Eddy Simul

ANNUAL REVIEWS
Further
Detached-Eddy Simulation
Philippe R. Spalart
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, Washington 98124; email: philippe.r.spalart@boeing.com
Click here for quick links to Annual Reviews content online, including: Other articles in this volume Top cited articles Top downloaded articles Our comprehensive search
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2009.41:181-202. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Indian Institute of Technology - New Delhi on 02/01/13. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2009. 41:181202 First published online as a Review in Advance on August 4, 2008 The Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics is online at uid.annualreviews.org This articles doi: 10.1146/annurev.uid.010908.165130 Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved 0066-4189/09/0115-0181$20.00
Key Words
turbulence, separation, boundary layer, modeling
Abstract
Detached-eddy simulation (DES) was rst proposed in 1997 and rst used in 1999, so its full history can be surveyed. A DES community has formed, with adepts and critics, as well as new branches. The initial motivation of high Reynolds number, massively separated ows remains, for which DES is convincingly more capable presently than either unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) or large-eddy simulation (LES). This review discusses compelling examples, noting the visual and quantitative success of DES. Its principal weakness is its response to ambiguous grids, in which the wall-parallel grid spacing is of the order of the boundary-layer thickness. In some situations, DES on a given grid is then less accurate than RANS on the same grid or DES on a coarser grid. Partial remedies have been found, yet dealing with thickening boundary layers and shallow separation bubbles is a central challenge. The nonmonotonic response of DES to grid renement is disturbing to most observers, as is the absence of a theoretical order of accuracy. These issues also affect LES in any nontrivial ow. This review also covers the numerical needs of DES, gridding practices, coupling with different RANS models, derivative uses such as wall modeling in LES, and extensions such as zonal DES and delayed DES.
181
Figure 1
(a) Vorticity isosurfaces colored with pressure over an F-15 jet at a 65 angle of attack (Forsythe et al. 2004). Figure courtesy of J. Forsythe. (b) Acoustic-source isosurface around a Ford Ka automobile (es turbo 3.1) (Mendonca et al. 2002). Figure courtesy of F. Mendonca and Ford Motor Co.
1. BASICS
Figure 1 illustrates the nature of detached-eddy simulation (DES). The aircraft geometry is complete (except for detailed surface and propulsion effects); the simulation is at ight Reynolds number; the large-eddy simulation (LES) content (resolved turbulence) in the separated region is rich; and the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) function plays a role on the aircrafts nose. Furthermore, the forces and moments are accurate to within 6% (Forsythe et al. 2004). This approach must still be considered experimental as a prediction method, and the accuracy benets from the thin edges on the wing; there is no marginal separation to challenge the model. In addition, grid renement does not indicate grid independence on the smaller components, such as the tail surfaces. The automobile geometry is also complete, a feat of the grid generator and solver rather than of DES (Mendonca et al. 2002). The two regions of the DES are especially well visualized: steady attached boundary layers and striking LES content around the wheels and the important A pillar and outside mirror. The drag is dependent on the separation line near the end of the roof, and the accuracy of the RANS model matters. At the same time, the LES function is indispensable to predict the aerodynamic noise and in fact the drag. These two studies reect the broad diffusion of DES.
1.1. Conceptual History

DES was created to address the challenge of highReynolds number, massively separated ows, which must be addressed in such elds as aerospace and ground transportation, as well as in atmospheric studies. It combined LES and RANS, spurred by the belief that each alone was powerless to solve the problem at hand (Spalart et al. 1997). This complaint can be revisited presently, assuming a working knowledge of LES and RANS (Rogallo & Moin 1984, Wilcox 1998). The objection to pure LES is simple and centers on computational cost. A pure LES of an airborne or ground vehicle would use well over 1011 grid points and close to 107 time steps, which is estimated to be possible in approximately 2045 (Spalart 2000). The boundary layer dominates this expense, which is necessary even if investigators solve the problem of wall modeling in LES. Regardless, the resolution needs in the outer region of the boundary layer are rm, with at the least 20 points per thickness in each direction. No unforeseen breakthrough has occurred in
182 Spalart
LES since 1997, and RANS is simply necessary for the large extent of thin boundary layers (the thicker parts are discussed below). The objection to pure RANS is not as limpid because it arises from a negative assessment of models and the relentless attempts to build into them rst-principle content and rational ideas. In this view, RANS models can be adjusted to predict boundary layers and their separation well, but not large separation regions, whether behind a sphere or past buildings, vehicles, in cavities, and so on. Observers are hopeful for a new perspective that could erase this objection soon. However, since 1997, researchers have tended to shift their effort from RANS to LES and hybrid methods. A second motivation for DES over RANS appears in situations that, even if RANS were accurate, would need unsteady information for engineering purposes (e.g., vibration and noise). The original reasons to believe in DES can also be revisited. The original version of DES, which we refer to as DES97 here, was dened as a three-dimensional unsteady numerical solution using a single turbulence model, which functions as a subgrid-scale model in regions where the grid density is ne enough for a large-eddy simulation, and as a Reynolds-averaged model in regions where it is not (Travin et al. 2000a). A working denition is that the boundary layer is treated by RANS, and regions of massive separation are treated with LES; the space between these areas, known as the gray area, may be problematic unless the separation is abrupt, often xed by the geometry. A single model, with a RANS origin but sensitized to grid spacing via a DES limiter, provides the desired function in both the RANS and LES limits. The mixing length then can be limited by two constraints: the wall distance and the grid spacing. When neither constraint is felt, the model follows its own natural RANS history; this is the case for free shear ows when they have a grid too coarse to use LES for that particular layer. The capability of LES in free shear ows is not in question, which does not imply that any geometry has allowed grid convergence. Few groups have conducted grid renement, with at best a factor of 2 in each direction, except in homogeneous turbulence. There is only consensus that ner grids improve the physics and that grid renement, away from walls, has not created bad surprises. Renement reduces the eddy viscosity, and a plausible view of LES is that the eddy viscosity is an error, of order 4/3 in the Kolmogorov situation. Reducing also reduces numerical errors because the cutoff is further down the spectrum, and velocity scales like 1/3 . RANS development has been static, as almost all the models used in DES date back to 1992. In a natural DES, with RANS function extending to the separation line, perfection cannot be reached, and grid renement brings no improvement beyond the accuracy barrier of the model. The computing cost of the RANS region is easily manageable, as expected, and the principal difculty may be to generate grids that cover all of the boundary layer well in terms of thickness. Initially, the Spalart-Allmaras model was used, but DES now draws on several other models (Strelets 2001) (see Section 4.1). The gray area drew complaints as soon as 2000 in an application to an overexpanded nozzle, although there were none for DESs rst application, which was to a thin airfoil, in 1999 (Shur et al. 1999). Surprisingly, users quickly encountered grid spacings that disturbed the RANS model (see Section 3.2). This motivated a relatively deep change in its formulation with shielded DES and delayed DES (Menter & Kuntz 2002, Spalart et al. 2006) as the DES length-scale limiter now depends on the solution, rather than on the grid only. Nonetheless, these methods are aimed at better fullling the original mission of DES.
1.2. Types of Simulation for Massive Separation

