\left({\overline{u}}_{i-1}-{\overline{u}}_{i+1}\right)}^2$$

(9)

or

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\begin{array}{l}{\beta }_1\\ \\ \\ \end{array}& \begin{array}{l}=\\ \\ \\ \end{array}& \begin{array}{l}\frac{1}{144}{\left({\overline{u}}_{i-2}-8{\overline{u}}_{i-1}+8{\overline{u}}_{i+1}-{\overline{u}}_{i+2}\right)}^2\\ \frac{1}{15600}{\left(-11{\overline{u}}_{i-2}+174{\overline{u}}_{i-1}-326{\overline{u}}_i+174{\overline{u}}_{i+1}-11{\overline{u}}_{i+2}\right)}^2\\ \frac{781}{2880}{\left(-{\overline{u}}_{i-2}+2{\overline{u}}_{i-1}-2{\overline{u}}_{i+1}+{\overline{u}}_{i+2}\right)}^2\\ \frac{1421461}{1310400}{\left({\overline{u}}_{i-2}-4{\overline{u}}_{i-1}+6{\overline{u}}_i-4{\overline{u}}_{i+1}+{\overline{u}}_{i+2}\right)}^2\end{array}\end{array}$$

(10)

$${\beta }_2={\left({\overline{u}}_{i-1}-{\overline{u}}_i\right)}^2$$

(11)

and

$${\beta }_3={\left({\overline{u}}_i-{\overline{u}}_{i+1}\right)}^2$$

(12)

Step 5. Calculate the nonlinear weights using the linear weights and smoothness indicators. Specifically, we employ τ, defined as the absolute difference between β₁, β₂, and β₃. Notably, this definition differs from the formula outlined in [30,31,32] due to variations in the reconstruction stencils. The expression for τ was initially introduced in [22] for the finite difference approach and subsequently adopted in [29]:

$$\tau ={\left(\frac{\left|{\beta }_1-{\beta }_2\right|+\left|{\beta }_1-{\beta }_3\right|}{2}\right)}^2$$

(13)

Then the non-linear weights are expressed as

$${\omega }_{\mathcal{l}}=\frac{{\overline{\omega }}_{\mathcal{l}}}{{{\displaystyle \sum }}_{\mathcal{l}\mathcal{l}=1}^3{\overline{\omega }}_{\mathcal{l}\mathcal{l}}},\begin{array}{cc}& {\overline{\omega }}_{\mathcal{l}}={\gamma }_{\mathcal{l}}\left(1+\frac{\tau }{\epsilon +{\beta }_{\mathcal{l}}}\right)\begin{array}{cc},& \begin{array}{cc}& \mathcal{l}=1,2,3\end{array}\end{array}\end{array}$$

(14)

where, ε represents a small positive value introduced to prevent the denominator of Eq. (14) from becoming zero. Therefore, if $\epsilon \ll {\beta }_{\mathcal{l}}$, then within the smooth region ${\omega }_{\mathcal{l}}={\gamma }_{\mathcal{l}}+O\left(h^4\right)$, where the nonlinear weights are essentially consistent with the linear weights, the WENO scheme can achieve third-order or fifth-order numerical accuracy. In this study, the value of ε is set to ${10}^{-6}$.

Step 6. Substituting the linear weights in Eq. (7) with the nonlinear weights specified in Eq. (14), we derive the updated reconstruction formulation for the conservative values u(x, t) at the point $x_{i+1/2}$ within the target cell $I_i$, as follows:

$$u_{i+1/2}^{-}={\omega }_1\left(\frac{1}{{\gamma }_1}{p}_1\left(x_{i+1/2}\right)-\frac{{\gamma }_2}{{\gamma }_1}{p}_2\left(x_{i+1/2}\right)-\frac{{\gamma }_3}{{\gamma }_1}{p}_3\left(x_{i+1/2}\right)\right)+{\omega }_2{p}_2\left(x_{i+1/2}\right)+{\omega }_3{p}_3\left(x_{i+1/2}\right)$$

(15)

