AIAA 98-3315
COMPRESSIBLE LARGE EDDY SIMULATION USING
UNSTRUCTURED GRIDS: CHANNEL AND BOUNDARY
LAYER FLOWS
Nora Okong'o* and Doyle D. Knight*
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
98 Brett Road, Piscataway, New Jersey 08854-8058
Abstract
An unstructured grid algorithm for tetrahedral
cells has been developed for Large Eddy Simula-
tion (LES). The finite volume form of the com-
pressible Navier-Stokes equations are solved for
cell-averaged conservative variables. Inviscid flux
computations are performed by applying a Rie-
mann solver across each face, the values at the
points on the faces being obtained by least-squares
reconstruction from the cell-averaged values. The
viscous fluxes and heat transfer are obtained by
application of Gauss' theorem. The numerical
scheme is explicit, with second-order spatial and
temporal accuracy. The sub-grid scale model is
of the constant coefficient Smagorinsky type, with
van Driest damping for the viscous sublayer.
For channel flow, results at a Reynolds num-
ber (based on channel height and bulk velocity) of
5600 and Mach number of 0.5 are compared to in-
compressible direct numerical simulations (DNS)
and experiments. Mean velocity and velocity fluc-
tuations compare well with the DNS and experi-
mental data. For boundary layer flow, results at a
Reynolds number (based on the inflow boundary
layer thickness) of 20,000 and Mach 3 are com-
pared to experimental data. Preliminary results
for profiles of the streamwise mean velocity and
turbulence intensity and for the skin friction show
good agreement with experiment.
'Graduate Research Assistant, Member AIAA
okongo@jove.rutgers.edu
http://cronos.rutgers.edu/~okongo
'Professor, Associate Fellow AIAA
knight@jove.rutgers.edu
http://www-srac.rutgers.edu/~knight
Copyright ©1998 by Nora Okong'o and Doyle D. Knight.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. with permission.
1 Introduction
As the speed and memory capabilities of com-
puters continue to increase, the prospect of per-
forming Large Eddy Simulation (LES) of engi-
neering problems becomes more feasible. In LES,
the Navier-Stokes equations are spatially filtered
to compute the large scale flow structures, while
modeling only the small or sub-grid scale (SGS)
structures [4, 6]. As the small scale structures
are expected to be approximately universal in tur-
bulent flows, LES can potentially be applied to
wider classes of problems than traditional turbu-
lence models, but at reduced computational cost
compared to direct numerical simulation (DNS).
However, whereas most of the work in the field has
been on structured meshes in the context of finite-
difference or spectral methods [7], application of
LES to engineering problems requires methodolo-
gies suitable for complex geometries. Towards
this end, we have developed a three-dimensional
Large Eddy Simulation (LES) algorithm for un-
structured meshes [12, 21].
Our LES unstructured grid algorithm uses a
cell-centered storage architecture, with the cell-
averaged values stored at the centroid of each
tetrahedral cell. The inviscid fluxes are computed
by applying a Riemann solver across each face.
The values of the flow variables at one or more
points on either side of the face are obtained from
the cell-averaged values by function reconstruc-
tion. The function reconstruction is based on the
the least squares method of Ollivier-Gooch [22],
and is second-order accurate. Higher order recon-
struction can also be achieved using this method.
Details of our implementation can be found in Ref.
[21]. The simulation is advanced in time using
second-order explicit Runge-Kutta time integra-
tion. The algorithm incorporates a constant co-
efficient Smagorinsky sub-grid scale (SGS) model
with van Driest damping for the viscous sublayer.
The objective of this paper is to validate our
LES unstructured grid algorithm for two turbulent
shear flows. The first flow is low Mach number tur-
bulent channel flow, which is a canonical test case
for LES. We compare our results to the incom-
pressible DNS of Kim et al [11] and experimental
data of Eckelmann [5] and Kreplin and Eckelmann
[13]. The second flow is a supersonic turbulent
boundary layer. Preliminary results are compared
with the conventional one-seventh power law for
the mean velocity and the experimental data of
Yanta and Crapo [29] for streamwise turbulent in-
tensity.
2 Previous Work
2.1 Turbulent Channel Flow
Turbulent channel flow is a classic benchmark case
for validating turbulent flow simulations. It has
the advantage of geometric simplicity while admit-
ting complex three-dimensional flow structures.
When the flow reached statistical equilibrium, the
time-averaged flow statistics are functions of the
wall-normal direction only. This flow is charac-