Simulation for massive separation is an important eld in which the differences in approach are deep and deserve a detailed discussion. Figure 2 illustrates possible contenders for the
www.annualreviews.org Detached-Eddy Simulation 183
184
Spalart
simulation of ow past a circular cylinder and similar cases. The situation is not as simple as it appeared in 1997. It was then considered obvious that unsteady RANS (URANS) solutions suppressed three-dimensionality over two-dimensional (2D) geometries, and it had been found that drag and lift uctuations were overpredicted by URANS, although the shedding frequency was accurate. The term URANS here means running an unmodied (grid-insensitive) transportequation turbulence model, in unsteady mode and with periodic spanwise conditions. Recent ndings have revealed that under fairly general conditions, these simulations in fact sustain threedimensionality and are more accurate than 2D URANS (Shur et al. 2005a). Figure 2 illustrates the classic steady RANS (an unstable solution) and 2D URANS and includes the newer 3D URANS. The three-dimensionality is much coarser than in DES and does not become ner on a ner grid, which it does in DES. URANS largely suppresses three-dimensionality, but not completely. Shur et al. (2005a) also cite and demonstrate a troublesome sensitivity to the spanwise period and to the turbulence model, making 3D URANS with standard models a weak contender for this simulation. There is no evidence that the lateral length scales in the 3D URANS eld are physical. Besides the cylinder, these authors treated an airfoil and a rounded square. Nishino et al. (2008) present a thorough URANS and DES study of a cylinder near a wall, which strongly supports the idea that URANS, even if 3D, is less accurate than DES and (when applicable) LES. More effective RANS models could be devised. Still, URANS is vulnerable to the criticism that its partial differential equations are known, but the (Reynolds?) averaging it actually represents is not known, in the absence of a spectral gap. A somewhat similar challenge can be directed at DES, a point to which we return. In spite of its failings, there are reasons to be familiar with URANS. First, some researchers do believe in its capabilities and would dispute our conclusions from Figure 2. Second, in a complex geometry, sometimes the DES grid and time step only allow, effectively, URANS near the smaller components. Examples include the wiper blade on a car and the active-ow-control slot on an aircraft (Spalart et al. 2003). It is desirable for hybrid methods to handle such situations gracefully, even with the knowledge that the geometric detail ideally would be granted LES content on its length scales and timescales through a ner grid and a shorter time step. Figure 2 also vividly illustrates the response of DES to grid renement in its LES region. Finally, it conrms that DES solutions with different base RANS models are not sensitive to model choice in the LES region (as opposed to the RANS region, particularly if separation occurs). This has been veried quantitatively in many cases (e.g., a backward-facing step) and is a valuable feature. The boundary layers being laminar, Figure 2 does not reect DESs value in treating turbulent boundary layers in a manner LES cannot, but subsequent gures do.
2. STRENGTHS
This section aims to verify the soundness of DES quantitatively in the important respects of comparison with experiment and response to grid renement.
Figure 2 Vorticity isosurfaces by a circular cylinder: Re D = 5 104 , laminar separation. Experimental drag coefcient Cd = 1.151.25. (a) Shear-stress transport (SST) turbulence model steady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS), Cd = 0.78; (b) SST 2D unsteady RANS, Cd = 1.73; (c) SST 3D unsteady RANS, Cd = 1.24; (d ) Spalart-Allmaras (SA) detached-eddy simulation (DES), coarse grid, Cd = 1.16; (e) SA DES, ne grid, Cd = 1.26; ( f ) SST DES, ne grid, Cd = 1.28. Figure courtesy of A. Travin.
0.5
Experimental peak approximately 0.5
G4 (10.5 M cells)
0.4
Resolved TKE (k/U2)
0.3
G3 (6.6 M cells) G2 (2.7 M cells)
0.2
0.1 Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2009.41:181-202. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Indian Institute of Technology - New Delhi on 02/01/13. For personal use only.
G1 (1.2 M cells)
0 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
X/c
Figure 3 (a) Flow visualizations and (b) resolved turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) for a sharp-edged delta wing at a 27 angle of attack, chord Reynolds number 1.56 106 (Morton 2003). Figure courtesy of S. Morton.
2.1. Simple Geometries

