{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02592852137351086, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005606166783461808, 'mean_word_length': 4.97489539748954, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Effect of Turbulence Models on Two Massively-Separated Benchmark Flow Cases

Two massively-separated flow cases (the 2-D hill and the 3-D Ahmed body) were computed with several different turbulence models in the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes code CFL3D as part of participation in a turbulence modeling workshop held in Poitiers, France in October, 2002. Overall, results were disappointing, but were consistent with results from other RANS codes and other turbulence models at the workshop. For the 2-D hill case, those turbulence models that predicted separation location accurately ended up yielding a too-long separation extent downstream. The one model that predicted a shorter separation extent in better agreement with LES data did so only by coincidence: its prediction of earlier reattachment was due to a too-late prediction of the separation location. For the Ahmed body, two slant angles were computed, and CFD performed fairly well for one of the cases (the larger slant angle). Both turbulence models tested in this case were very similar to each other. For the smaller slant angle, CFD predicted massive separation, whereas the experiment showed reattachment about half-way down the center of the face. These test cases serve as reminders that state- of-the-art CFD is currently not a reliable predictor of massively-separated flow physics, and that further validation studies in this area would be beneficial.