terized by long streamwise vortices near the walls
[5, 13, 17, 23].
Data for fully-developed incompressible channel
flow at a Reynolds number of 5600 (based on bulk
velocity and channel height) is available from the
experiments by Eckelmann [5] and Kreplin [13].
Turbulence statistics are also available from the
DNS of Kim et al [11]. These show that the near-
wall streaks have a spanwise spacing of about 100
wall units and a maximum in turbulence fluctua-
tions at a distance of 12 or 13 wall units. The fric-
tion velocity, normalized by the bulk velocity, is
0.0643. DNS of supersonic channel flows by Cole-
man et al [2] agree with the incompressible results
when scaled to account for mean property varia-
tions. Their results support Morkovin's hypothe-
sis, that relationships between statistics are unaf-
fected by compressibility if the root-mean-square
density fluctuations are small.
Computations of channel flow using the k — c
model give mixed results. Nisizima and Yoshizawa
[20] compute channel flow using an anisotropic
k — e model. There is good agreement for the
mean profiles and Reynolds stress, but poor agree-
ment for the turbulent kinetic energy. Ciofalo and
Collins [1] report that LES is able to capture flow
features missed by their k — c model, such as recir-
culation for flow in a ribbed channel. These mixed
results illustrate the drawbacks of traditional tur-
bulence models, and hence the need for LES.
Several researchers have performed incompress-
ible LES of channel flow on structured grids us-
ing spectral methods, including Moin and Kim
[17], and Piomelli et al [23]. Spectral methods
cannot be used in general geometries, prompting
some attempts to use finite-difference methods,
e.g. [1]. Most sub-grid scale (SGS) models are
based on the eddy-viscosity concept. The sim-
plest is the constant coefficient Smagorinsky sub-
grid scale (SGS) model [26]. Although dynamic
and Lagrangian methods of determining the coef-
ficient by re-filtering the flowfield have also been
used [16, 19, 30], the additional complexity ap-
pears not to justify the small improvement in the
results. This is mainly because at low Reynolds
numbers most of the turbulence energy is con-
tained in the resolved scales, and thus the choice
of SGS model is not critical. In our research,
we opt to use the simplest (constant-coefficient)
Smagorinsky-type model.
There are few LES computations of turbulent
channel flow using unstructured grids. Haworth
and Jansen [8] use an unstructured hexahedral
grid finite volume method. The results compare
favorably with the DNS of Kim et al [11] for the
incompressible flow at Reynolds number of 5600.
The work of Haworth and Jansen is similar to ours
in that we both use second-order algorithms. How-
ever they use variable explicit/implicit character-
istics based advection scheme, Lagrangian SGS
model and hexahedral elements. Compared to the
DNS, their computed centerline velocity is about
5% higher (1.22 compared to 1.16). The stream-
wise fluctuations are somewhat over-predicted and
the spanwise and wall-normal fluctuations are
under-predicted, but show the correct behavior.
Jansen [10] uses a finite-element method with an
unstructured tetrahedral grid. Results for the tur-
bulence intensities are in good agreement with the
DNS of Kim et al [11].
2.2 Supersonic Turbulent Bound-
ary Layer
The supersonic turbulent boundary layer is an im-
portant benchmark for validating LES. Accurate
simulation of the turbulent boundary layer is nec-
essary for providing a realistic (unsteady) inflow
condition for more complex flow simulations such
as shock wave turbulent boundary layer interac-
tions. There are few LES computations of super- where /j is the applied body force
sonic turbulent boundary layer flow as a problem
in its own right, rather than as part of a more com- (7)
plex simulation. Spyropoulos and Blaisdell [28]
simulated a spatially evolving Mach 2.25 boundary
layer corresponding to the experiments of Shutts
Qk = -pcp(Tuk-fuk} (9)
et al [25] using both DNS and LES. They exam-
ined a variety of finite-difference schemes and con-
ducted grid refinement studies. They employed
a modified version of the code used by Rai et al
pe 1_
= pcvT + -pUjUi + pk (11)
[24] for DNS of the same configuration. Hunt and
Nixon [9] performed a structured grid LES of a
pk = -( (12)
supersonic compression ramp which included the
inflow turbulent flat plate boundary layer. Comte
The assumptions made in deriving the energy
and David [3] performed LES of a Mach 2.5 turbu-
equation, Equation 5, are discussed in detail in
lent boundary layer over a compression ramp us-
Ref. [12]. The standard Smagorinsky sub-grid
ing a structured grid. Results show the formation
scale model is [26]:
of Gortler vortices downstream of the compression
corner.