Above it was mentioned that grid renement on the jet aircraft had nontrivial effects on the smaller components. Grid-renement effects were more predictable, however, on Mortons (2003) delta wings. The simpler geometry helped, but the phenomenon of vortex breakdown is a subtle one. The results are rewarding, shown visually in Figure 3a and quantitatively in Figure 3b. Finer grids introduce vortex shedding at the trailing edge and much ner structures in the vortex. The front half of the vortex is also quite different: The helical striations switch direction from a coarse to a ne grid. Figure 3b is especially favorable, as it suggests near-grid convergence of the resolved turbulent kinetic energy to a level that agrees with experiment both for energy level, approximately 0.5, and location, X/c = 0.65 0.05 (Mitchell et al. 2000). A scale-adaptive simulation also produced resolved turbulence in this ow (Egorov & Menter 2008). The study featured in Figure 4a,b also reects the quantitative success of DES. Constantinescu et al. (2002) simulated the ow past a sphere with approximately 600,000 points in the baseline grid and controlled the model in the boundary layer so that it produced laminar separation at a diameter of Re = 105 and turbulent separation at Re = 1.1 106 . The latter is somewhat simplistic because in the real ow, transition and separation are not segregated (Travin et al. 2000a), but it is far superior to letting an untrained subgrid-scale model handle the boundary layer, effectively in RANS mode. Quite a few recent cylinder computational uid dynamics (CFD) studies even failed to select laminar separation at subcritical Reynolds numbers; Travin et al.s (2000a) tripless approach is needed, and Nishino et al. (2008) adopted it successfully. With this approach, the prediction of a drag crisis is striking, and the pressure distributions are extremely favorable both when compared with experiment and when comparing baseline and ne grids. At the lower Reynolds number, DES predicts a drag coefcient of 0.41, compared with 0.400.51 in experiments; at the higher Reynolds number, DES gives 0.084 and experiments give 0.12. It is tempting to extend this approach to golf balls. The drag crisis caused by dimples can be captured in a gross sense, simply by imposing turbulent separation with a smooth geometry. However, no
186 Spalart
Re = 105
Re = 1.1 106
1.00 0.50 Re = 1.1 106 0.00
c
0.5
y/D
Cp
0.50
0.5
Re = 105
0
1.00 1.50
x/D
30
60
90
120
150
180
Figure 4 Simple bluff bodies. (a) Flow visualizations and (b) pressure distributions for a sphere. Re = 105 and 1.1 106 . Open circles and diamonds denote experiments, whereas the dotted and dashed lines denote detached-eddy simulation (DES) on two grids. Panels a and b courtesy of K. Squires. (c) Phase-averaged vorticity contours for a cylinder. Color gradations denote DES conducted by Mockett et al. (2008), and the solid line denotes experiments by the same authors.
RANS model could reproduce the dimple effect accurately, and this will require direct numerical simulation (DNS), at least of the dimple ow proper. This is part of a general challenge stemming from the range of scales in uid mechanics. Compared with DNS, LES addresses the Kolmogorov viscous scale limitation, and wall modeling addresses the similar viscous-sublayer scale. In its RANS mode, DES in addition addresses the boundary-layer eddies of all sizes. These eddies are numerous and fairly universal. However, if they become dependent on geometry, be it on the shape of a wiper blade or that of a dimple, LES treatment of their scales becomes necessary for high accuracy so that many problems, in particular active ow control, simply exceed even current grids in excess of 108 points. Travin et al.s (2000a) circular-cylinder study similarly included laminar- and turbulentseparation cases and a surprise-free grid-renement study, which added condence after Shur et al.s (1999) initial thin-airfoil work. Figure 4c compares DES and experiment behind a
circular cylinder (Mockett & Thiele 2007); the DES visualizations are close to those shown in Figure 2e, f. The agreement on the phase-averaged ow pattern is excellent.
2.2. Applications
DES has been applied often with good results to cavities over a range of Mach numbers (Allen et al. 2005, Hamed et al. 2003, Langtry & Spalart 2007, Mendonca et al. 2003, Shieh & Morris 2001), ground vehicles (Kapadia et al. 2003, Maddox et al. 2004, Roy et al. 2004, Spalart & Squires 2004, Sreenivas et al. 2006), a simplied landing-gear truck (Hedges et al. 2002), active ow control by suction/blowing (Krishnan et al. 2004, Spalart et al. 2003), space launchers (Deck & Thorigny 2007, Forsythe et al. 2002), vibrating cylinders with strakes (Constantinides & Oakley 2006), cavitation in jets (Edge et al. 2006), buildings (Wilson et al. 2006), air inlets (Trapier et al. 2008), aircraft in a spin (Forsythe et al. 2006), high-lift devices (Cummings et al. 2004), jet-ghter tail buffet (Morton et al. 2004), and wing-wall junctions (Fu et al. 2007). Peng & Haase (2008) report on many promising applications at various stages of maturity: wing high-lift systems, helicopters, combustors, and afterbodies. Chalot et al. (2007) reveal a vigorous line of work in another aircraft company, Dassault. Slimon (2003) obtained positive results with (zonal) DES in a turn-around duct; DES did much better than RANS with simple models, however, which may not be expected to capture curvature effects. Publications aimed at educating users and code writers have, appropriately, focused on grid generation (Spalart 2001) and on thorough testing of the codes (Bunge et al. 2007, Squires 2004). The terminology Euler region, RANS region, focus region, and departure region, introduced by Spalart, may be of help. Grid adaptation in DES and LES is a future challenge. Another promising direction is taken by Mockett et al. (2008) and Greschner et al. (2008): aerodynamic noise. Such studies will contribute both to interior noise in vehicles and aircraft and to community noise (airframe noise to the airline industry). We note above the industrial importance of the turbulence adjacent to the drivers window (Figure 1b). Mockett et al. (2008) studied the ow in the slat cove of an airfoil in landing conguration; the visualization with density gradient in Figure 5a vividly reveals much ne-scale turbulence and sound. Actual sound predictions are not included. Greschner et al. (2008) provide sound predictions for the ow past a cylinder, placed ahead of an airfoil so that its turbulent wake impinges on it (see Figure 5b). At low Mach numbers, this impingement, which causes wall-pressure uctuations, is the dominant noise mechanism. Various Ffowcs-Williams-Hawkings surfaces are used to extract far-eld noise. Flow visualizations resemble those in Figure 2, without as ne a level of resolution. This case is more onerous because the turbulence needs to be carried all the way to the airfoil, 10 diameters downstream; the focus region is much larger. Figure 5c compares the sound spectrum with experiment. An adjustment was made in the vertical direction: In 2D geometries, there is an unsolved problem when comparing an experiment of nite length (with some end conditions) to a simulation with periodic boundary conditions, invariably quite narrow (in contrast, no adjustment was needed for the spectra inside the turbulence region). Once this correction is accepted, the agreement on the shape of the spectrum, over ve octaves, is quite amazing. Figure 6 (Chauvet et al. 2007) is of interest for two reasons. First, the LES-content development in the mixing layer is nearly immediate, which is positive, although it may be excessively 2D (see Section 3.4). Second, the simulation is simultaneously free enough of numerical dissipation to welcome LES content and robust enough to capture shocks. This result has also been achieved by Shur et al. (2006) in jets and by Ziee & Kleiser (2008) in a supersonic channel with hills. These
188
Spalart
| p'|
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
Y X Z
c
PSD (dB)
100 80 60 40 20 0
= 90 Experiment DES + FWH
101
Figure 5 Complex bluff bodies. (a) Schlieren picture near a slat. Panel a courtesy of C. Mockett. (b) Vorticity isosurfaces for a rod-cylinder case. (c) Far-eld spectrum. PSD, power spectral density. Panels b and c courtesy of B. Greschner.
100
St = f D/u
www.annualreviews.org Detached-Eddy Simulation
189
a
y/D
b1
0
1 0
X/D
Figure 6
X/D
(a) Experimental schlieren (view through ow) and (b) numerical schlieren (contours in center plane) for a supersonic jet. Figure taken from Chauvet et al. 2007.
studies remove the concern that LES might be barred from supersonic ows, therefore widening the range expected for DES, given a powerful numerical method.
3. WEAKNESSES 3.1. Conceptual Issues

The need to predict turbulence numerically is far-reaching. Yet continuing concerns of a conceptual nature could categorize DES as a method that is intuitively correct and often successful but dissatisfying to the purist. Below we rst address these concerns and then delve into practical issues in the remaining subsections. The criticism of URANS mentioned above (namely that the approximate PDE that is solved is known, but the exact PDE it is meant to approximate is not) does not truly apply to DES. A lter can be linked to the grid cell and to the integration implied by the CFD solver. In LES, systematic studies use ltered versions of DNS elds to steer subgrid-scale model development. This is known as the Clark test or a priori study and could be performed with DES but has not; in LES and DES practice, models are adjusted based on results rather than explicit tests. The new difculty beyond those in LES is that, in the gray area, the model has a strong impact, but a convincing calibration is simply out of reach: There are far too few degrees of freedom (in DES97, only CDES ). A similar problem is present even in simple LES; simply put, one would adjust the single Smagorinsky constant to ensure that all six subgrid stresses are correct. The problem is more severe in wall-modeled LES (WMLES) and more severe again in DES. Clear statements are much more difcult to make, especially in view of the wide variety of anisotropies possible for the grid cell and time step, and also because of history effects, which are strong especially in the all-important situation of a separating boundary layer (see Section 3.4). The essential difculty is that the model has much more impact on WMLES and DES than it does on the notional LES situation, namely away from walls and with a grid spacing in the inertial range. In that situation, one can arbitrarily lessen the inuence of the Smagorinsky constant and similar constants with grid renement. WMLES has been exposed to this issue less than DES, possibly because it sometimes seems unable to escape channel ow. The literature reects a desire for an approach that is somehow more justied and mathematically dened than DES. Several hybrid proposals rest on the idea of splitting the turbulent energy in a specied ratio (e.g., 70% resolved and 30% modeled). This is ne in simple ows, but the strength of DES (and WMLES) is precisely that the split is different in different parts of the same solution. The energy split can be adjusted in different regions, but this increases the decision load for the user.
190 Spalart
A separate line of critical thought regards the use of the grid spacing in the model. In LES, of course has been standard, although it has been proposed to dissociate the lter size and grid spacing. With RANS-LES hybrids, it has even been proposed to dispose with any length scale of the nature of a lter width or grid scale. This led to scale-adaptive simulation (SAS). Menter et al. (2003) use an SAS model that appears to have a pure RANS nature but achieves LES behavior unlike any traditional RANS model. For instance, visualizations over a cylinder look just like those in Figure 2e, f. Menter et al.s (2003) model differs from traditional ones in its use of a higher derivative of the velocity eld, which is highly active on short scales. Travin et al.s (2004) turbulence-resolving RANS approach has similar features but uses the ratio of strain to vorticity rather than a high derivative. Besides a philosophical interest in the true nature of turbulence models, the SAS and turbulence-resolving RANS work is motivated by the disruptive effects of in DES with ambiguous grids (see Section 3.2). This stimulating controversy is not over. It echoes the one in RANS modeling over the use of the wall distance [as in the Spalart-Allmaras and shear-stress transport (SST) models]. Wall distance can be expensive to calculate and has unphysical effects (e.g., with a thin wire); however, the sustained wide use of these two models suggests that it is manageable and has a substantial accuracy payoff. Equally active are controversies over the denition of in noncubic grid cells (see Section 4.4). Nonuniqueness issues are most intense with delayed DES (DDES), as discussed in Section 3.2 and Section 4.3, because even the RANS or LES nature of the solution is in some cases dependent on initial or inow conditions. Finally, the issue of an order of accuracy is clear; careful users are justied in asking for one because it is, in principle, a key step in CFD quality control; this is related to the desire for monotonic grid convergence. A typical observation after analyzing a grid-renement study even in a simple geometry is the honest but vague statement that the ndings are suggesting a certain degree of grid convergence (Nishino et al. 2008). An order of accuracy has not even been proposed for a simulation using both modes within DES. In a pure LES, this order exists but depends on the quantity in question, for instance, the resolved or total turbulent kinetic energy or the dissipation. WMLES does not deal with this problem much better than DES does. Recent efforts at organizing the quality control of CFD in the RANS eld, in which the differential equation does not depend on the grid, would be defeated by precisely this dependence in LES and DES. Whether in DNS, LES, or DES, the difculty in demonstrating grid convergence is compounded by the residual variations owing to nite time samples; some ows have severe modulations and drift. Figure 7 uses Travin et al.s (2000a) LS1 cylinder case; the simulation covered a generous 40 cycles of shedding, after an initial transient. The time-averaged drag coefcient is 1.083 over the rst half of the sample, but 1.033 over the second half; the lift excursions are also noticeably less intense over the second half. Although the sample is sufcient to capture the modulations of the lift signal, the drags drift is not mastered to better than several percent and went unnoticed at the time. There is no theory that would extrapolate to innite sample length. As a result, searching for grid convergence to 1%, for example, is not possible.
3.2. Modeled-Stress Depletion and Grid-Induced Separation

