Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Editors:
1. INTRODUCTION 5
4. TURBULENCE MODELLING 20
5. APPLICATION UNCERTAINTIES 29
6. USER ERRORS 33
7. CODE ERRORS 37
12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 91
13. REFERENCES 92
The document also provides a useful compendium of relevant information on the most important is-
sues relevant to the credibility of CFD simulations, especially with regard to the most common sources
of errors and uncertainties in CFD. For each aspect considered, simple statements of advice are given
which provide clear and generally accepted guidance for the user of CFD in industrial applications.
The statements are understandable without elaborate mathematics, and are generally preceded by a
short section providing a discussion of the issues involved, with references to texts where more de-
tailed discussion of the issues may be found. A basic level of scientific or engineering knowledge is
expected of the reader, and in particular some elementary knowledge of fluid dynamics and numerical
methods is assumed (such as may be attained by reading one of the general texts given in the list of
references in chapter 13).
1.2. Scope
These guidelines cannot hope to be exhaustive. They have been written and edited making use of ex-
tensive consultation with CFD code vendors, code developers, academic experts and code users and
this gives the guidelines wide support. It is intended that they offer roughly those 20% of the most im-
portant general rules of advice that cover roughly 80% of the problems likely to be encountered. The
document is not part of a formal quality assurance (QA) management system but it nevertheless ad-
dresses most of the issues that a formal QA system for CFD simulations would need to include. Users
who follow the advice given can be expected to avoid the most common pitfalls in CFD simulations.
The technical content of the guidelines is limited to single-phase, compressible and incompressible,
steady and unsteady, turbulent and laminar flow with and without heat transfer. The guidelines do not
cover combustion, two-phase flows, flows with radiation, non-Newtonian flows, supersonic and hyper-
sonic flows with strong shocks and many other more complex flow situations. The guidance given is
relevant to many mechanical, aeronautical, automotive, power, environmental, medical and process
engineering applications. More detailed guidelines and application procedures are needed for the re-
maining specific problems and to extend these guidelines to more complex flows (see chapter 10).
The fundamental problem of CFD simulations lies in the prediction of the effects of turbulence, which,
using the words of Lamb [1895] of more than a hundred years ago, still remains “the main outstanding
difficulty of our subject”. At a scientific level, turbulence is one of the great unsolved problems of non-
linear computational physics. To simulate turbulence directly by Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS)
one needs to be able to capture the time and length scales of all the characteristic structures of the
flow, from the energy-carrying large scales to the small dissipative scales. As these vary by several
orders of magnitude, a typical spatial scale of 10-5 to 10-6 of the size of the computational domain in
each co-ordinate direction has to be resolved. For engineering problems this is beyond the capacity of
present or foreseeable computers, needing an increase of at least several orders of magnitude in
computing power before it can become a general tool. Even on the largest possible computers, DNS
In both academic and industrial circles there is little doubt that CFD on the basis of the RANS equa-
tions with a suitable turbulence model will form the basis of most engineering calculations for many
years to come. Even when LES or DNS become practical, RANS solutions will still be used for the ini-
tial design explorations, just as simpler tools are used in design today, so that a way to deal with un-
certainty arising from the turbulence modelling will still be needed.
In addition to the physical difficulties of modelling the effects of turbulence, there are many other
sources of error in CFD simulations (see chapter 2). A major issue is the accuracy of the numerical
discretisation in CFD simulations on grids that are not good enough to produce grid independent solu-
tions and this has led to extensive discussion of the credibility of many CFD simulations. The difficul-
ties are amply demonstrated by the many CFD validation exercises involving blind test cases, where
only sufficient information is made available to the participants to allow a CFD model to be set up and
run, but the full test results are not available. The results of such exercises can be highly user-
dependent even when the same CFD software with the same models is being used. Recent examples
are the ASME blind test case of the transonic compressor rotor NASA Rotor 37 (Strazisar and Denton
[1995]), the EU-funded EMU Project on modelling of atmospheric dispersion near buildings (Hall and
Cowan [1998]) and the ERCOFTAC workshop on draft tube flows (ERCOFTAC/IAHR [1999]). The
greatest benefit arising from such validation exercises has often been to identify the many causes for
differences in simulation results for what is nominally the same calculation, and to give insight into the
range of results obtainable. One of the major causes of this problem is that for complex geometries in
many industrial applications, the practical constraints on memory capacity and computer power lead to
results that are not grid independent.