Step 7. The semi-discretization scheme presented in Eq. (3) undergoes temporal discretization using a third-order TVD Runge-Kutta method [33]:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{ccc}{u}_i^{\left(1\right)}& =& u_i^n+\mathrm{\Delta }tL\left(u_i^n\right)\\ u_i^{\left(2\right)}& =& \frac{3}{4}{u}_i^n+\frac{1}{4}{u}_i^{\left(1\right)}+\frac{1}{4}\mathrm{\Delta }tL\left(u_i^{\left(1\right)}\right)\\ u_i^{n+1}& =& \frac{1}{3}{u}_i^n+\frac{2}{3}{u}_i^{\left(2\right)}+\frac{2}{3}\mathrm{\Delta }tL\left(u_i^{\left(2\right)}\right)\end{array}\right.$$

(16)

2.2. WENO-ZQ Scheme in Two Dimensions

Next we consider the two-dimensional N-S equation:

$$\left\{\begin{array}{c}{u}_t+f{(u)}_x+g{(u)}_y=0\\ u\left(x,y,0\right)=u_0\left(x,y\right)\end{array}\right.$$

(17)

To simplify matters, the grid meshes are uniformly partitioned into cells, with each cell having sizes represented by $x_{i+1/2}-x_{i-1/2}=\mathrm{\Delta }x,$$y_{k+1/2}-y_{k-1/2}=△y,$$(\mathrm{\Delta }x=\mathrm{\Delta }y=h),$ and cell centers denoted by $\left(x_i,y_k\right)=\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(x_{i-1/2}+x_{i+1/2}\right),\left(\frac{1}{2}\left(y_{k-1/2}+y_{k+1/2}\right)\right)\right.$. Two dimensional cells are labeled as $I_{i,k}=I_i\times I_k=\left[x_{i-1/2},x_{i+1/2}\right]\times \left[y_{k-1/2},y_{k+1/2}\right]$ and the semi-discrete finite volume scheme is defined as follows：

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{d{\overline{u}}_{i,k}\left(t\right)}{dt}& =& L\left(u_{i,k}\right)\\ & =& -\frac{1}{h^2}({{\displaystyle \int }}_{y_{k-1/2}}^{y_{k+1/2}}f\left(u\left(x_{i+1/2},y,t\right)\right)dy-{{\displaystyle \int }}_{y_{k-1/2}}^{y_{k+1}}f\left(u\left(x_{i-1/2},y,t\right)\right)dy\\ & & +{{\displaystyle \int }}_{x_{i-1/2}}^{x_{i+1/2}}g\left(u\left(x,y_{k+1/2},t\right)\right)dx-{{\displaystyle \int }}_{x_{i-1/2}}^{x_{i+1/2}}g\left(u\left(x,y_{k-1/2},t\right)\right)dx).\end{array}$$

(18)

We approximate Eq. (18) through a conservative formulation as follows:

(19)

where the numerical fluxes ${\widehat{f}}_{i+1/2,k}^{inv}$ and ${\widehat{g}}_{i,k+1/2}^{inv}$ are defined as

$$\begin{array}{c}{\widehat{f}}_{i+1/2,k}^{inv}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{\mathcal{l}=1}^3}{\varpi }_{\mathcal{l}}{\widehat{f}}^{inv}\left(u_{i+1/2,k+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}}^{-},u_{i+1/2,k+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}}^{+}\right)\\ {\widehat{g}}_{i,k+1/2}^{inv}={\displaystyle {\displaystyle \sum }_{\mathcal{l}=1}^3}{\varpi }_{\mathcal{l}}{\widehat{g}}^{inv}\left(u_{i+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}},k+1/2}^{-},u_{i+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}},k+1/2}^{+}\right)\end{array}$$

(20)

to approximate $\frac{1}{h}{\displaystyle {\int }_{y_{k-1/2}}^{y_{k+1/2}}{f}^{inv}}\left(u\left(x_{i+1/2},y,t\right)\right)dy$ and $\frac{1}{h}{\displaystyle {\int }_{x_{i-1/2}}^{x_{i+1/2}}{g}^{inv}}\left(u\left(x,y_{k+1/2},t\right)\right)dx$, respectively. ${\varpi }_{\mathcal{l}}$, and ${\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}$

represent the weights and nodes of a three-point Gaussian within the cell $\left[-1/2,1/2\right]$, respectively. Here $u_{i+1/2,k+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}}^{\pm }$ and $u_{i+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}},k+1/2}^{\pm }$ denote the fifth-order approximations of $u\left(x_{i+1/2}^{\pm },y_k+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}h\right)$ and $u\left(x_i+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}h,y_{k+1/2}^{\pm }\right)$, respectively, which will be reconstructed by WENO procedures. The numerical fluxes ${\widehat{f}}^{inv}(a,b)$ and ${\widehat{g}}^{inv}(a,b)$ are determined as one-dimensional monotone fluxes.

