JOURNAL OF AERONAUTICS AND SPACE TECHNOLOGIES JULY 2004 VOLUME 1 NUMBER 4 (19-26)

TURBULENCE MODELING FOR COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

Murat UYGUN
Hava Harp Okulu Yesilyurt-STANBUL uygun@ae.metu.edu.tr

Seyhan ONBAIOLU
TU Makina Fakltesi Gmssuyu- STANBUL onbasiogl1@itu.edu.tr

Suat AVCI
Hava Harp Okulu Yesilyurt-STANBUL s.avci@hho.edu.tr

ABSTRACT The motivations like economics, and in house availability of powerful computers advocates the use of numerical methods as a complementary tool for experiments. Resolving all time and length scales as in the case of Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), computational solutions are equivalent to experimental ones. However, as a result of memory limitations, even in supercomputers, most of engineering problems encountered in nature can not be attained numerically by means of DNS. Therefore, a large variety of turbulence models are developed in order to account for the effect of turbulence. Large Eddy Simulation (LES) is at the highest level in modeling. Its modeling concept is based on the computation of large energy-carrying structures and modeling the small structures. LES is computationally cheaper than DNS and enables the solution of complex flows. Resulting subgrid-scale models are simpler in comparison to models for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS), which build second level in turbulence modeling. There is no unique turbulence model that applies to wide range of flows encountered in nature. Hence, modeling requires that it must be verified by experiment. This paper is the first part of two. In this part, we present conceptual view of turbulence modeling concepts in order to provide a perspective for those unfamiliar with the current status and a basis for those new in this field. In the second part, we will present some key solutions with various turbulence models to provide more details. Keywords: Turbulence modeling, Modeling concepts, DNS, LES, RANS, Experiment

1. INTRODUCTION: Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has developed to its current position where it is having a major role in engineering and industrial applications over the past twenty years and it will continue sharing a significant burden in the development of future applications. Today, flow fields can be obtained numerically and studied to determine the performance trends. However, the accuracy of the numerical solutions is not reliable since the numerical methods and flow modeling assumptions requires more validation. So, the solutions may be lack of providing unambiguous performance values and require experimental validation data [1]. The first of three motivations for developing CFD is to provide the capabilities, which cannot be provided by experimental facilities [2]. Wind tunnels have fundamental limitations like inability to simulate Reynolds numbers of aircraft flight, flowfield temperatures around atmosphere entry vehicles, aeroelastic distortions during the flight, or the propulsive external flow interaction in flight. In addition, wind tunnels are limited by walls and 19

support interference. Stream nonuniformities of wind tunnels affect laminar-turbulent transition. On the other hand, numerical flow simulations have none of these limitations, but computer speed and memory. Since the limitations of computational speed and memory are decreasing continually with time, whereas the limitations of experimental facilities are not, numerical simulations offer the potential of dominating wind-tunnel experiments [3]. The second motivation is related to energy conservation. The large wind tunnels soak up huge amounts of energy, whereas computers require negligible amounts. Thus, CFD is expected to lessen energy consumption considerably. The third motivation is related to economics. The cost of predictions from CFD is continually decreasing relative to costs associated with wind tunnel experiments. Flow solutions computed using CFD codes present detailed flow field information, which is too expensive to obtain in a wind tunnel. These motivations make the development of CFD as a powerful method in engineering design appealing. Beyond the critical values of some dimensionless parameters (e.g. Reynolds number), the laminar flow

UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI

Turbulence Modeling For Computational Fluid Dynamics, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

becomes unstable and undergoes a transition into a more stable but chaotic mode called turbulence. In nature, almost every fluid flow is turbulent. From the classical point of view, turbulence is an irregular condition of flow in which the various flow quantities show a random variation with time and space coordinates. Fluctuations are encouraged by vortex stretching under the action of viscosity. Large eddies are broken into smaller and smaller ones. The smallest eddies dissipate energy into heat by the action of molecular viscosity. The characteristics of turbulence observed in nature: Unsteadiness: Turbulence is always transient. Three-dimensionality: Even when the mean flow is one- or two-dimensional, flow fluctuations always have components in all three directions. Irregularity: The flow is so irregular that we can neither follow nor describe it completely. Diffusivity: The rapid mixing of momentum, heat, and mass is a typical feature of turbulent flows. Dissipation: The kinetic energy of turbulent motion is dissipated into heat under the influence of viscosity. Others: Turbulence occurs at higher Reynolds number and it is not a property of the particular fluid itself. Navier-Stokes (N-S) equations are not restricted to laminar flows and should be perfectly capable of describing the turbulent flows. Thus, turbulent flows can be predicted by directly solving the N-S equations. This approach is called Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) of turbulent flows. DNS is too costly and time consuming to solve. Despite the performance of the super computers, DNS is applicable only to relatively simple flow problems at low Reynolds numbers. Usage of DNS is limited by the number of grid points needed for spatial resolution scales as Re9/4 and CPU time as Re3. Therefore, in order to account for the effects of turbulence in an approximate manner, a large variety of turbulence models was developed. Turbulence modeling, which is important among several pacing items in CFD, must be addressed in order to realize the potential of CFD, since the exact solution of the dynamics of turbulence is not attainable. Today, most of the modeling concepts use the traditional modeling approach with some form of closure for the Reynolds-averaged [4] Navier-Stokes equations (RANS). Traditional closure concepts eliminate some information about the dynamics of turbulence, and the universality of the model is lost. Therefore, capabilities of the model must be determined by careful comparison with experiments. No such unified turbulence model is available at present. However, applicability of turbulence modeling has enabled computing more complex flows. There are three principle classes of turbulence models: 20

First-order closures, Second-order closures, Large Eddy Simulation. Figure 1 presents an overview of the classes of turbulence models in decreasing level of complexity. The impetus of this paper is to provide a perspective for those unfamiliar with the current status of the turbulence modeling in order to make them envisage further concepts. For those newly engaged in the field of CFD, it will provide a basis. For those active in the field, it will simply remind what they already know about the turbulence modeling. An in-depth review of turbulence modeling and the closure for the RANS and LES equations is outside the scope of this paper. Hence, the reader is directed to several books [5, 6] that present a review for the development of modeling and the details on the formulations of various models in detail.
Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS)

Large Eddy Simulation (LES) Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes Equations (RANS)

Level 1

Second-order Closure

Level 2

Reynolds-Stress Transport First-order Closure

Algebraic Reynolds-Stress Models

Level 3

Zeroequation

Oneequation

Twoequations

Figure 1. Levels for turbulence modeling 2. DIRECT NUMERICAL SIMULATION The most accurate numerical method to solve turbulent flows is DNS, which doesnt require averaging but numerical discretization. In DNS solutions, all time and length scales are resolved. Hence, computed results are equivalent to those that are obtained experimentally. In order to guarantee that all of the turbulence scales are captured, the computational domain must be as large as the physical domain or the largest turbulence structure eddy- and the size of the computational grid must not be larger than Kolmogoroff scale. The latter limits the number of grid points to be used in a DNS simulation. Keeping in mind the relation between time step and grid size, the cost of a simulation goes up to Re3 in terms of CPU time. Since the number of grid points is limited by computer speed and

UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI

Turbulence Modeling For Computational Fluid Dynamics, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

memory, DNS is possible for flows at relatively low Reynolds number with simple geometrical domains. The wealth of information obtained using DNS can be used to develop an understanding of flow physics and hence to construct a turbulence model. 3. MODELING CONCEPTS FOR COMPRESSIBLE FLOWS Many practical flows occur at conditions at which compressibility effects are important. Hence, before discussing the modeling concepts, lets review the governing equations for compressible flows. 3.1 GOVERNING EQUATIONS FOR RANS The governing equations describing the fluid motion are the compressible form of the Navier-Stokes equations.