3 Governing Equations x I Si, - ISkkSij (13)

The governing equations are the three-dimensional Qj = pCr-^-A^SmnSmn-^

—— (14)
filtered unsteady compressible Navier-Stokes eq-
uations. For a function /, its filtered form / is:
(15)

'=£/ V Jv
QfdV (1) The two model constants are CR, the compress-
ible Smagorinsky constant, and Prt, the turbu-
where Q is the filtering function, and its Favre- lent Prandtl number. The values used are based
averaged form / is: on previous studies [6, 18]. We use CR = 0.012
for channel flow, CR = 0.0042 for boundary layer
flow and Prt — 0.4 for both flows.
/=?
P
(2)
For wall-bounded flows the constant CR is mul-
tiplied by the van Driest damping factor, 1 —
where p is the density. From the Navier-Stokes eq-
ey /26 This expression uses wall-units: y+ =
uations for the instantaneous flow variables den-
yuT/v (y measured from the nearest wall). The
sity (p), velocity in the zth coordinate direction
friction velocity is given by UT — \Jrwj pw where
( u i ) , pressure (p) and temperature (T), averaging
TW is the average wall shear stress over both walls
and filtering yield the filtered Navier-Stokes equa-
and pw is the similarly averaged density at the
tions (here written using the Einstein summation
wall. This approach is similar to that of other
notation where repeated indices denote summa- researchers [1, 15, 17].
tion): In finite volume form
{ _Q
(3)
dt ^ / QdV + I (Fi + Gj + Hk) • ndA
at Jv Jdv
+ I (Ri + Sf+ Tit) • ndA + I BdV = 0 (16)
Jdv Jv
dpe d
where
P
r\ f\ pu
a—— (Qk + qk) Uf + -z—— (Tik + &ik) U{ - fiUi (5)
Q= pv (17)
pw
= pRT (6) pe
 0 averaged dependent variables stored at the cen-
/I troid of cell i are:
B= h (18)
fa Qi = 77 Qdxdydz (28)

The value of Q at the cell-centroid is a second-

_ pu _ order accurate approximation of Q;.
2
pu + p The governing equations can be written as:
F= puv (19)
puw
(pe+p)u
^(QM) + d = Q (29)

pv where C1,- is the net flux across the cell faces:

puv
G= pv2+p (20) d = I (Fz + Gj + Hk) -ndA+ I BdV
JdV, JV,
pvw
(pS + p)v (Ri + Sj + Tk) • ndA (30)
pw
puw It is assumed that Vj, the volume of the cell, is con-
H = pvw (21) stant. The inviscid flux vector (FT+Gj+Hk)-ndA
pw2 +p is computed using an exact Riemann solver. A
(pi +p)w least-squares reconstruction scheme is used to ob-
tain the values needed as input into the Rie-
0 mann solver from the cell-averaged values. For
each cell, a linear system for the spatial deriva-
R= -Txy - (Txy (22) tives at the cell-centroid are solved using singular
value decomposition, implemented using house-
holder transformations. The flow variables at any
-Q* -qx-px
location within the cell can then be obtained us-
0 ing a Taylor series expansion. The viscous flux
— Txy ~ &xy and heat transfer vector (Ri + Sj + Tk) • ndA is
5= —— Tyy —— Oyy (23) obtained by application of Gauss' theorem to con-
-Tyz - ffyz trol volumes whose vertices are the centroids of
—Qy — qy ~ Py the cells that share each node. Details of the nu-
merical methods can be found in Ref. [21]. The
0 algorithm has been implemented for parallel com-
putation using a one-dimensional domain decom-
T= (24) position and message passing via MPI.
The overall algorithm using least squares recon-
-Qz - qz ~ Pz struction is:
• Read in the grid and the initial cell-averaged
values for each cell
(25)
• Determine the cells to be in each stencil for
the least squares reconstruction
(26)
• Using the Householder method, solve the
Pz = (TXZ + f f x z ) u + (Tyz + 0-yz]
least squares problem for the spatial deriva-
(27) tives of each conservative variable at each cell-
centroid; store the derivatives