Now, employing a dimension-by-dimension approach, we elucidate the reconstruction process for point values $u_{i\pm 1/2,k+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}}^{\mp }$ from cell averages $\left\{{\overline{u}}_{i,k}\right\}$.

• In the x-direction, utilizing $\left\{{\overline{u}}_{i,k}\right\}$, we execute the WENO reconstruction procedure described earlier for the one-dimensional case to reconstruct

$$\overline{u}{\left(x_{i\mp 1/2}^{\pm }\right)}_j=\frac{1}{h}{{\displaystyle \int }}_{y_{j-1/2}}^{y_{j+1/2}}u\left(x_{i\mp 1/2}^{\pm },y\right)dy,j=k-2,\cdots ,k+2,$$

(20)

where $\overline{u}{\left(x_{i\mp 1/2}^{\pm }\right)}_j$ represents point values in the x-direction and cell averages in the y-direction. During the WENO reconstruction process, we compute the nonlinear weights only once for each $j$, as we employ the same linear weights and smoothness indicators at the reconstructed points $x_{i\mp 1/2}^{\pm }$.

• In the y-direction, utilizing $\overline{u}{\left(x_{i\mp 1/2}^{\pm }\right)}_j$, we apply the WENO reconstruction method outlined above for the one-dimensional scenario to reconstruct the point values $u_{i\pm 1/2,k+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}}^{\mp }$. Once again, we calculate the nonlinear weights only once for all three Gauss points in the y-direction. In contrast, for classical WENO reconstruction, nonlinear weights must be computed at least three times. Additionally, negative linear weights occur at Gauss point σ₂ = 0 in classical WENO reconstruction, necessitating the application of techniques to address negative linear weights in WENO reconstruction [34].

Reconstructing the point values $u_{i+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}},k\pm 1/2}^{\mp }$ from cell averages $\left\{{\overline{u}}_{i,k}\right\}$is similar to that for $u_{i\pm 1/2,k+{\sigma }_{\mathcal{l}}}^{\mp }$. Notably, in this step, the intermediate results should be a point value in the $y$ direction, but the cell averages in the x direction.

After the abovementioned steps, the semi-discretization scheme Eq. (19) is temporally discretized using a third-order TVD Runge-Kutta method Eq. (16).

Extending the third-order and fifth-order finite volume WENO-ZQ schemes to the three-dimensional scenario follows a dimension-by-dimension approach, akin to the two-dimensional counterpart. Similar to the two-dimensional case, it becomes evident that the novel third-order and fifth-order finite volume WENO-ZQ schemes outlined in this study surpass the classical same-order finite volume WENO-JS schemes in [28]. This superiority stems from the ability to employ identical linear weights across various quadrature points along the boundaries of the target cell, thereby significantly reducing the reconstruction process's computational burden.

2.6. Unsteady Convergence Compared with WENO-JS Scheme

The three-dimensional viscous Taylor-Green vortex (TGV) [43] is a typical benchmark case in fluid mechanics, commonly used to assess the capabilities of viscous flow solvers in simulating vortex structure evolution, turbulent transition, and kinetic energy dissipation. Due to its simple initial and boundary conditions and known analytical solutions, it can be employed to evaluate the accuracy and convergence of numerical methods. The physical domain is a cube with a side length of 2πL, which contains the vorticity of the initial flow field with a smooth distribution. It is solved with the following initial conditions to present the convergence of the unsteady solution by various high-order schemes.