Modeled-stress depletion (MSD) and grid-induced separation have been the most signicant practical issues and have been worse to deal with than initially anticipated (Spalart et al. 1997). Figure 8a shows the roots of these problems, with three levels of grid density in a boundary layer. The rst level matches the initial vision of DES; it is a boundary-layer grid, with the wall-parallel spacing in excess of the boundary-layer thickness , which allows full RANS function. The
0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Instantaneous Time-averaged
1.30 1.25 1.20
Instantaneous
Cd, Cd
C, C
1.15 1.10 1.05

Time-averaged
0.2 0.4 1.00 0.6 Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 2009.41:181-202. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org by Indian Institute of Technology - New Delhi on 02/01/13. For personal use only. 0 40 80 120 160 200 0.95 0 40 80 120 160 200
tU/D
Figure 7
tU/D
Instantaneous (solid line) and time-averaged (dashed line) values of force coefcients on a cylinder: (a) lift and (b) drag. Re = 5 104 . Figure courtesy of A. Travin.
third level matches the needs of LES in the outer layer and thus of the extended use of DES as a wall model (see Section 3.3): The grid spacing in all directions is much smaller than . The second level is the troublesome one: small enough for the eddy viscosity to be affected by the DES limiter but not small enough to support accurate LES content (slow LES development adds to this difculty; see Section 3.4). Spalart et al. (2006) coined the term MSD, well after the issue was detected by S. Deck (personal communication) and by Menter & Kuntz (2002), who pointed out a consequence of MSD called grid-induced separation (GIS). Created only one year after Shur et al. (1999) fully dened DES, Figure 8b is an early example of gradual grid renement degrading a solution that was rather good when the RANS model was fully active (S. Deck, personal communication; see also Caruelle & Ducros 2003). Separation in a nozzle is premature and induces unsteadiness. DES users promptly explored the effects of grid spacing and sought high accuracy, with disturbing outcomes. Figure 9 is a visualization of GIS, this time on an airfoil (Menter & Kuntz 2002). Whereas the RANS solution is steady and quite accurate, even in this case of incipient separation, the DES solution suffers from early separation. It also is unsteady, but in a shedding mode rather than in a sound turbulence-resolving mode. The ow eld then obeys the URANS equations, but with a model that has become grid dependent in an obscure and unintended manner. Menter & Kuntz (2002) proposed a solution applicable to the SST model called shielding, in which the DES limiter is disabled as long as the ow is recognized as a boundary layer, using the SST F2 function. Spalart et al. (2006) introduced DDES, which is applicable to most models. Either modication successfully prevents GIS by extending the RANS region, exploiting a history effect. Secondary effects are covered in Section 4.3.
3.3. Logarithmic-Layer Mismatch

Simulations with an LES nature in one region and a RANS nature in another were conducted long before DES; wall modeling near the walls of an LES draws on RANS technology, and early channel LES studies even used wall functions. A new feature of DES is that the entire boundary layer can be handled by RANS. However, DES also naturally provides a simple wall model, which
192 Spalart
1.0
y/
0.5 0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5 1.0 0.5 0
3.0
3.5
4.0
x/
1.0
y/
0.5 0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
x/
0.05
x/
Normalized wall pressure (PW/PC)
0.04
0.03
DES computation PR40
0.02 SA-URANS computation PR40 0.01 LEA steady experimental data PR41.3 0 0 10 20
X/rt
Figure 8 (a) Types of grids in boundary layers. The dashed line represents the velocity prole. (b) Pressure distribution in a supersonic nozzle. Figure courtesy of S. Deck. DES, detached-eddy simulation; LEA, Laboratoire dEtudes A rodynamiques; SA-URANS, Spalart-Allmaras unsteady RANS. e
Nikitin et al. (2000) attempted. The results were not perfect, but the study was successful in key respects. The model was robust, with no need for averaging or danger of negative values. LES content was sustained even with coarse grids, because = h/10 in most runs, where h is the half-width of the channel. Very high Reynolds numbers were reached at little additional cost. Figure 10a illustrates the response of Nikitin et al.s method to Reynolds number and grid spacing. An increase in Reynolds number on a xed grid (same but renement in y to retain a rst y + near 1) lengthens the modeled part of the prole, which blends into the modeled log layer ( y + roughly from 70 to 700). Grid renement, conversely, lengthens the resolved-turbulence part of the prole, which blends into the resolved log layer ( y + roughly from 3000 to 15,000). The Reynolds shear stress comprises modeled stress and resolved stress, which trade places as the grid is varied (Figure 10b).
a
0
Velocity
5.00
10.00
Figure 9 Vorticity contours over an airfoil: (a) Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes and (b) detached-eddy simulation. Arrows indicate separation. Figure taken from Menter & Kuntz 2002.
The imperfection is that the two log layers are misaligned, by almost three wall units of velocity U + . The probability that this log-layer mismatch would be zero was nil because this study used the pure DES97 model, adjusted for other purposes. (The study was also marked by deliberate constraints, such as equal grid spacing in the wall-parallel directions, to ensure the ndings would translate into practice.) All other wall-modeling approaches have required adjustments to align their log layers. Nikitin et al. (2000) mentioned the ensuing error of the order of 15% for the skin-friction coefcient but did not mention that the slope dU/d y is too high by 65% at y = . Locally, this is highly inaccurate. In addition, grid renement merely moves the same amount of mismatch closer to the wall. This is different from MSD in a near-RANS boundary layer, which
1.0 0.8
40 35 30
0.6
U+
+
0.4 0.2 0 102 103 104 105 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
25 20 15 10 5 101
y
Figure 10
y/h
Channel-ow, wall-modeled large-eddy simulation. (a) Velocity: Re = 2000 and 20,000. Each prole is shifted by ve U + units. The lower two curves use approximately 140,000 grid points, and the upper curve uses approximately 1,000,000 points. The dashed line represents the log law. (b) Modeled and resolved shear stress: coarser grid (dashed line) and ner grid (solid line). Re = 20,000. Figure adapted from Nikitin et al. 2000.
194 Spalart
a
1 0 1 0
1 0
Figure 11
1 0 2 4 6 8
Vorticity in a jet: (a) standard detached-eddy simulation and (b) implicit large-eddy simulation, eddy viscosity disabled. Figure courtesy of M. Shur.
becomes more severe as the grid is rened. Follow-on work by Piomelli and his group also showed that the near-wall solution has poor LES content. The practical advantages of wall modeling by DES, and the understanding that in practice thick wall-bounded layers lead to LES grids in the sense of Figure 8a, motivate efforts to resolve log-layer mismatch (Piomelli & Balaras 2002, Travin et al. 2006).
3.4. Slow Large-Eddy Simulation Development in Mixing Layers