The question naturally arises as to what are the best procedures to ensure that the results of a CFD
simulation are accurate and credible. There are currently no standard best practice guidelines that can
be used to achieve and to confirm that the best possible numerical accuracy has been achieved.
There is an urgent need for such a code of best practice from the knowledge currently available to ex-
perienced industrial CFD users, code developers and academic experts to overcome this shortcoming.
Following a survey of users to identify their needs, an initial version of the Best Practice Guidelines
was produced by the Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of Sulzer Innotec during May 1999. The initial version
was then reviewed and criticised by an invited panel of CFD experts at a workshop held in Zurich,
Switzerland on 21 and 22 June 1999. Following the workshop an interim version was produced during
July 1999. This was circulated in August 1999 to participants of the workshop and to members of the
ERCOFTAC SIG on “Quality and Trust in Industrial CFD” for further editing. Following the feedback on
this, a draft of the final version was prepared for the ERCOFTAC SIG meeting on October 27 1999 in
Florence, Italy. Discussion of this with academic reviewers led to changes in chapter 4 of the final ver-
sion of January 2000.
In the chapters 3 to 7 that follow, each of the different sources of error and uncertainty are examined
and discussed and some guidelines on their effect and elimination are given. In view of the fact that
the validation of models and the use of sensitivity tests are commonly accepted ways of dealing with
some of the problems, an additional chapter on these issues has been added in chapter 8. The sec-
tions in the individual chapters overlap to a certain extent as similar issues often arise under different
headings.
Examples of the issues arising in the best practice guidelines as applied to some specific test cases
are given in chapter 9. Suggestions for the revision and extension of the guidelines are given in chap-
ter 10. A summary of the most important guidelines in the form of a checklist is provided as chapter
11, whereby this is an edited version of the guidelines in the earlier chapters organised roughly in the
chronological order of the activities needed during a typical CFD simulation.
A typical CFD calculation can be broken down into a number of important steps and activities, such
as:
Errors and uncertainty can arise in almost all of these steps and these are discussed in the sections
below.
In the absence of quantitative accuracy the engineer often tends to examine the predicted flow-field in
qualitative terms to assess global flow structures and trends (for example, incidence of flow onto blad-
ing, presence and extent of flow separations, existence of strong secondary flows, etc.). The details of
the complex flow-fields provided by CFD, even when not perfectly accurate, are in this way an impor-
tant source of insight into design improvements and also into the design of experiments and the most
appropriate location of any instrumentation.
These rather philosophical definitions can be made clearer by examples. Typical known errors are the
round-off errors in a digital computer and the convergence error in an iterative numerical scheme. In
these cases, the CFD analyst has a reasonable chance of estimating the likely magnitude of the error.
Unacknowledged errors include mistakes and blunders, either in the input data or in the implementa-
tion of the code itself, and there are no methods to estimate their magnitude. Uncertainties arise be-
cause of incomplete knowledge of a physical characteristic, such as the turbulence structure at the
inlet to a flow domain or because there is uncertainty in the validity of a particular flow model being
used. An error is something that can be removed with appropriate care, effort and resources, whereas
an uncertainty cannot be removed as it is rooted in lack of knowledge.
Verification: Procedure to ensure that the program solves the equations correctly.
Validation: Procedure to test the extent to which the model accurately represents reality.
Calibration: Procedure to assess the ability of a CFD code to predict global quantities of interest
for specific geometries of engineering design interest.
Calibration is sometimes also used to describe the process of adjusting the values of the coefficients
of a turbulence model to provide better agreement with experimental data, but this is not its meaning
in this document. In many industrial engineering cases, the distinction between validation and calibra-
tion becomes blurred.