other variables such as velocity, internal energy, enthalpy, and temperature [7]. Favre-averaging is defined as

~ = 1 Lim 1 t + dt v dt , v i i T T t
(4) ~ + v . The and Favre decomposition is vi = v i i resulting governing equations are as follows:

~ + ( vi ) = 0 t x i
~ p ~ ~v ~ ( ij vivj ) ( vi ) + ( v + j i )= t x j xi x j
(5)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~H E + v = vi ( ij vivj ) + j t x j x j

( )

+ ( v i ) = 0 t xi

+
where (1)
F ij = vivj

x j

T k viK vih + ij vij x j

Reynolds-stress tensor

(vi ) + (v j vi ) = p + ij t x j xi x j

T v (E ) + (v j H ) = i ij + k t x j x j xi x j
where

K = vivj

vi and xi denote the velocity components and spatial coordinates. E is the total energy and H is
the total enthalpy. Using the Stokess hypothesis, the components of the viscous stress tensor ij are defined as

1 Turbulent kinetic energy 2 ~ ~ ~ + 1 v ~v ~ Total energy E = e i i + K 2 ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ Total enthalpy H = h + v i vi + K 2 ~

vk 2 v ij = 2Sij k ij (2) xk 3 xk 1 v v where S ij = i + j is the strain-rate tensor. 2 x j xi

ij = 2S ij +

Following Reynolds [4], the flow variables are decomposed into a mean and fluctuating part, where the mean value is denoted by an overbar and the turbulent fluctuations by a prime = + . The equations are averaged over a time that is large compared with that of the typical time scale of the turbulent fluctuations. Reynolds-, or time-averaging is defined as

However, the number of unknowns exceeds the number of equations. The governing equations are also supplemented by additional equations for the turbulent kinetic energy k, dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy and the Reynolds stresses. Reducing the number of unknowns to the number of equations is called the closure problem and expressing the unknowns in terms of known quantities is called turbulence modeling. 3.2 MODELING CONCEPTS FOR RANS: Modeling concepts are categorized as eddy viscosity, non-linear eddy viscosity, and Reynolds-stress models. The models within the same class or of different classes vary according to the implemented closure technique, which expresses the modeled quantities in terms of the mean-velocity field. Techniques for implementing the closure also vary. In turbulence modeling, Morkovin's hypothesis [8] that states the turbulent structure of a boundary layer is not influenced by density fluctuations if << is assumed to be valid. Hence, compressibility should not affect the description of the length scales, and the constants used are usually those developed for incompressible flows. Morkovin's hypothesis works well up to Mach numbers of about 5 for wall bounded flows.

1 t + dt (3) vi dt . T t The mean value vi does not vary in time, but only in vi = Lim
T

space. The continuity and momentum equations contain fluctuating density-generated terms, such as vi that must be modeled in addition to the Reynolds stresses, vivj . These complications are avoided by employing Reynolds-averaging for density and pressure, and mass-weighted, or Favre-averaging for

UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI 21

Turbulence Modeling For Computational Fluid Dynamics, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

EDDY-VISCOSITY MODELS: The eddy-viscosity model is based on Boussinesqs idea [9]. He stated that the momentum transfer in a turbulent flow is dominated by the mixing caused by large energetic turbulent eddies. Boussinesq hypothesis assumes that the turbulent shear stress is linearly related to mean rate of strain, as in the laminar flow and the proportionality constant is eddy viscosity T . The eddy viscosity does not show physical characteristics of the fluid where the molecular viscosity does.
T ij = vivj = 2T S ij

turbulence models, these limitations can be overcome by [11]. NON-LINEAR EDDY-VISCOSITY MODELS: In order to remove the limitations of the eddyviscosity model resulted due to the assumption of equilibrium between the turbulence and the mean strain rate, it is proposed to extend this model by higher-order products of strain and rotation tensor [12, 13]. A recent approach by Shih [12] includes up to third order terms in the eddy-viscosity formulation and suits to swirling flows. The Reynolds-stresses are defined as