Separation is the essential ow feature motivating DES, with the expectation that the boundary layer is treated with RANS and is quasi-steady, but the free shear layer it feeds develops LES content. By consensus, the sooner this takes place, the better. Unfortunately, standard DES on typical grids does not achieve this switch very fast at all (Figure 11); a zonal approach that disables the model in the mixing layer and activates implicit LES is visually far more successful (Shur et al. 2005b,c). This is the case with the book-shaped grid cells typical of such regions, with one dimension much smaller than the other two, and may be a perverse effect of the careful adaptation of the grid to the shear layer. The DES model fails to sense the opportunity because the lateral grid spacing is loose (here, 10% of the diameter D, with 64 points around) and the standard denition of is used (see Section 4.4). The model defaults to RANS until the layer thickness reaches approximately 40% of D because the mixing length in a RANS-treated mixing layer is approximately one-tenth the vorticity thickness, much smaller than the lateral grid spacing, making the DES limiter inoperative. Other denitions are then more successful (see Section 4.4), but in a manner dependent on the alignment and shape (book or pencil) of the grid cells. This problem has received and deserved attention, but unlike the two problems discussed in the preceding subsections, it is remediable with grid renement.
4. RECENT PROPOSALS 4.1. Alternate Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Models

The original formulation of DES rested on the simple Spalart-Allmaras model, and no CFD system should ever be conned to one model. Travin et al. (2000b) pioneered the adaptation to two-equation models, in particular the SST model, which has been smooth. Recent work includes, for instance, Greschner et al.s (2008) cubic explicit algebraic stress models. The motivation for complex models is debated because the RANS region normally comprises thin shear layers; relatively thick and curved boundary layers could make using complex models worthwhile.
4.2. Zonal Detached-Eddy Simulation

In zonal DES, the user explicitly marks different regions as RANS or as DES (Deck 2005). In effect, in RANS regions, is made innite (as opposed to zero in implicit LES). This is probably the strongest departure from the original concept of DES, in which the use of a single but versatile equation set is central, and creates most of the conceptual and practical challenges. The motivation is to be fully safe from MSD and GIS (see Section 3.2) and to clarify the role of each region. Zonal DES worked well for Brunet & Deck (2008) in the important problem of wing buffet, Chauvet et al. (2007) in jets, Simon et al. (2007) for a base ow, and Slimon (2003) in a duct. The geometries in these studies were simple, such as the jet featured in Figure 11. A fair question to propose to zonal DES proponents concerns complex ows, in which decisions are needed for numerous regions (including the thickness of regions meant to contain RANS boundary layers). This is similar to issues with zonal control of laminar-turbulent transition. Which mode will be the default, and which will be the exception? S. Deck (personal communication) is in favor of RANS as the default mode; the author may disagree, and, more importantly, there is the concern that smooth-wall separation is normally not known at the time the zones are set. Compared with DES, ZDES appears simultaneously more powerful and less self-sufcient.
4.3. Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation and Improved Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation

A key motivation here is precisely to avoid zonal measures, thus leaving it to the solution process to determine separation, while addressing the MSD issue that affects DES97 (see Section 3.2). Following Menter & Kuntz (2002), DDES detects boundary layers and prolongs the full RANS mode, even if the wall-parallel grid spacing would normally activate the DES limiter. This detection device depends on the eddy viscosity, so that the limiter now depends on the solution (Spalart et al. 2006). This is a formal deviation from DES97 but not a different mission. DDES was shown to resolve GIS, without impeding LES function after separation. For instance, it handled a backward-facing-step ow well, even with grids that would cause severe MSD both upstream of the step and all along the opposite wall. DDES is likely to be the new standard version of DES. Improved delayed DES (IDDES) is more ambitious yet (Shur et al. 2008). The approach is also nonzonal and aims at resolving log-layer mismatch in addition to MSD. One basis is a new denition of , which includes the wall distance and not only the local characteristics of the grid. The modication tends to depress near the wall and give it a steep variation, which stimulates instabilities, boosting the resolved Reynolds stress. Other components of IDDES include new empirical functions, some involving the cell Reynolds number, which address log-layer mismatch and the bridge between wall-resolved and wall-modeled DES (grids with moderate values of the spacing in wall units, + ). These functions make the formulation less readable than that of DES97. Yet many groups have had success with IDDES in practice (Mockett & Thiele 2007). The history effect introduced by shielding or by DDES has consequences in terms of the uniqueness of solutions. For instance, in a channel ow with periodicity and a grid and time step capable of LES (as in Nikitin et al. 2000 and Figure 10), the solution has two branches, depending on the initial condition. If the ow is in a RANS state, with high eddy viscosity and weak perturbations, it remains in that mode and nds a steady state. If the ow starts in an LES state with low eddy viscosity and sufcient LES content, it settles into a statistically steady LES. Both solutions are valid, but this situation perplexes some observers (Frolich & von Terzi 2008).
196 Spalart
Nonuniqueness, however, is not unknown in RANS practice. Some ows, such as airfoils near maximum lift, have hysteresis both in real-world situations and in CFD. More striking is the behavior of models in the tripless mode (Travin et al. 2000a), which is an essential tool for capturing the drag crisis of smooth bluff bodies. The mature solution depends on the level of the turbulence variables in the initial eld.
4.4. Modied Length Scales