4 Numerical Algorithm • Use the derivatives to reconstruct each vari-

able on both sides of all cell face centroids;
An unstructured grid of tetrahedra is employed, obtain the inviscid fluxes by solving the Rie-
with a cell-centered storage architecture. The cell- mann problem using these variables
 • Compute the viscous fluxes
• Compute body-force if needed
• Update the cell-averaged variables using the
computed fluxes
• Repeat the last five steps as required for
the temporal integration; for explicit multi-
stage Runge-Kutta integration, the deriva-
tives need to be recomputed at each stage
5 Channel Flow
5.1 Computational Configuration
Results have been obtained for low Mach number
turbulent channel flow. The mean flow is in the in-
direction. A body-force is applied in this direction
and is adjusted at each timestep to keep the bulk
velocity constant. Using the global x-momentum
conservation for fully developed flow, /i = —2u^.
The bulk velocity is also the reference velocity
and so is set equal to 1. The boundary condi-
tions are periodic in the streamwise (x) and span-
wise (2) directions with no-slip boundaries in the
wall-normal (?/) direction, with isothermal walls.
The Reynolds number based on the channel height
and bulk velocity is 5600. The Mach number
is 0.5; however, the static temperature variation
across the channel is small (less than 4%) so the
flow is effectively incompressible. Computations
have been performed using the constant-coefficient
Smagorinsky sub-grid scale model (CR = 0.012,
Prt= 0.4). The coefficient CR is multiplied by the
van Driest damping factor 1 — ey /26 to integrate
to the walls. The length scale A for the SGS model
is the nodal spacing in the ^-direction.
The grid size is 2?r x 1 x 27T/3, where the lengths
have been non-dimensionalized by the channel
height. The grid has 65 x 65 x 65 nodes (274,625
nodes), 1,310,720 cells, and 2,646,016 faces. The
grid is stretched in the y-direction, with mini-
mum spacing (at the walls) of 0.00278 and a max-
imum spacing (in the channel center) of 0.0457.
The initial condition is obtained from interpolat-
ing the fully-developed solution on a grid with
33 x 65 x 33 nodes with the same wall-normal (y)
spacing but double the streamwise and spanwise
spacing. The flow has been simulated for about
twenty-two flow-through times, with statistics ac-
cumulated over the last twelve flow-through times.
(One flow-through time is the domain length in the
x-direction divided by the bulk velocity, i.e., 2?r.)
Experimental results of Eckelmann [5] and Kreplin
[13] and direct numerical simulation on structured
grids published by Kim et al [11] will be used to
compare the results. In the presentation of re-
sults, statistics are accumulated at all grid points.
Planar averages are obtained by averaging at all
points on planes parallel to the walls, thus mak-
ing the statistics functions of the wall-normal (y)
direction only.
5.2 Results
The results for the friction velocity UT and cen-
terline velocity Uc, both normalized by the bulk
velocity C/j,, are summarized in Table 1. Figure 1
shows the history of the friction velocity, which
by the end of the computation is 0.0606 and has
an average value of 0.0594. This is within 8%
of the DNS and experimental values of 0.0643.
Figure 2 shows the planar averages of the time-
averaged streamwise velocity. The centerline ve-
locity is 1.155 which is within 0.6% of the experi-
mental value of 1.162. Figure 3 shows the planar
averages of the time-averaged velocity, normalized
by the friction velocity, compared to the veloc-
ity predicted by the linear law and the log law.
The LES is close to the DNS in the near-wall re-
gion, but overshoots it slightly in the core of the
channel, consistent with the lower shear stress of
the LES. Notably, the LES has excellent agree-
ment with the experimental data of Eckelmann
[5], whose log-law of u+ — 2.651nj/+ +5.9 is based
on data at Rec of 5600 and 8200. The LES Rec
of about 6470 is between these values. The exper-
imental data points shown in Figure 3 are for Rec
of 5600 [5].
Table 1: Friction and Centerline Velocities for
Channel Flow Computations
LES DNS [11]
L/x X jLy X Liz 2n x 1 x 2?r/3 2;r x 1 x TT
NxxNyx Nz 65 x 65 x 65 192 x 129 x 160
UT 0.0594 0.0643
uc 1.155 1.162
Figures 4, 5 and 6 compare the root-mean-
square velocity fluctuations from the LES with