2 ~ 2 T vk ij K ij (6) 3 3 xk

By applying the eddy-viscosity model to the averaged governing equations, the dynamic viscosity simply takes the form

vivj = K ij C1
C3
C4

2 3

= L + T

where the laminar

viscosity L can be computed using equations like Sutherland formula. The thermal conductivity coefficient k is evaluated as

L T k = k L + kT = C p Pr + Pr T L
where

(7)

K 4 (Sik )2 kj ik (S kj )2 3 1 K 4 * + C5 3 ik S km mj kl S lm mk ij + I s S ij 3
where

K 3 [S ik S kj ] 2 ik kj

K 2 * 2S ij

(9)

C p denotes the specific heat coefficient at

S ij and ij are the strain-rate tensor and

constant pressure, and PrL and PrT are laminar and turbulent Prandtl numbers. For the modeling of the turbulent heat flux vector, we use

rotation-rate tensor respectively.

2 1 * S kk S ll (S kk ) S ij 2 1 * S ij = S ij S kk ij 3

Is =

(10) (11)

vjh = kT

~ T . x j

(8)

The eddy-viscosity concept requires the computation of T only. Therefore, it forms the basis for firstorder turbulence closures. They are often called as zero-, one-, and two-equation models [10] depending on the number of supplementary equations. Zeroequation (algebraic) models use algebraic relations to relate the velocity and length scales to local mean flow conditions. They do not model the convection of turbulence. Hence, the physical effect of the past history of the flow is not included. One-equation models obtain the velocity scale from a solution of the modeled turbulent kinetic energy equation and a specified length scale. Two-equation models obtain either velocity and length scales from a solution of two modeled equations. There are also some applications for which the Boussinesq hypothesis is no longer valid [6]: flows with sudden change of main strain, flows with significant streamline curvature, flows with rotation and stratification, secondary flows in ducts and in turbomachinery, flows with boundary layer separation and reattachment. Assumption of equilibrium between the turbulence and the mean strain field results the limitations of this approach. Using appropriate correction terms in 22

Factors

C1 and C 2 are given in reference [12].

STRESS-TRANSPORT MODELS Stress-transport models use the Reynolds-stress equations to provide the turbulent stresses in the mean-momentum equations. Exact equations for Reynolds-stresses can be obtained using

viN j + vj N i = 0
where

(12)

Ni =

vi v p + v j i + 2 vi t x j xi

(13)

is the Navier-Stokes operator. Using equation (12) and (13), we obtain Reynolds-stress transport equation as R R ij ij Cijk R (14) + vk = Pij + ij ij + 2 ij t xk xk Pij is the production of the turbulent kinetic energy,

ij is the pressure-strain term, ij is the dissipationrate term, and Cijk is the third-order diffusion term.
R Pij = ij

v j xk

R jk

vi xk

UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI

Turbulence Modeling For Computational Fluid Dynamics, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

v v j = 2 p S ij ij = p i + x j xi v v ij = 2 i j x j xi

(15)