The IDDES length scales principal motivation is in a fully turbulent wall layer in the LES mode. Other proposals relate instead to transition, more precisely the growth of LES content. Several groups (Breuer et al. 2003, Chauvet et al. 2007, Yan et al. 2007) have tested with some success denitions radically different from the standard one in DES, namely the maximum dimension of the grid cell; if it is aligned with the axes, then = max( x, y, z). In contrast with the DDES modication (which raises eddy viscosity in specic situations), all these denitions tend to reduce it, therefore worsening the MSD tendencies. They all appear to be responses to the problem of LES development in mixing layers (see Section 3.4) with the purpose of allowing the KelvinHelmholtz instability to grow. Some use the time-honored denition in LES = ( x y z)1/3 , which of course reduces , but its physical justication is thin. Chauvet et al.s (2007) length scale Nx2 y z + Ny2 x z + Nz2 x y, where N is the unit vector aligned with vorticity, is aimed at the situation in which the vorticity is closely aligned with one of the grid lines. The debate is whether promoting the 2D Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, knowing that the true switch to 3D turbulence occurs only once the mixing-layer thickness has caught up with the lateral grid spacing, is far superior to letting the mixing layer thicken in the RANS mode. For instance, the RANS mode creates no sound, but the near-2D LES mode could create too much. The reduced length scales have an advantage over the implicit LES approach shown in Figure 11 as they are not zonal and can reverse to the normal scale when the grid is not strongly anisotropic.
5. NUMERICAL REQUIREMENTS
DES codes need qualities that are absent in many RANS codes and others that are absent in many LES codes. Considering the liation of the model, it is more common to start from a RANS code. These codes often have placed a high priority on convergence to a steady state, complex-geometry compatibility, and shock capturing. The unsteady capability, with resolution of high frequencies and short waves, has been neglected, and the other demands all benet from numerical dissipation. As a result, an extensive testing campaign and modications to reduce dispersion, dissipation, and time-integration errors are key (Caruelle & Ducros 2003, Mockett & Thiele 2007, Strelets 2001, Temmerman & Hirsch 2008). The most effective schemes are structured and hybrid, not only in their treatment of turbulence, but also in their numerics. The differencing scheme is centered (nondissipative) or nearly so in the LES region and is more strongly upwind in the Euler and RANS regions. This hybridization was introduced by Travin et al. (2000b) and is now widely used (e.g., Mockett & Thiele 2007). Conversely, the code used in Figure 1a is unstructured and uniformly based on second-order upwind differencing, but it displays generous LES content. Therefore, it is best to avoid blanket statements. If the starting code is an LES code, common obstacles include the limitation to simple geometries, without implicit time integration or multiblock capabilities, let alone unstructured grids. The addition of a transport-equation turbulence model is not trivial, and few codes have shockcapturing capability (Hou & Mahesh 2004). The priority was given to high orders of accuracy.
An advantage of DES is the ease of programming and application. Potentially, it is activated directly from the menu of turbulence models in many of the vendor CFD codes. This is a doubleedged advantage, as users not invested in turbulence and/or too trusting of the experts could accept results without verifying LES content, grid resolution, time step, time sample, and so on. An early example of this was an entry in the LESfoil workshop (Mellen et al. 2003). The simulation was formally a DES, and the results were ne. However, there is every indication from the grid that the simulation was actually in RANS mode, even in the key region. In contrast, the genuine LES studies struggled with all the issues of lateral domain size, resolution, and initiation of LES content in attached ows.
6. OUTLOOK
It is certain that DES has a future and therefore deserves a critique. Greschner et al. (2008) deem that DES is still in its infancy and undergoes continuing improvements. Under one name or another, a form of a RANS-LES hybrid that is capable of full RANS function in boundary layers will be in use for the foreseeable future in many industries. It will also remain conceptually difcult, and efforts toward more predictable behavior under grid variations and better wallmodeling performance will continue. LES-content creation in attached ows will ourish, and the numerical quality of the codes will receive sustained attention. A clear need in practice is to organize and facilitate grid generation and to set guidelines for systematic renement. Programs such as DESider and focused workshops will be most benecial to the progress of DES and other hybrids (Peng & Haase 2008). An unfortunate trend is that models have moved away from the simplicity of DES97 in terms of the equations and nonuniqueness of solutions (in DDES and IDDES) and in terms of the user decision load and need to mark regions (in ZDES). Users by now have identied situations in which DES gives too little eddy viscosity and others in which it gives too much. Even in DES97, large steps in the grid spacing can be used to steer the solution toward one mode or the other, so that grid design can become involved, especially now that the dangers of ambiguous grids are known. What may be an ideal of CFD, namely that grid renement will do no harm (in other words, be monotonic) and follow a known power of the grid size, will remain elusive in DES and LES (without explicit ltering), except in the simplest of ows. There are signs that a productive DES user community has formed. We must recognize, however, a school of thought that considers DES to be a somewhat unsafe activity. Owing to space limitations, this review does not discuss hybrid RANS-LES methods besides DES and SAS (e.g., limited numerical scales, very large eddy simulation, ow simulation methodology, nonlinear disturbance equations, extra-large eddy simulation, lattice Boltzmann method, transient RANS, partially averaged Navier-Stokes, semideterministic method, organized eddy simulation, partially integrated transport model, and the self-adapting model) (some are found in Sagaut et al. 2006; Frolich & von Terzi 2008). I do not believe that any of these methods provides a clear remedy to the difculties discussed here, but this could change in the future. The principal concerns are GIS and in general the potentially poor knowledge of the nature of the simulation in each region of a complex ow: driven URANS, spontaneous URANS, or LES. This nature can change under grid renement and become ambiguous, and therefore it is not the case that any grid renement improves the solution. The nominally universal character of DES makes these observers justiably dubious that a sufciently error-proof approach results, or that the user community is being properly informed. Such comments are encountered more often in conversations and anonymous reviews than in publications. It does not detract from their value, and the task of resolving them is an inspiring one. Locally ambiguous grids may be a permanent feature of
198 Spalart
practical DES. One might ask, is it justied to simulate the ow past a car, when the wiper and door handle are not well resolved? The answer depends on the purpose of the simulation.
FUTURE ISSUES 1. The numerical resolution over relevant geometries needs improvement, ultimately with grid adaptation. 2. The link between the DES ow eld and the exact or DNS ow eld should be established. 3. The choice between zonal and nonzonal treatments of the turbulence needs to be addressed.
4. The generation of resolved turbulence in attached boundary layers needs to become routine and efcient.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Drs. Allmaras, Deck, Mockett, Strelets, Shur, and Travin for their comments on this manuscript and their partnership over the years. LITERATURE CITED