$$\left\{\begin{array}{l}\rho ={\rho }_0\\ u=V_0\sin \left(\frac{x}{L}\right)\cos \left(\frac{y}{L}\right)\cos \left(\frac{z}{L}\right)\\ v=-V_0\cos \left(\frac{x}{L}\right)\sin \left(\frac{y}{L}\right)\cos \left(\frac{z}{L}\right)\\ w=0\\ p=p_0+\frac{{\rho }_0{V}_0^2}{16}\left(\cos \left(\frac{2x}{L}\right)+\cos \left(\frac{2y}{L}\right)\right)\left(\cos \left(\frac{2z}{L}\right)+2\right)\end{array}\right.$$

(24)

Detailed flow and initial conditions used here were specified in [43]. The Reynolds number of the flow is defined as $\mathrm{Re}=\frac{{\rho }_0{V}_{0}L}{\mu }$ and equals 1600. In this field, kinetic energy is transferred from the large scale down to the smaller scale until it reaches a sufficiently small length scale. Finally, it dissipates into internal energy under physical viscosity. The largest dissipation rate occurs at $t=8\frac{L}{V_0}=8t_c$. The purpose here is to evaluate the convergence property of the schemes. This paper investigates the evolution of the Taylor-Green vortex with time using four different mesh sizes, 32×32×32, 64×64×64, 128×128×128, and 256×256×256, under different WENO schemes. Coherent structures in the field are observed employing a Q-criterion, with iso-surfaces set at $Q{\left(L/V_0\right)}^2=0.005$, and velocity magnitude colors the iso-surfaces.

Figure 5, Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8 illustrate the Taylor-Green vortex flows computed with different WENO schemes for comparative analysis. Computational results show that the new WENO-ZQ schemes can capture more turbulence structures than those of the same order WENO-JS schemes across identical meshes. Moreover, the computed flows demonstrate favorable symmetry in the vortex structures, suggesting that the schemes effectively preserve the flow field's symmetry.

The evolution of kinetic energy and its dissipation rate is contrasted with the reference solution acquired from the pseudo-spectral code [44]. The evolution of kinetic energy calculated on different meshes is shown in Fig. 9. The results of the WENO-ZQ scheme on 32×32×32 cells are similar to that of the WENO-JS scheme on 64×64×64 cells. It is shown that the convergence rate of the WENO-ZQ scheme is faster than that of the WENO-JS scheme. The numerical results show that these new high-order finite volume WENO schemes reduce the computational cost and capture more details of flow physics than classical WENO-JS schemes [18]. The kinetic energy dissipation rates calculated using different schemes on 256×256×256 cells are shown in Fig. 10. It can be observed from the figure that the WENO-ZQ scheme is closer to the reference solution.