The discretisation in time follows a similar scheme to that in space but respects the fact that time ex-
hibits a clearly distinct forward direction.
Discretisation is probably the most crucial source of error for the accuracy of numerical fluid flow simu-
lations and needs to be carefully analysed by the user of CFD-codes. However, other sources of error
may be related to the method used to calculate the fluxes at the cell boundaries and to solve the re-
sulting system of linear equations. As the numerical procedures are iterative the question of conver-
gence needs additional attention.
There is no convergence theory for the solution of the discrete RANS equations. Hence convergence
cannot be enforced by theoretical means, but is based on empirical criteria. Driving all the residuals in
all equations plus the residuals of the integral balances down to machine accuracy is the most gener-
ally accepted convergence criterion. This level of convergence is an ideal that, for practical reasons
related to time constraints, is not used for most engineering computations. Instead the level of conver-
gence is most commonly evaluated based on average values of the residuals as described below.
However, some methods measure the normalised change in variable values between successive it-
erations, or on values of globally integrated parameters, such as lift coefficient or heat transfer coeffi-
cient, or on time/iteration signals of a physical quantity at a monitor point, which is located at a suitably
chosen location in the flow domain.
In some situations the iterative procedure will not converge, but either diverges or remains at a fixed
and unacceptable level of error, or oscillates between alternative solutions. Careful selection and op-
timisation of control parameters (such as damping factors, relaxation factors, or time-steps) may be
needed in these cases to ensure that a converged solution can be found wherever possible. A proce-
dure which proved successful for one class of problems may not be successful for a different problem.
3.2.1. Residuals
Residuals are 3D fields associated with a conservation law, such as conservation of mass or momen-
tum. They indicate how far the present approximate solution is away from exact cancellation of flux
balances in each cell. Usually, the residuals are normalised by dividing by a reference value times a
reference flux. The reference value may be one of the following:
• Maximum value of the related conserved quantity.
• Average value of the related conserved quantity.
• Range (i.e. maximum minus minimum) value of related conserved quantity.
• Inlet flow of the related conserved quantity.
Convergence is usually monitored on the basis of one representative number, a so-called norm (usu-
ally a p-norm) characterising the residual level in the three-dimensional flow field. This single value
may be:
• The maximum of the absolute values (p=∞).
• The sum of absolute values (p=1)
• The square root of the sum of squared values (P=2).
The large number of variants makes it difficult to give precise statements how to judge convergence
and at which residual level a solution may be considered converged. In principle, a solution is con-
verged if the level of round-off error is reached. Special care is needed in defining equivalent levels of
convergence if different codes are used for comparison purpose.
1
The CFL number is generally defined as CFL=∆t (v+a) / ∆x, where ∆t is the time step, ∆x the local
cell size, v the local velocity and a the sonic velocity. For incompressible flows computed with an in-
compressible solver, the CFL number is defined by CFL=∆t v / ∆x.
In the case of body-fitted grids the interior of the domain must be built up to satisfy the geometrical
constraints imposed by the domain boundary. Several kinds of mesh topology are available:
• Structured grid: The points of a block are addressed by a triple of indices (ijk). The connectivity is
straight-forward because cells adjacent to a given face are identified by the indices. Cell edges
form continuous mesh lines which start and end on opposite block faces. Cells have a hexahedral
shape.
• Unstructured grid: Meshes are allowed to be assembled cell by cell freely without considering con-
tinuity of mesh lines. Hence, the connectivity information for each cell face needs to be stored in a
table. The most typical cell shape is the tetrahedron, but any other form including hexahedral cells
is possible. These grids may or may not have matching cell-faces. Special cases of unstructured
grids are:
• Block structured grid: For the sake of flexibility the mesh is assembled from a number of struc-
tured blocks attached to each other. Attachments may be regular, i.e. cell faces of adjacent
blocks match, or arbitrary (general attachment without matching cell faces).