Allen R, Mendonca F, Kirkham D. 2005. RANS and DES turbulence model predictions of noise on the M219 cavity at M = 0.85. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 4:13551 Breuer M, Jovici N, Mazaev K. 2003. Comparison of DES, RANS and LES for the separated ow around a c at plate at high incidence. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 41:35788 Brunet V, Deck SF. 2008. Zonal-detached eddy simulation of transonic buffet on a civil aircraft type conguration. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 18291 Bunge U, Mockett C, Thiele F. 2007. Guidelines for implementing detached-eddy simulation using different models. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 11:37685 Caruelle B, Ducros F. 2003. Detached-eddy simulations of attached and detached boundary layers. Int. J. CFD 17:43351 Chalot F, Levasseur V, Mallet M, Petit G, Reau N. 2007. LES and DES simulations for aircraft design. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 45th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2007-0723 Chauvet N, Deck S, Jacquin L. 2007. Zonal detached eddy simulation of a controlled propulsive jet. AIAA J. 45:245873 Constantinescu GS, Pacheco R, Squires KD. 2002. Detached-eddy simulation of ow over a sphere. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 40th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2002-0425 Constantinides Y, Oakley OH. 2006. Numerical prediction of bare and straked cylinder VIV. Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Offshore Mech. Artic Eng., Pap. No. OMAE2006-92334. New York: ASME Int. Cummings RM, Morton SA, Forsythe JR. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation of slat and ap aerodynamics for a high-lift wing. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 42nd, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2004-1233 Deck S. 2005. Zonal detached-eddy simulation of the ow around a high-lift conguration with deployed slat and ap. AIAA J. 43:237284
First application to a full aircraft in a stall, with good agreement.
Clearest critique of grid-induced separation.
Presents SAS, the best-known alternative to DES for hybrid RANS-LES.
Deck S, Thorigny P. 2007. Unsteadiness of an axisymmetric separating-reattaching ow. Phys. Fluids 19:065103 Edge BA, Trujillo MF, Paterson EG. 2006. Modeling of cavitation inception in high-Reynolds number circular jets using detached-eddy simulation. Proc. 26th Symp. Naval Hydrodyn., Rome Egorov Y, Menter F. 2008. Development and application of SST-SAS turbulence model in the DESider project. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 26170 Forsythe JR, Hoffmann KA, Squires KD. 2002. Detached-eddy simulation with compressibility corrections applied to a supersonic axisymmetric base ow. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 40th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2002-0586 Forsythe JR, Strang WZ, Squires KD. 2006. Six degree of freedom computation of the F-15E entering a spin. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 44th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2006-0858 Forsythe JR, Squires KD, Wurtzler E, Spalart PR. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation of the F-15E at high alpha. J. Aircraft 41:193200 Frolich J, von Terzi D. 2008. Hybrid LES/RANS methods for the simulation of turbulent ows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 44:34977 Fu S, Xiao Z, Chen H, Zhang Y, Huang J. 2007. Simulation of wing-body junction ows with hybrid RANS/LES methods. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28:137990 Greschner B, Jacob MC, Casalino D, Thiele F. 2008. Prediction of sound generated by a rod-airfoil conguration using EASM DES and the generalised Lighthill/FW-H analogy. Comp. Fluids 37:40213 Hamed A, Basu D, Das K. 2003. Detached eddy simulation of supersonic ow over cavity. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 41st, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-0549 Hedges LS, Travin A, Spalart PR. 2002. Detached-eddy simulations over a simplied landing gear. J. Fluids Eng. 124:41323 Hou Y, Mahesh K. 2004. A robust, colocated, implicit algorithm for direct numerical simulation of compressible, turbulent ows. J. Comp. Phys. 205:20521 Kapadia S, Roy S, Wurtzler K. 2003. Detached-eddy simulation over a reference Ahmed car model. Presented at Thermophys. Conf., 36th, Orlando, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-0857 Krishnan V, Squires KD, Forsythe JR. 2004. Prediction of separated ow characteristics over a hump using RANS and DES. Presented at AIAA Flow Control Conf., 2nd, Portland, Pap. No. AIAA-2004-2224 Langtry RB, Spalart PR. 2007. Detached-eddy simulation of a nose landing-gear cavity. Presented at. IUTAM Symp. Unsteady Separated Flows and Their Control, Corfu, Greece Maddox S, Squires KD, Wurtzler KE, Forsythe JR. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation of the ground transportation system. See McCallen et al. 2004, pp. 89104 McCallen R, Browand F, Ross J, eds. 2004. The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles: Trucks, Buses, and Trains. New York: Springer Mellen CP, Frolich J, Rodi W. 2003. Lessons from LESFOIL project on large-eddy simulation of ow around an airfoil. AIAA J. 41:57381 Mendonca F, Allen R, de Charentenay J, Kirkham D. 2003. CFD prediction of narrowband and broadband cavity acoustics at M = 0.85. Presented at AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoust. Conf. Exhib., Hilton Head, South Carolina, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-3303 Mendonca F, Allen R, de Charentenay J, Lewis M. 2002. Towards understanding LES and DES for industrial aeroacoustic predictions. Presented at Int. Workshop LES Acoust., Gottingen Menter FR, Kuntz M. 2002. Adaptation of eddy-viscosity turbulence models to unsteady separated ow behind vehicles. See McCallen et al. 2004, pp. 33952 Menter FR, Kuntz M, Bender R. 2003. A scale-adaptive simulation model for turbulent ow predictions. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 41st, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-0767 Mitchell AM, Molton P, Berberis D, D lery J. 2000. Oscillation of vortex breakdown location and control of e the time-averaged location by blowing. AIAA J. 38:793803 Mockett C, Greschner B, Knacke T, Perrin R, Yan J, Thiele F. 2008. Demonstration of improved DES methods for generic and industrial applications. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 22231 Mockett C, Thiele F. 2007. Overview of detached-eddy simulation for external and internal turbulent ow applications. Presented at Int. Conf. Fluid Mech., 5th, Shanghai, China Morton SA. 2003. High Reynolds number DES simulations of vortex breakdown over a 70 degree delta wing. Presented at Appl. Aerodyn. Conf., 21st, Orlando, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-4217
Spalart
200
Morton SA, Cummings RM, Kholodar DB. 2004. High resolution turbulence treatment of F/A-18 tail buffet. Presented at AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Struct. Struct. Dyn. Mater. Conf., 45th, Palm Springs, Calif., Pap. No. AIAA-2004-1676 Nikitin NV, Nicoud F, Wasistho B, Squires KD, Spalart PR. 2000. An approach to wall modeling in large-eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 12:162932 Nishino T, Roberts GT, Zhang X. 2008. Unsteady RANS and detached-eddy simulations of ow around a circular cylinder in ground effect. J. Fluids Struct. 24:1833 Peng SH, Haase W, eds. 2008. Advances in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling. Berlin: Springer Piomelli U, Balaras E. 2002. Wall-layer models for large-eddy simulations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34:34974 Rogallo R, Moin P. 1984. Numerical simulation of turbulent ows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 16:99137 Roy CJ, Brown JC, DeChant LJ, Barone MF. 2004. Unsteady turbulent ow simulations of the base of a generic tractor/trailer. Presented at AIAA Fluid Dyn. Conf. Exhib., 34th, Portland, Pap. No. AIAA-2004-2255 Sagaut P, Deck S, Terracol M. 2006. Multiscale and Multiresolution Approaches to Turbulence. London: Imp. Coll. Press Shieh CM, Morris PJ. 2001. Comparison of two- and three-dimensional cavity ows. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 39th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2001-0511 Shur ML, Spalart PR, Squires KD, Strelets M, Travin A. 2005a. Three-dimensionality in unsteady Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes simulations of two-dimensional geometries. AIAA J. 43:123042 Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh. 2005b. Noise prediction for increasingly complex jets. Part I: methods and tests. Int J. Aeroacoust. 4:21346 Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh. 2005c. Noise prediction for increasingly complex jets. Part II: applications. Int J. Aeroacoust. 4:24766 Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets M, Travin A. 1999. Detached-eddy simulation of an airfoil at high angle of attack. In Engineering Turbulence Modelling and Experiments 4, ed W Rodi, D Laurence, pp. 66978. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Sci. Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh, Garbaruk AV. 2006. Further steps in LES-based noise prediction for complex jets. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 44th, Reno, Pap. No AIAA-2006-0485 Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh, Travin A. 2008. A hybrid RANS-LES model with delayed DES and wall-modeled LES capabilities. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow. In press Simon F, Deck S, Guillen P, Sagaut P, Merlen A. 2007. Numerical simulation of the compressible mixing layer past an axisymmetric trailing edge. J. Fluid Mech. 591:21553 Slimon S. 2003. Computation of internal separated ows using a zonal detached eddy simulation approach. Proc. ASME Int. Mech. Eng. Congr., Pap. No. IMECE2003-43881. New York: ASME Int. Spalart PR. 2000. Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 21:25263 Spalart PR. 2001. Young persons guide to detached-eddy simulation grids. Tech. Rep. NASA CR-2001-211032. Langley Res. Center, Hampton, Va. http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/2001/cr/NASA-2001cr211032.pdf Spalart PR, Deck S, Shur ML, Squires KD, Strelets MKh, Travin A. 2006. A new version of detachededdy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor. Comp. Fluid Dyn. 20:18195 Spalart PR, Hedges L, Shur M, Travin A. 2003. Simulation of active ow control on a stalled airfoil. Flow Turbul. Combust. 71:36173 Spalart PR, Jou W-H, Strelets M, Allmaras SR. 1997. Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. In Advances in DNS/LES, ed. C Liu, Z Liu, pp. 13747. Columbus, OH: Greyden Press Spalart PR, Squires KD. 2004. The status of detached-eddy simulation for bluff bodies. See McCallen et al. 2004, pp. 2945 Squires KD. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation: current status and perspectives. In Direct and Large-Eddy Simulation V, ed R Friedrich, BJ Geurts, O M tais, pp. 46580. Dordrecht: Kluwer e Sreenivas K, Pankajakshan R, Nichols DS, Mitchell BCJ, Taylor LK, Whiteld DL. 2006. Aerodynamic simulation of heavy trucks with rotating wheels. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 44th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2006-1394 Strelets M. 2001. Detached eddy simulation of massively separated ows. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 39th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2001-0879
www.annualreviews.org Detached-Eddy Simulation
Concise exploration of DES for wall modeling inside LES. Presents a wide collection of recent work on DES and other hybrid approaches (but not all).
First true 3D application, calibration of CDES , and successful prediction of airfoil forces at all angles.
Introduced delayed DES to combat grid-induced separation.
Motivation for DES, basic equations (with CDES constant undetermined), and two-dimensional examples.
Presents a wide range of applications, including models other than Spalart-Allmaras. 201
First DES with grid renement, fair agreement on the drag crisis, and rened denition of DES in appendix.
Temmerman L, Hirsch Ch. 2008. Towards a successful implementation of DES strategies in industrial RANS solvers. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 23241 Trapier S, Deck S, Duveau P. 2008. Delayed detached-eddy simulation and analysis of supersonic inlet buzz. AIAA J. 46:11831 Travin A, Shur M, Strelets M, Spalart PR. 2000a. Detached-eddy simulations past a circular cylinder. Flow Turbul. Combust. 63:293313 Travin A, Shur M, Strelets M, Spalart PR. 2000b. Physical and numerical upgrades in the detached-eddy simulation of complex turbulent ows. In Advances in LES of Complex Flows, ed. R Friedrich, W Rodi, pp. 23954. New York: Kluwer Acad. Travin AK, Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh. 2004. On URANS solutions with LES-like behaviour. Presented at Eur. Cong. Comput. Methods Appl. Sci. Eng., Jyv skyl , Finland a a Travin AK, Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh. 2006. Improvement of Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation for LES with wall modelling. Presented at Eur. Conf. CFD, ECCOMAS CDF 2006. Delft, Neth. Wilcox DC. 1998. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. La Canada, CA: DCW Ind. Wilson RP, Haupt SE, Peltier LJ, Kunz RF. 2006. Detached Eddy Simulation of a surface mounted cube at high Reynolds number. Proc. ASME Joint U.S. Eur. Fluids Eng. Summer Meet. New York: ASME Int. Yan J, Tawackolian K, Michel U, Thiele F. 2007. Computation of jet noise using a hybrid approach. Presented at AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoust. Conf., 13th, Pap. No. AIAA-2007-3621 Ziee J, Kleiser L. 2008. Compressibility effects on turbulent separated ow in streamwise-periodic hill channel, part 2. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 31625
202
Spalart
Contents
Von K rm ns Work: The Later Years (1952 to 1963) and Legacy a a S.S. Penner, F.A. Williams, P.A. Libby, and S. Nemat-Nasser p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1 Optimal Vortex Formation as a Unifying Principle in Biological Propulsion John O. Dabiri p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17 Uncertainty Quantication and Polynomial Chaos Techniques in Computational Fluid Dynamics Habib N. Najm p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p35 Fluid Dynamic Mechanism Responsible for Breaking the Left-Right Symmetry of the Human Body: The Nodal Flow Nobutaka Hirokawa, Yasushi Okada, and Yosuke Tanaka p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p53 The Hydrodynamics of Chemical Cues Among Aquatic Organisms D.R. Webster and M.J. Weissburg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p73 Hemodynamics of Cerebral Aneurysms Daniel M. Sforza, Christopher M. Putman, and Juan Raul Cebral p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p91 The 3D Navier-Stokes Problem Charles R. Doering p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 109 Boger Fluids David F. James p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 129 Laboratory Modeling of Geophysical Vortices G.J.F. van Heijst and H.J.H. Clercx p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 143 Study of HighReynolds Number Isotropic Turbulence by Direct Numerical Simulation Takashi Ishihara, Toshiyuki Gotoh, and Yukio Kaneda p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 165 Detached-Eddy Simulation Philippe R. Spalart p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181 Morphodynamics of Tidal Inlet Systems H.E. de Swart and J.T.F. Zimmerman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 203
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Volume 41, 2009
Microelectromechanical SystemsBased Feedback Control of Turbulence for Skin Friction Reduction Nobuhide Kasagi, Yuji Suzuki, and Koji Fukagata p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 231 Ocean Circulation Kinetic Energy: Reservoirs, Sources, and Sinks Raffaele Ferrari and Carl Wunsch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 253 Fluid Mechanics in Disks Around Young Stars Karim Shariff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 283 Turbulence, Magnetism, and Shear in Stellar Interiors Mark S. Miesch and Juri Toomre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 317
Fluid and Solute Transport in Bone: Flow-Induced Mechanotransduction Susannah P. Fritton and Sheldon Weinbaum p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 347 Lagrangian Properties of Particles in Turbulence Federico Toschi and Eberhard Bodenschatz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 375 Two-Particle Dispersion in Isotropic Turbulent Flows Juan P.L.C. Salazar and Lance R. Collins p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 405 Rheology of the Cytoskeleton Mohammad R.K. Mofrad p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 433 Indexes Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 141 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 455 Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 141 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 463 Errata An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics articles may be found at http://uid.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
vi
Contents

Eddy Simul

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eddy Simul

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANNUAL REVIEWS

1.1. Conceptual History

1.2. Types of Simulation for Massive Separation

Experimental peak approximately 0.5

Resolved TKE (k/U2)

0 0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

2.1. Simple Geometries

1.00 0.50 Re = 1.1 106 0.00

www.annualreviews.org Detached-Eddy Simulation

3. WEAKNESSES 3.1. Conceptual Issues

3.2. Modeled-Stress Depletion and Grid-Induced Separation

0.6 0.4 0.2 0

1.30 1.25 1.20

1.15 1.10 1.05

3.3. Logarithmic-Layer Mismatch

2.5 1.0 0.5 0

Normalized wall pressure (PW/PC)

DES computation PR40

3.4. Slow Large-Eddy Simulation Development in Mixing Layers

4. RECENT PROPOSALS 4.1. Alternate Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Models

4.2. Zonal Detached-Eddy Simulation

4.3. Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation and Improved Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation

4.4. Modied Length Scales

First application to a full aircraft in a stall, with good agreement.

Clearest critique of grid-induced separation.

Presents SAS, the best-known alternative to DES for hybrid RANS-LES.

Introduced delayed DES to combat grid-induced separation.

Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics Volume 41, 2009

You might also like