Figure 10. Evolution of kinetic energy dissipation rates by various WENO schemes

Figure 10. Evolution of kinetic energy dissipation rates by various WENO schemes

3. Numerical Tests of Turbomachinery Flow

4. Conclusions

References

1. Laskowski, G.M.; Kopriva, J.; Michelassi, V.; Shankaran, S.; Paliath, U.; Bhaskaran, R.; Wang, W.Q.; Talnikar, C.; Wang, Z.J.; Jia, F.L. Future Directions of High Fidelity CFD for Aerothermal Turbomachinery Analysis and Design. 46th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference, Washington, DC, U.S.A. 13-17 June 2016. [CrossRef]
2. Zhang, S.; Si, T.Y.; Zhang, X.M.; Li, H.Y.; Xi, D.K.; He, W.Q.; Zhang, A.C. Research progress of skew and sweep aerodynamic technology for turbomachinery blades. J. Propul. Techno. 2021, 42, 2417–2431. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
3. Liu, Y.Z.; Zhao, W.; Zhao, Q.J.; Zhou, Q.; Xu, J.Z. Passage shock wave/boundary layer interaction control for transonic compressors using bumps. Chinese J. Aeronaut. 2022, 35, 82–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
4. Wu, Y.H.; Wang, B.; Fu, Y.; Liu, J. Research progress of corner separation in axial-flow compressor. Chinese J. Aeronaut. 2017, 38, 102–123. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
5. Zhou, Q.H.; Zhao, W.; Sui, X.M.; Zhao, Q.J.; Xu, J.Z. A shock loss reduction method using a concave suction side profile for a zero inlet swirl turbine rotor. J. Turbomach. 2022, 144, 111010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Li, J.; Hu, J.; Wang, Z.Q.; Tu, B.F. Investigation of corner separation in axial compressor stator using DDES. J. Aerosp. Power 2021, 36, 687–700. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Li, X.; Zheng, Q.; Chi, Z.D.; Wang, S.M.; Zhou, Z.T.; Jiang, B. Research on the influence of spanwise cross-flow on the boundary layer transition of compressor cascade. Phys. Fluids 2024, 36, 014127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Sandberg, R.D.; Michelassi, V. The current state of high-fidelity simulations for main gas path turbomachinery components and their industrial impact. Flow Turbul. Combust. 2019, 102, 797–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Van Ingen J, L. The eⁿ Method for Transition Prediction, Historical Review of Work at TU Delft . In Proceedings of the 38th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Seattle, U.S.A., 23-26 June 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Gourdain, N. Prediction of the unsteady turbulent flow in an axial compressor stage. Part 1: Comparison of unsteady RANS and LES with experiments. Comput. Fluids 2015, 106, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Gourdain, N. Prediction of the unsteady turbulent flow in an axial compressor stage. Part 2: Analysis of unsteady RANS and LES data. Comput. Fluids 2015, 106, 67–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
12. Miki, K.; Ameri, A. Improved prediction of losses with large eddy simulation in a low-pressure turbine. J. Turbomach. 2022, 144, 071002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
13. Harten, A. High resolution schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 1983, 49, 357–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Harten, A.; Engquist, B.; Osher, S.; Chakravarthy, S.R. Uniformly high order essentially non-oscillatory schemes, Ⅲ. J. Comput. Phys. 1987, 71, 231–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
15. Harten, A. Preliminary results on the extension of ENO schemes to two-dimensional problems. Lect. Notes Math., 1987, 1270, 23–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Godunov, S.K.; Bohachevsky, I. A finite-difference scheme for the numerical computation of discontinuous solutions of the equations of fluid dynamics. Matematicheskii Sbornik, 1959, 47, 271–306. [Google Scholar]
17. Liu, X.D.; Osher, S.; Chan, T. Weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 1994, 115, 200–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Jiang, G.S.; Shu, C.W. Efficient implementation of weighted ENO schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 1996, 126, 202–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Wang, S.Y.; Deng, X.G.; Dong, Y.D.; Wang, D.F.; Cai, J.H. High-order numerical methods for engineering turbulence simulation. Acta Aeronaut. Astronaut. Sin. 2023, 44, 528728. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
20. Levy, D.; Puppo, G.; Russo, G. Central WENO schemes for hyperbolic systems of conservation laws. Esaim-Math. Model Num. 1999, 33, 547–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Levy, D.; Puppo, G.; Russo, G. Compact central WENO schemes for multidimensional conservation laws. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 2000, 22, 656–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Zhu, J.; Qiu, J.X. A new fifth order finite difference WENO scheme for solving hyperbolic conservation laws. J Comput Phys. 2016, 318, 110–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Zhu J, Qiu J. A new type of finite volume WENO schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Sci. Comput. 2017, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