• Chimera grid: Structured mesh blocks are placed freely in the domain to fit the geometrical
boundaries and to satisfy resolution requirements. Blocks may overlap, and instead of attach-
ments at block boundaries information between different blocks is transferred in the overlap-
ping region.
• Hybrid grid: These grids combine different element types, i.e tetrahedra, hexahedra, prisms
and pyramids.
The grids must be fine enough to provide an adequate resolution of the important flow features, as
well as geometrical features. This may be achieved by local grid refinement. Unstructured meshes are
especially well suited for this purpose. If block structured grids are used local refinement results in
block attachments with dissimilar number of grid lines. Some CFD codes provide algorithms to adapt
the grid resolution locally according to numerical criteria from the flow solution, such as gradient infor-
mation or other error estimators.
In addition to grid density, the quality of a mesh depends on various criteria such as the shape of the
cells (aspect ratio, skewness, warp angle or included angle of adjacent faces), distances of cell faces
from boundaries or spatial distribution of cell sizes. The introduction of special topological features
such as O-grids or C-grids and care taken to locate block-interfaces in a sensible manner can help to
improve the overall quality of a block-structured mesh. Unstructured meshing techniques may take
advantage of prism layers with structured sub-meshes close to domain boundaries.
It should, however, be borne in mind that the order of a method has no direct connection to the accu-
racy of a solution on a given grid. For instance lower order upwind methods can yield better solutions
on coarse grids than higher order schemes. However, the higher order central schemes will approach
the exact solution faster when the grid is refined. If the solution of the physical problem considered is
smooth, and exhibits only small gradients, even a first order scheme can do a good job, especially if
the flow is oriented along the grid lines. A first order scheme is usually not at all suitable for general
engineering applications involving complex flows with large gradients and thin boundary layers. The
large truncation error introduced by the first order scheme is known as numerical viscosity or diffusivity
as it gives rise to artificial diffusion fluxes, which may be much stronger than the real molecular or tur-
bulent contributions.
On the other hand, higher order schemes suffer from a different more obvious problem, namely the
appearance of a characteristic wavy pattern with a wavelength of two cell sizes in the neighbourhood
of steep gradients. These so-called wiggles are caused by dispersion, i.e. waves with different wave
lengths are not transported with the same speed. Dispersion is most prominent in central differencing
schemes for finite volume methods and quadratic basis function schemes for finite element methods.
Higher order upwind schemes are less prone to it. In some cases these wiggles can be considered a
benefit, as their size is an indicator of the mesh error. If necessary, this problem may be remedied us-
ing special (non-linear) monotone schemes, such as total variation diminishing (TVD) or shock-
capturing schemes (Hirsch [1991]). Due to their capability to resolve steep gradients while avoiding
dispersion effects they are frequently applied in supersonic flows with shock waves, and for the trans-
port of scalar quantities with weak molecular diffusion.
The computation of steady turbulent flow is the most common kind of simulation for the industrial use
of CFD. In these cases the Reynolds-averaged flow is steady while the average turbulent quantities
account for the time-dependence of the turbulent fluctuations. In this way, the RANS equations repre-
sent the temporal average of the flow. However, the RANS-equations also allow the time-dependent
Reynolds-averaged flow fields to be computed, based on the assumption that the temporal average of
the turbulent quantities is not affected by the global unsteadiness. This is physically realistic when the
time scale of the turbulence is much smaller than the time scale of the mean unsteadiness. A limitation
is, however, that the typical turbulence frequencies are much higher than typical externally imposed or
internally generated mean-flow frequencies. If the turbulence and mean flow frequencies are in the
same band, ensemble averaging loses its sense, and LES or DNS methods should be employed. A
time-dependent simulation is always needed if the scale of eddies or vortices is large and is compara-
ble to the dimensions of the geometry (e.g. the computation of a vortex-street behind bluff bodies like
a car or a building).