+ pvi jk + pvj ik Cijk = vivj vk

denotes the fluctuating part of the strain-rate S ij
tensor. The Reynolds-stress equation contains new and can be closed by using unknowns like vivj v k empirical models. The reader is referred to Ref. 6 for the details. Stress-transport models remove the assumption that the stresses respond immediately to changes in the strain rate, which is adopted in eddy viscosity models. However, this approach complicates the modeling and results full Reynolds-stress models [14], which solve equations for each of the stresses. Also simpler models that use a single equation -the turbulent kinetic energy equation- or two equations: the turbulent kinetic energy equation and a scale equation used widely [15]. 3.3 GOVERNING EQUATIONS FOR LES The Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) is based on the observation that the large eddies are more energetic then the small ones and their size and energy make them effective transporter of flow properties throughout the domain of interest. Therefore, the idea is to compute the contribution of the large eddies, which are energy-carrying structures and to model the contribution of the small eddies (Fig. 2). Due to homogeneous character of the small eddies; subgridscale models are much simpler than the turbulence models for the RANS equations. The first engineering application of LES for the simulation of turbulent channel flow was presented by Deardorff [16] and some important work on LES was conducted by Bardina et al. [17], Moin, and Kim [18]. Today, due to availability of low-cost and powerful computers, LES is widely employed for complex flows in which the mean flow frequencies are in the same order as the turbulent fluctuations so that the standard turbulence models fail or the Reynolds number is too high to allow application of DNS. The reader is referred to Ref. 19 for an introduction to LES. Figure 2.. Large and small eddies LES includes a spatial filtering operation, which decomposes any flow variable U into a filtered (large scale) U and sub-filtered part U :

U = U +U r r r r U (r0 , t ) = U (r , t )G (r0 , r , )dr

(16) (17)

where denotes the entire flow domain, G denotes the filter function and is the filter width in each spatial coordinate. The widely used filter functions [21] are the sharp Fourier cut-off filter;

sin [(x0 )i xi ] , G= i [( x0 )i xi ] i =1
3

(18)

and the Gaussian filter;

6 G= 2

r r 6 r 0 r exp 2

(19)

In order to apply LES to compressible flows, Favre averaging with spatial filtering is first employed to eqn (1). The velocity components, energy, and temperature in eqn. (1) are decomposed as in eqn (16). The filtered variable is given as r r r r r U 1 ~ r U (r0 , t ) = = (r , t )U (r , t )G (r0 , r , )dr (20)

where overbar denotes filtering. The resulting Favrefiltered Navier-Stokes equations are given as

~ + ( v j ) = 0 t x j

SF ij ij ~ ~v ~ ) + p ( vi ) + ( v + = j i x j t x j xi x j

( ij ij ) x j

(21)

Similar to RANS, LES gives 3-D, unsteady solution of the governing equations. LES requires higher grid BC D resolution in both the streamwise and the cross-flow where A is divergence of subgrid-scale heat flux, B is directions unlike the turbulence modeling based on the divergence of SGS heat diffusion, C is SGS pressureRANS equations. However, LES is computationally dilatation, D is SGS viscous dissipation considerably cheaper than DNS [20]. UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI 23

~ ~ ~ ~ ) + q ij S ij = A ( e ) + ( ~ v je + pS kk x j t x j

Turbulence Modeling For Computational Fluid Dynamics, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

~~ (v j e v je ) x j j] B= [q j q x j ~ C = pS kk pS kk ~ ij S ij D = ij S ij A=

the energy they receive from the large eddies [25]. The algebraic model takes the form (24) T = (C S )2 S where S is the magnitude of the strain-rate tensor. The Smagorinsky constant ( C s ) depends on the type of flow. Smagorinsky model can be modified according to Van Driest damping in order to account for the reduced growth of the small eddies near wall. Thus,

and

2 ij S kk 3 ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~S ij = 2 ij S kk ij + B 3 ~ ~ v v 1 ~ j i S ij = + 2 x j xi

ij = 2 S ij + B

T = CS 1 e y
(22) where

[ (

25

)]S

(25)

y + is the dimensionless wall distance.

T , q = k x j
the

~ ~ T ~ = k q x j

This model is numerically cheap and easy to implement. However, it has serious disadvantages: it is too dissipative in laminar regions, it requires some changes near walls, C s is not uniquely defined.

In the above equations, e is the specific energy, S ij is

SF ~v ~ ij = (vi v j v i j ) is the Favre-averaged subgrid-

DYNAMIC SGS MODELS

Favre-filtered

strain-rate

tensor,

and

scale stress. , B , and k represent the molecular viscosity, bulk viscosity and the thermal conductivity.