the DNS results. Also shown are the experimen-
tal results from Kreplin and Eckelmann [13]. The
experiments have Rec of 7700 and ReT of 388,
which are higher that the DNS Rec of 6600 and
ReT of 360 and the LES Rec of 6470 and ReT of
330. The velocity fluctuations from the LES, DNS
and experiment show generally good agreement.
The streamwise fluctuations, Figure 4, of the LES
compare favorably with the experiment, but are
slightly higher than the DNS. Figure 5 shows the
LES wall-normal fluctuations to be lower than
those of the experiment and DNS; however, the
DNS although higher than the LES is still signif-
icantly lower than the experiment. For the span-
wise fluctuations, shown in Figure 6, there is com-
parable agreement with experiment for the LES
and DNS. For the LES, as in the DNS and exper-
iment, the spanwise fluctuations are larger than
the wall-normal fluctuations. Figure 7 shows the
Reynolds stress, which also compares well with the
DNS. Figure 8 shows the time-average of the y-
component of the z-momentum flux. Its linear
behavior indicates that statistical equilibrium has
been reached.
It should be noted that the comparison between
the DNS and the LES is not precise because the
DNS has not been filtered onto the LES grid.
However, such filtering is not obvious anyway for
an unstructured grid. Additionally, for this case,
most of the energy is in the resolved scales, as
shown by Figure 9, which shows that the SGS eddy
viscosity is at most 9% of the laminar viscosity.
The higher-order velocity statistics based on the
resolved velocities are shown in Figures 10 through
15. The skewness for the streamwise velocity is
S(u') = u'u'u'/u'u' and likewise for v' and
w', where the bar denotes the time-average and
the prime denotes fluctuation relative to the time-
average. Figure 10 shows the streamwise skew-
ness from the LES to have greater magnitude than
the DNS, particularly in the center of the chan-
nel. The reasons for the disagreement with DNS
are under evaluation. However, the agreement for
the wall-normal and spanwise skewness, Figures 11
and 12 respectively, is excellent. The flatness for
_______ ___o
the streamwise velocity is F(u') = u'u'u'u/u'u'
and likewise for v1 and w'. Once again the stream-
wise statistics of the LES deviate from the DNS,
as seen in Figure 13. The wall-normal and span-
wise flatness, shown in Figures 14 and 15 agree
very well with the DNS.
6 Supersonic Boundary
Layer
6.1 Computational Configuration
Preliminary results have been obtained for super-
sonic boundary layer flow at Mach 3. The mean
flow is in the z-direction. The boundary condi-
tions are periodic in the spanwise (z) direction,
zero-gradient extrapolation at the outflow, no-slip
adiabatic at the wall, and a characteristic bound-
ary condition on the upper surface. The inflow
boundary condition is obtained by rescaling the
flow at a downstream station, in a compressible
extension of the method used by Lund et al [14].
The Reynolds number based on the inflow bound-
ary layer thickness 8 is 20,000. Computations
have been performed using the constant-coefficient
Smagorinsky sub-grid scale model (CR = 0.0042,
Prt = 0.4). The length scale A is multiplied by
the van Driest damping factor 1 — ey /26 to inte-
grate to the walls. The length scale for the SGS
model is the cube root of the average of two vol-
umes sharing a face.
The grid size is 14.8 x 3.4 x 4.4 where the
lengths have been non-dimensionalized by the in-
coming boundary layer thickness S. The grid has
51 x 65 x 51 nodes (169,065 nodes), 800,000 cells
and 1,617,800 faces. The grid is stretched in the
y-direction, with a minimum spacing (at the wall)
of 0.0048 and a maximum spacing of 0.2. The
initial condition for the streamwise velocity is the
Law of the Wall and Wake plus a random fluctu-
ation whose maximum was 10% of the freestream
value. The initial conditions for normal and span-
wise velocities are independent random fluctua-
tions with maximum of 10% of the freestream
streamwise velocity. The initial condition for the
static temperature assumes a Crocco integral for
the mean temperature plus a random perturba-
tion with zero total temperature fluctuation. The
flow statistics have been accumulated for about
eight flow-through times. (One flow-through time
is the domain length in the z-direction divided by
the freestream velocity, i.e., 14.8.) Experimental