In some turbomachinery design applications special models involving averaging-techniques with mix-
ing planes between the blade rows are used to remove the time dependence of the flow due to the
relative motion of the blades. Such techniques allow the flow to be computed using common steady
state solution methods.
If an accurate spatial discretisation is applied, flows which are physically time-dependent will often fail
to converge using a steady-state method. However, if integrated with a large time step, even physi-
cally unsteady flows can be converged to a steady state (for example, a cylinder in a cross flow). Very
often convergence problems with a steady simulation can be interpreted as a hint that the flow is un-
steady and a time-stepping scheme would be appropriate. On the other hand, symmetry boundary
conditions may impose a steady flow, although it would be transient in reality. If the complete geome-
try including both sides of the symmetry plane were used the velocity field would oscillate perpetually.
Averaging the solution over a long time interval would lead to a symmetrical field, which, however,
may differ from the steady state solution obtained with flow symmetry actually imposed.
The choice of the time step depends on the time scales of the flow being analysed. If time steps are
too large the simulation might fail to capture important flow and mimic unphysical steady behaviour. It
is therefore advisable to start with relatively small time steps, and corresponding CFL number, even
though this is not required from the point of view of numerical stability. Some CFD codes use a time-
stepping scheme for steady state simulations.
Users have normally no control on the spatial discretisation in the neighbourhood of boundaries. The
CFD code developer should ensure that the implementation in the boundary region retains the overall
accuracy of the numerical scheme. There is common consent that good practice for outflow bounda-
ries is to set the convective derivative normal to the boundary face equal to zero and to combine this
with a stream-wise extrapolation of transported quantities. Outflow and inflow boundaries bring about
the following difficulties:
• Non-physical reflection of outgoing information back into the domain (Giles [1990]).
• Difficulties in providing information about the properties of the fluid which may inadvertently enter
the domain from the outside, and some CFD codes prevent fluid from entering the domain through
outflow boundaries.
• Difficulties may also arise if open boundary conditions are placed in regions of high swirl, large
curvatures or pressure gradients.
In the finite-element method (FEM) the domain is broken into a set of discrete finite elements that are
usually unstructured. Their special feature is that the Navier-Stokes equations are multiplied by a
weight (or basis) function before they are integrated over the entire domain. The weight function is de-
fined locally in each element and it can be of higher order. The approximation is substituted into a
weighted integral of the conservation laws. The result is a set of non-linear algebraic equations.
An advantage of the early finite-element methods was the ability to deal with complex geometries
where the grids can be easily refined in the area of interest. It can also be shown that the finite-
element methods have optimal properties for certain types of equations. An additional advantage is
the mathematical background, which allows the development of interesting numerical possibilities,
such as error estimators based on the residuals, and the use of higher order schemes. The principal
drawback is that one needs to calculate and store the basis functions for each type of element that
might appear in the grid (even if it only appears once). Moreover, there might be some difficulties re-
lated to conservation when using weak formulations (global conservation would be satisfied but local
conservation would not). In addition the matrices of the linearised equations are not as well structured
as in finite volume methods and this makes it more difficult to find efficient solution algorithms, al-
though these are evolving rapidly through the use of iterative methods with pre-conditioners. For fur-
ther information on the finite-element methods in fluid mechanics see Girault and Raviart [1986], Oden
et. al [1975] and Zienkiewicz and Taylor [1991].
Most of the guidelines on the numerical methods mentioned above are also valid for the finite-element
method. Some aspects may be either more or less important with the finite-element method than with
the finite-volume method. The main differences between the guidelines for finite element and finite
volume simulations are described in the next section.
The turbulent states which can be encountered across the whole range of industrially relevant flows
are rich, complex and varied. After a century of intensive theoretical and experimental research, it is
now accepted that no single turbulence model can span these states and that there is no generally
valid universal model of turbulence. A bewildering number and variety of models have appeared over
the years, as different developers have tried to introduce improvements to the models that are avail-
able. The extremely difficult nature of this endeavour caused Bradshaw [1994] to refer to turbulence
as “the invention of the Devil on the seventh day of creation, when the Good Lord wasn't looking”.