24. Zhong, D.D.; Sheng, C.H. A new method towards high-order WENO schemes on structured and unstructured grids. Comput. Fluids 2020, 200, 104453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Sheng, C.H. Improving predictions of transitional and separated flows using RANS modeling. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 2020, 106, 106067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Zhao, Z.; Zhu, J.; Chen, Y.B.; Qiu, J.X. A new hybrid WENO scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws. Comput. Fluids 2019, 179, 422–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Zhu, J.; Qiu, J. A new type of modified WENO schemes for solving hyperbolic conservation laws. SIAM J. Sci. Comput. 2017, 39, A1089–A1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Cockburn, B., Shu, C.W.; Johnson, C.; Tadmor, E. Essentially non-oscillatory and weighted essentially non-oscillatory schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. Advanced Numerical Approximation of Nonlinear Hyperbolic Equations. Quarteroni, A.; Springer: Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, 1998; 1697, pp. 325-432. [CrossRef]
29. Balsara, D.S.; Garain, S.; Shu, C.W. An efficient class of WENO schemes with adaptive order. J. Comput. Phys. 2016, 326, 780–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Borges, R.; Carmona, M.; Costa, B.; Don, W.S. An improved weighted essentially non-oscillatory scheme for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 2008, 227, 3191–3211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Castro, M.; Costa, B.; Don, W.S. High order weighted essentially non-oscillatory WENO-Z schemes for hyperbolic conservation laws. J. Comput. Phys. 2011, 230, 1766–1792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
32. Don, W.S.; Borges, R. Accuracy of the weighted essentially non-oscillatory conservative finite difference schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 2013, 250, 347–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Shu, C.W.; Osher, S. Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock-capturing schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 1988, 77, 439–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Shi, J.; Hu, C.; Shu, C.W. A technique of treating negative weights in WENO schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 2002, 175, 108–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
35. Sheng, C.H. A preconditioned method for rotating flows at arbitrary Mach number. Mod. Simul. Eng. 2011, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
36. Nicoud, F.; Frédéric, D. Subgrid-scale sNg based on the square of the velocity gradient tensor. Flow Turbul. Combust. 1999, 62, 183–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Liou, M.S. A sequel to AUSM, part II: AUSM+-up for all speeds. J. Comput. Phys. 2006, 214, 137–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Shen, Y.; Zha, G. Large eddy simulation using a new set of sixth order schemes for compressible viscous terms. J. Comput. Phys. 2010, 229, 8296–8312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Sheng, C.H.; Zhao, Q.Y.; Zhong, D.D.; Ge, N. A Strategy to Implement High-Order WENO Schemes on Unstructured Grids. AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, Dallas, U.S.A, 17-21 June 2019. [CrossRef]
40. Pirozzoli, S. On the spectral properties of shock-capturing schemes. J. Comput. Phys. 2006, 219, 489–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Comte-Bellot, G.; Corrsin, S. Simple Eulerian time correlation of full-and narrow-band velocity signals in grid-generated, ‘isotropic’ turbulence. J. Fluid. Mech. 1971, 48, 273–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
42. Rozema, W.; Bae, H.J.; Moin, P.; Verstappen, R. Minimum-dissipation models for large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids. 2015, 27, 085107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Taylor, G.I.; Green, A.E. Mechanism of the production of small eddies from large ones. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A-Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1937, 158, 499–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Van Rees, W.M.; Leonard, A.; Pullin, D.I.; Koumoutsakos, P. A comparison of vortex and pseudo-spectral methods for the simulation of periodic vortical flows at high Reynolds numbers. J. Comput. Phys. 2011, 230, 2794–2805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Lund, T.S.; Wu, X.H.; Squires, K.D. Generation of turbulent inflow data for spatially-developing boundary layer simulations, J. Comput. Phys. 1998, 140, 233–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Urbin, G.; Knight, D. Large-eddy simulation of a supersonic boundary layer using an unstructured grid. AIAA Journal 2001, 39, 1288–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
47. Dawson, D.M.; Lele, S.K. Large Eddy Simulation of a Three-Dimensional Compression Ramp Shock-Turbulent Boundary Layer Interaction. 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Kissimmee, U.S.A, 05-09 January 2015. [CrossRef]
48. Bookey, P.; Wyckham, C.; Smits, A. Experimental Investigations of Mach 3 Shock-Wave Turbulent Boundary Layer Interactions. 35th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, Toronto, Canada, 06-09 June 2005. [CrossRef]
49. Wu, M.; Martin, M.P. Direct numerical simulation of supersonic turbulent boundary layer over a compression ramp. AIAA Journal 2007, 45, 879–889. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Tong, F.L.; Yu, C.P.; Tang, Z.G.; Li, X.L. Numerical studies of shock wave interactions with a supersonic turbulent boundary layer in compression corner: Turning angle effects. Comput. Fluids 2017, 149, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
51. Huang, P.; Coleman, G.N. Van driest transformation and compressible wall-bounded flows. AIAA Journal 1994, 32, 2110–2113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
52. Shyne, R.J. Experimental Study of Boundary Layer Behavior in a Simulated Low-Pressure Turbine. PHD, the University of Toledo, 1998.
53. Huang, J.; Corke, T.C.; Thomas, F.O. Plasma actuators for separation control of low-pressure turbine blades. AIAA Journal, 2006, 44, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]