~, ~ , B

and

~ k are the values at the filtered

temperature T . The reader is referred to Ref. 22, 23 for modeling details.

3.4 MODELING CONCEPTS FOR LES:

The dynamic SGS models are the most popular ones. They employ the same relation as Smagorinsky -Eqn. (24)- for the evaluation of the eddy viscosity T in Eqn. (23). However, the Smagorinsky constant is replaced by a parameter, which evolves dynamically in space and time. Hence, r (26) T = C d (r , t )2 S The parameter C d is computed based on the energy content of the smallest scale of turbulence. The reader is referred to Ref. 26, 27 for details of dynamic SGS Models.
4. EXPERIMENTS FOR TURBULENCE MODELING

Subgrid-scale model is used to simulate energy transfer between the large and the subgrid eddies. Turbulent cascade process states the energy is transported from the large scales to the small ones. Therefore, a subgrid-scale model has to provide sufficient energy dissipation. Today, the eddyviscosity model forms the basis of majority subgridscale models [24].
EDDY- VISCOSITY MODELS

These models are able to represent the global dissipative effects of the small scales, but they cannot reproduce the local details of the energy exchange. The components of the Favre-averaged SGS stress tensor are determined as
SF ij

ij
3

SF = 2 T S ij + kk

2 T 3

~ v k ij x k (23)

SMAGORINSKY SGS MODEL

The demand for solving complex viscous flows has necessitated well-designed experiments in order to provide input for development of turbulence modeling and validation of the computational results. Hence, numerous experiments, which include wide range of flow types, were carried out for this purpose. The experimental test flows are divided into three categories: attached flows, separated and reattaching flows, wake flows. However, the accuracy of the experiments is not fully reliable due to limitations on experimental facilities. Hence, there is still need for more reliable and wellconceived experiments for the validation and verification of turbulence models. As mentioned in Ref. 28, there are three main steps for development of a CFD code: research codes, pilot

The Smagorinsky model is based on the equilibrium assumption, which states the small eddies dissipate all

UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI 24

Turbulence Modeling For Computational Fluid Dynamics, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

codes, and production codes (Fig. 3). The ability to compute certain flow characteristics is established in the research phase and block-experiments, which provide information on flow phenomena -surface variables, flow variables, and turbulence informationfor modeling guidance, are needed at this stage. Next, pilot codes that extend the applications of the research codes to a wider range of conditions are developed. Verification experiments that must provide sufficient input to asses the ability of codes to perform over a range of flow conditions are needed at this stage. At the last stage, production codes are developed for design applications and experiments as close to the real life condition are needed for performance evaluations. Each of these experimental stages must provide input for critical evaluation of the computer codes that use turbulence modeling. Research Codes Block-experiments