results of Yanta and Crapo [29] will be used to
compare the results.
6.2 Results
The computed skin friction coefficient at the inflow
boundary is ur/Ux = 0.0506, which is within 7%
of the theoretical value uT/Uoo = 0.0544 based on
friction law obtained from the combined Law of
the Wall and Wake
=^ In (31)
where K = 0.4 is von Karman's constant, B' =
5.1 and II = 0.55. The van Driest transformed
freestream velocity s experiment for the skin friction, the streamwise
I sity. We intend to now use this algorithm to com-
sin (32)
where
1/2
(7-1) (33)
B = - 1 (34)
where Prtm = 0.89 is the mean turbulent Prandtl
number, Taw is the adiabatic wall temperature and
Tw is the wall temperature.
The computed adiabatic wall TW/TX = 2.68
which is within 3% of the theoretical value of 2.602
computed from
= l+fciW M (35)
The mean velocity profile at x = 126 down-
stream of the inflow boundary is shown in Fig-
ure 16 and compared with the one-seventh profile.
Reasonable agreement is observed.
The mean streamwise resolved turbulence inten-
sity, normalized using the local mean density p
and wall shear stress TW, is shown in Figure 17,
together with the experimental data of Yanta and
Crapo [29]. As discussed in Smits and Dussauge
[27], the scaling pu'2/Tw provides an approximate
self-similar correlation of experimental data for su-
personic flat plate boundary layers, although the
measurements near the wall are subject to consid-
erable uncertainty. The data of Yanta and Crapo
at Mach 3 is representative of this data. With the
exception of the near wall region, the computed
results show good agreement with experiment.
7 Conclusions
A three-dimensional unstructured grid algorithm
for accurate simulation of unsteady flows has been
used for Large Eddy Simulations. The algorithm is
second-order in space and time and uses the con-
stant coefficient Smagorinsky SGS model. Com-
putations of low Mach number channel flow at
a Reynolds number of 5600 agree well with in-
compressible DNS and experimental results for the
mean velocity and turbulence fluctuations. Com-
putations of supersonic boundary layer at Mach 3
and Reynolds number of 20,000 agree well with
mean velocity and streamwise turbulence inten-
pute more complex flows, such as turbulent super-
sonic flow into a compression corner. Anticipated
algorithmic improvements include the incorpora-
tion of a dynamic sub-grid scale model.
8 Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by AFOSR un-
der Grant Number F49620-96-1-0389, monitored
by Dr. Len Sakell, and by the National Center
for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), Uni-
versity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, under
Grant Numbers ENG980001N and CTS980021N.
Computations were performed on the NCSA Cray
Origin2000, the NAVO OCEANO DOD Cray Ori-
gin2000 and an SGI Power Onyx at Rutgers Uni-
versity. The results were analyzed at the Rutgers
University Supercomputer Remote Access Center.
We would like to thank Robert Murray for his as-
sistance with the flow visualizations. We would
also like to thank Gary Coleman, Dan Haworth,
Ken Jansen and Thomas Lund for their sugges-
tions and comments.
References
[I] M. Ciofalo and M. Collins. Large-Eddy Sim-
ulation of Turbulent Flow and Heat Transfer
in Plane and Rib-Roughened Channels. In-
ternational Journal for Numerical Methods in
Fluids, 15:453-489, 1992.
[2] G.N. Coleman, J. Kim, and R.D. Moser.
A Numerical Study of Turbulent Supersonic
Isothermal-Wall Channel Flow. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, 305:159-183, 1995.
[3] P. Comte and E. David. Large-eddy Simu-
lation of Gortlet Vortices in a Curved Com-
pression Ramp. In J.A. Desideri, B.N.
Chetverushkin, Y.A. Kuznetsov, J. Periaux,
and B. Stoufflet, editors, Experimentation,
Modelling and Computation in Flow, Turbu-
lence and Combustion, volume 1, chapter 4.
Wiley, Chichester, 1996.
[4] F.M. Denaro. Towards a New Model-Free
Simulation of High-Reynolds-Flows: Local
Average Direct Numerical Simulation. In-
ternational Journal for Numerical Methods in
Fluids, 23:125-142, 1996.
 [5] H. Eckelmann. The Structure of the Viscous
Sublayer and the Adjacent Wall Region in a
Turbulent Channel Flow. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 65:439-459, 1974.
[6] G. Erlebacher, M.Y. Hussaini, C.G. Speziale,
and T.A. Zang. Toward the Large-Eddy