based on sub-grid scale modeling, which is used to simulate the energy transfer between large and small eddies. They were divided into three classes: eddyviscosity, Smagorinsky SGS, and Dynamic SGS models. LES is appearing in growing number of engineering applications, due to its advantage for applicability to high-Reynolds flows and complex geometries in comparison to DNS. Since there is no unique turbulence model that applies to the wide range of flows encountered in nature, modeling requires that it must be verified by experiment. There is still need for more accurate data for developing more universal models.
6. REFERENCES [1] Uygun, M., Tuncer, I.H., Viscous Flow Solutions over CN-235 Cargo Aircraft, accepted to appear in AIAA Journal of Aircraft, 2004 [2] Uygun, M., A Computational Study of Subsonic Flows over A Medium Range Cargo Aircraft, M.S. Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey, 2000. [3] Uygun, M., Development of Scripts for Building Computational Grids for a Model Submarine, DRDC Atlantic CANADA, TN 2003-160, August 2003. [4] Reynolds, O., On the Dynamical Theory of Incompressible Viscous Fluid and the Determination of the Criterion, Phil. Tran. Ro. Soc. Lon., Series A, Vol. 186, 123-161, 1874. [5] Cebeci, T.; Smith, A.M.O., Analysis of Turbulent Boundary Layers, Academic Press, New York, 1974. [6] Wilcox, D.C., Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, Inc., La Canada, California, USA, 1993. [7] Favre, A., Equations des gaz turbulents compressible, part 1: formes generales, Journal de Mechanique Vol. 4, 361-390, 1965. [8] Morkovin, M.V., Effects of Compressibility on Turbulent Flows, The mechanics of Turbulence, Fordon and Breach, New York, 1961. [9] Boussinesq, J., Essai sur la theorie des eaux courantes, Mem. Pres. Acad. Sci., XXIII, 46, Paris, 1877. [10] Reynolds, W.C., Computation of Turbulent Flows, Thermoscience Division, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, Standford Univ., Standford Calif., Rept. TF-4, 1975. [11] Shur, M.; Strelets, M.; Travin, A.; Spalart, P., Turbulence Modeling in rotating and Curved Channels: Assessment of the Spalart-Shur Correction term, AIAA Paper 98-0325, 1998. [12] Shih, T.H.; Zhu, J.; Liou, W.W.; Chen, K.H.; Liu, N.S.; Lumley, J., Modeling of Turbulent Swirling Flows, NASA TM-113112, 1997. [13] Abdel Gawad, A.F.; Abdel Latif, O.E.; Ragab,

Pilot Codes

Verification experiments

Production Codes

Design-experiments

Figure 3. Main steps for development of CFD code. 5. CONCLUSION

Although the most accurate numerical method to solve turbulent flows is DNS, use of DNS is limited due to computer memory that depends on the number of grid points. Therefore, in order to account for the effects of turbulence in an approximate manner, a large variety of turbulence models was developed. In this paper, attention has been drawn to turbulence modeling within the framework of the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations (RANS) and Filtered Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations (LES). It was noted that for compressible flows, the form of averaged equations differs depending on the averaging process. Favre-averaging results in the most compact form, and it is very popular for deriving the equations for flows with important compressibility effects. Compressibility has been included by introducing mean density into the velocity and length scales required in the modeling process. This approximation works well for Mach numbers up to about 5 for attached flows. Modeling concepts for RANS were divided into three classes: eddy-viscosity, non-linear eddy-viscosity and Reynolds-stress models. Distinguishing features between models arise through the closure technique that expresses the modeled quantities in terms of the mean-velocity field. Modeling concepts for LES were

UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI 25

Turbulence Modeling For Computational Fluid Dynamics, Part I: Conceptual Outlook

S.A.; Shabaka, L.M., Turbulent Flow and Heat Transfer in Rotating Non-Circular Ducts with Nonlinear k-e Model, AlAA Paper 98-0326, 1998. [14] Lumley, J.L.; Computational Modeling of Turbulent Flows, Advances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. 18, 123-176, 1978. [15] Shur, M.; Strelets, M.; Travin, A.; Spalart, P., Turbulence Modeling in Rotating and Curved Channels: Assessment of the Spalart-Shur Correction Term, AlAA Paper 98-0325, 1998. [16] Deardorff, J.W.; A Numerical Study of ThreeDimensional Turbulent Channel Flow at Large Reynolds Number, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 41, 453-480, 1970 [17] Bardina, J.; Ferziger, J.H.; Reynolds, W.C., Improved Sub-grid Models for Large Eddy Simulation, AIAA Paper 80-1357, 1980. [18] Moin, P.; Kim, J.; Numerical Investigation of Turbulent Channel Flow, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 118,341-377, 1982. [19] Hallback, M.; Henningson, D.S.; Johansson, A.V.; Alfredsson, P.H., Turbulence and Transition Modeling, ERCOFTAC Series, Vol.2, Dordrecht, the Netherlands, 1996. [20] Chapman, D.R.; Computational Aerodynamics Development and Outlook, AIAA Journal, 17 (1979), pp.1293-1313. [21] Vasilyev, O.V.; Lund, T.S.; Moin, P., A General Class of Commutative Filters for LES in Complex Geometries, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 146 82-104, 1998. [22] Moin, P.; Squires, K.D.; Cabot, W.H.; Lee, S.: A Dynamic Subgrid-Scale Model for Compressible Turbulence and Scalar Transport. Physics of Fluids, Vol. 3, 2746-2757, 1991. [23] Vreman, B.; Geurts, B.; Kuerten, H.; Broeze, J.; Wasistho, B.; Streng, M.: Dynamic Subgrid-Scale Models for LES of Transitional and Turbulent Compressible Flow id 3-D Shear Layers. 10th Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, The Pennsylvania State University, PA, Volume l, August 14, 1995. [24] Lenormand, E.; Sagaut, P.; Phuoc, L.T.; Comte, P.: Subgrid-Scale Models for Large-Eddy Simulations of Compressible Wall Bounded Flows. AIAA Journal, Vol. 38, 1340-1350, 2000. [25] Smagorinsky, J., General Circulation Experiments with the primitive Equations, Monthly Weather Review, Vol. 91, 99-165, 1963. [26] Germano, M.; Piomelli, U.; Moin, P.; Cabot, W.H.: A Dynamic Sub-grid Scale Eddy Viscosity Model. Physics of Fluids, Vol. 3, 1760-1765, 1991. [27] Ghosal, S.; Lund, T.S.; Moin, P.; Akselvoll, K.: A Dynamic Localization Model for Large-Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flows. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 286, 229-255, 1995. [28] Marvin, J.G., Advancing Computational Aerodynamics through Wind-Tunnel

experimentation, AGARD Fluid Dynamics Panel Meeting on Integration of Computers and Wind Tunnel Testing, Chattanooga, Tenn. Sept. 24, 1980.
VITA Murat UYGUN

He was graduated from Aeronautical Engineering Department at Turkish Air Force Academy, Istanbul in August 1995. He received his M.Sc. degree in Aerospace Engineering from Middle East Technical University, Ankara in September 2000. Later, he joined Aeronautical Engineering Department at Turkish Air Force Academy, Istanbul. His thesis and follow-on work as a PhD student in Mechanical Engineering at Istanbul Technical University, involves numerical simulation of internal and external viscous flow fields. During 2002-2003, he conducted a study on Generic Scripted Grid Generation around a Submarine as a NATO Fellow at Defence Research Development Canada-Atlantic (DRDC-Atlantic), Halifax, Canada. His current research interests are Computational Fluid Dynamics, Upwind-Finite Volume schemes, compressible flows, low Mach number preconditioning, convergence acceleration techniques, and turbulence modeling. He is the author of one journal article, three conference papers, and a technical paper.
Seyhan Uygur ONBAIOLU

She was graduated from Mechanical Engineering at Istanbul Technical University in 1987. She received her PhD degree in Mechanical Engineering in 1993. She became associate professor in 1998. She conducted researches on turbulence measurement, turbulence modeling, and computational fluid dynamics at University of Manchester, England, and University of Colorado, and University of Ilinois, USA. Her current research interests are two-phase flows and flows in microchannels. She has offered courses at Turkish Air Force Institute for Aeronautics and space technologies, Istanbul since 2001.
Suat AVCI

He was graduated from Aeronautical Engineering Department at Turkish Air Force Academy, Istanbul in August 1989. He received his fighter pilot license in 1991. He received his M.Sc. degree in Aerospace Engineering from Middle East Technical University, Ankara in May 2000. Later, he joined Aeronautical Engineering Department at Turkish Air Force Academy, Istanbul. His thesis and follow-on work involve static and forced oscillatory tests in wind tunnels, empirical methods in aircraft design, and experimental measurement techniques.

UYGUN, ONBAIOLU, AVCI 26