Simulation of Compressible Turbulent Flows.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 238:155-185,
1992.
[7] B. Galperin and S.A. Orszag, editors. Large
Eddy Simulation of Complex Engineering and
Geophysical Flows. Cambridge University
Press, 1993.
[8] D.C. Haworth and K. Jansen. Large-
Eddy Simulation on Unstructured Deform-
ing Meshes: Towards Reciprocating 1C En-
gines. Center for Turbulence Research, Sum-
mer Program 1996. Submitted to Computers
& Fluids.
[9] D. Hunt and D. Nixon. A Very Large
Eddy Simulation of an Unsteady Shock
Wave/Turbulent Boundary Layer Interac-
tion. AIAA 95-2212, 1995.
[10] K. Jansen. Large Eddy Simulation Using Un-
structured Grids. In C. Liu and L. Sakell,
editors, First AFOSR International Confer-
ence on DNS/LES, pages 117-128. Greyden
Press, Columbus, OH, Louisiana Tech Uni-
versity, Ruston, LA, 1997.
[11] J. Kim, P. Moin, and R. Moser. Turbulence
Statistics in Fully Developed Channel Flow
at Low Reynolds Number. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 177:133-166, 1987.
[12] D.D. Knight, G. Zhou, N. Okong'o, and
V. Shukla. Compressible Large Eddy Sim-
ulation Using Unstructured Grids. AIAA 98-
0535, 1998. 36th Aerospace Sciences Meet-
ing and Exhibit, January 12-15, 1998, Reno,
Nevada.
[13] H. Kreplin and H. Eckelmann. Behavior of
the Three Fluctuating Velocity Components
in the Wall Region of a Turbulent Channel
Flow. Physics of Fluids, 22(7):1233-1239,
1979.
[14] T. Lund, X. Wu, and K. Squires. Genera-
tion of Turbulent Inflow Data for Spatially-
Developing Boundary Layer Simulations.
Journal of Computational Physics.
[15] P.J. Mason and N.S. Callen. On the Mag-
nitude of the Subgrid-Scale Eddy Coeffi-
cient in Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulent
Channel Flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
162:439-462, 1986.
[16] C. Meneveau, T. Lund, and W. Cabot. A
Lagrangian Dynamic Subgrid-Scale Model of
Turbulence. Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
319:353-385, 1996.
[17] P. Moin and J. Kim. Numerical Investigation
of Turbulent Channel Flow. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, 118:341-377, 1982.
[18] P. Moin, K. Squires, W. Cabot, and S. Lee.
A Dynamic Subgrid-Scale Model for Com-
pressible Turbulence and Scalar Transport.
Physics of Fluids, 3:2746-2757, 1991.
[19] Y. Morinishi and T. Kobayashi. Large Eddy
Simulation of Complex Flow Fields. Comput-
ers & Fluids, 19:335-346, 1991.
[20] S. Nisizima and A. Yoshizawa. Turbu-
lent Channel and Couette Flows Using an
Anisotropic K — e Model. AIAA Journal,
25(3):414-420, 1987.
[21] N. Okong'o and D.D. Knight. Accurate
Three-Dimensional Unsteady Flow Simula-
tion Using Unstructured Grids. AIAA 98-
0787, 1997. 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
January 12-15, 1998, Reno, Nevada.
[22] C.F. Ollivier-Gooch. High-Order ENO
Schemes for Unstructured Meshes Based on
Least Squares Reconstruction. AIAA 97-
0540, 1997. 35th Aerospace Sciences Meet-
ing and Exhibit, January 6-10, 1997, Reno,
Nevada.
[23] U. Piomelli, L. Ong, C. Wallace, and D. Lad-
hari. Reynolds Stress and Vorticity in Turbu-
lent Wall Flows. Applied Scientific Research,
51:365-370, 1993.
[24] M. Rai, T. Gatski, and G. Erlebacher. Di-
rect Simulation of Spatially Evolving Com-
pressible Turbulent Boundary Layers. AIAA
95-0583, 1995.
[25] W.H Shutts, W.H. Hartwig, and J.E.
Weiler. Final Report of Turbulent Bound-
ary Layer and Skin Friction Measurements
on a Smooth, Thermally Insulated Flat Plate
at Supersonic Speeds. Technical Report 364,
DRL, 1955.
[26] J. Smagorinsky. Some Historical Remarks
on the Use of Nonlinear Viscosities. In
B. Galperin and S.A. Orszag, editors, Large
Eddy Simulation of Complex Engineering and
Geophysical Flows, chapter 1, pages 3-36.
Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[27] A. Smits and J.-P. Dussauge. Turbulent Shear
Layers in Supersonic Flow. American Insti-
tute of Physics, New York, 1996.
[28] E. Spyropoulos and G. Blaisdell. Large-Eddy
Simulation of a Spatially Evolving Compress-
ible Boundary Layer Flow. AIAA 97-0429,
1997.
[29] W. Yanta and B. Crapo. Applications of the
Laser Doppler Velocimeter Measure Subsonic
and Supersonic Flows. Technical Report CP-
193, AGARD, 1976.
[30] H. Zhao and P. R. Yoke. A Dyn-
amic Subgrid-Scale Model for Low-Reynolds-
Number Channel Flow. International Journal
for Numerical Methods m Fluids, 23:19-27,
1996.
 0.03

0.02

75
TIME

Figure 1: Friction Velocity Figure 4: Planar Averages of Root-Mean-Square

Streamwise Velocity Fluctuations

Figure 2: Planar Averages of Time Averaged Ve-

Figure 5: Planar Averages of Root-Mean-Square
locity
Wall-Normal Velocity Fluctuations

DNS
LES
u'.y*
u'« 2.5 In y'-f 5.5 (DNS)
u'« 2.65 kiy't 5.8 (Exp)
Eck.hi.im (1874)

Figure 3: Planar Averages of Time Averaged Ve- Figure 6: Planar Averages of Root-Mean-Square
locity in Wall Units Spanwise Velocity Fluctuations

10
 0.4

0.2

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
0.5
Y

Figure 7: Planar Averages of Time-Averaged Figure 10: Planar Averages of Skewness of

Reynolds Shear Stress Streamwise Velocity Fluctuations

0.6

0.4

I 0.2

I 0

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

0.5 0.5
Y Y

Figure 8: Planar Averages of Wall-Normal Com- Figure 11: Planar Averages of Skewness of Wall-
ponent of Streamwise Momentum Flux Normal Velocity Fluctuations

10"

10*

10''

0.5
Y

Figure 9: Planar Averages of SGS Eddy Viscosity, Figure 12: Planar Averages of Skewness of Span-
Normalized with Laminar Viscosity wise Velocity Fluctuations

11
 7.5r

0.5
Y

Figure 13: Planar Averages of Flatness of Stream-

wise Velocity Fluctuations

0 0.25 0.5 0.75

Figure 16: Mean Velocity Profile

- >*^ _ _ _ _ - ^Sj,

'• , , , , 1 , . , , 1 , • . i i . • , , i
3 0-25 0.5 0.75 1
Y

Figure 14: Planar Averages of Flatness of Wall-

Normal Velocity Fluctuations
Computed
Yanta and Crapo (1976)

0.5 Figure 17: Streamwise Velocity Fluctuations

Y

Figure 15: Planar Averages of Flatness of Span-

wise Velocity Fluctuations

12