The available turbulence models can be roughly divided into three main categories, with the following
subdivisions:
• Linear eddy viscosity models
• Algebraic (or zero-equation) models
• One-equation models (with ordinary and/or partial differential equations)
• Two-equation models
• Reynolds stress or second moment closure models
• Full Reynolds stress transport models
• Algebraic Reynolds stress models
• Non-linear eddy viscosity models (NLEVM)
• These can be sub-divided in the same way as linear eddy viscosity models (above) but are
usually implemented as two-equation models
• A certain sub-class of NLEVM are equivalent to algebraic Reynolds stress models
Within each of these categories there are a wide variety of different models and options available (see
below). The choice of which turbulence model to use and the interpretation of its performance (i.e. es-
tablishing bounds on key predicted parameters) is a far-from-trivial matter.
A set of application procedures is evidently required which documents the performance of various tur-
bulence models across a broad class of flow regimes and for different applications. A full categorisa-
tion of this type is beyond the scope of the present guidelines. Instead the general features and broad
limitations of different classes of model will be discussed and guidance will be given on the practical
deployment of the turbulence model most commonly used in industrial practice, the standard k-ε
model. A fuller introduction to the subject of turbulence and turbulence modelling can be obtained by
consulting standard reference texts on the subject, such as Launder and Spalding [1972], Cebeci and
Smith [1974], Rodi [1993], Tennekes and Lumley [1972], Menter et al. [1997], Wilcox [1998], Hanjalic
[1994], Leschziner [1990] and Launder [1989].
If heat transfer is important, the time-dependent energy equation is averaged in a similar manner giv-
ing rise to turbulent heat fluxes which account for the transport of energy due to the action of the unre-
The viscous analogy can be extended to the interpretation of the turbulent energy fluxes by the use of
the so-called Reynolds extended analogy. A turbulent Prandtl number is introduced, PrT, so that the
energy fluxes are related to time-averaged temperature gradients via a turbulent diffusivity of energy
given as µT/(ρ·PrT). Unfortunately, unlike their viscous counterparts, the turbulent viscosity and turbu-
lent Prandtl number are not fluid properties but functions of the state of turbulence. From dimensional
considerations, µT/ρ is proportional to V·L, where V is a velocity scale and L is a length scale of the
larger turbulent motions (called the mixing length in so-called mixing length models). Both the velocity
scale V and the length scale L are determined by the state of turbulence, and, over the years, various
prescriptions for V and L have been proposed.
Algebraic models of turbulence have the virtue of simplicity and are widely used with considerable
success for simple shear flows such as attached boundary layers, jets and wakes. For more complex
flows where the state of turbulence is not locally determined but related to the upstream history of the
flow, a more sophisticated prescription is required.
Algebraic turbulence models are based on boundary layer concepts, like shear layer thickness, dis-
tance from a wall and velocity differences across the layer. These quantities cannot easily be com-
puted in a Navier-Stokes method and introduce significant additional uncertainty into the computation,
as the solutions are dependent on implementation details. This is the main reason why these models
are not normally recommended for general applications of RANS methods.
2
If the transport of one or more scalar contaminants or species is important, the appropriate time-
dependant concentration equations are treated in a similar way to the energy equation. The turbulent
mass fluxes which then arise are usually modelled following the same approach adopted for the en-
ergy fluxes. Thus, for the sake of simplicity and clarity, the text will focus on the treatment of the en-
ergy equation.
In shear-layer type flows, and especially in regions close to a wall, it is often possible to algebraically
prescribe L with reasonable confidence. In geometrically complex configurations the prescription of L
is difficult because it depends on non-local quantities, such as the boundary layer thickness, dis-
placement thickness, etc. and introduces similar uncertainties as in an algebraic turbulence model.
Spalart and Allmaras [1992] have devised an alternative formulation of a one-equation model specifi-
cally for aerodynamic flows, which determines the turbulent viscosity directly from a single transport
equation for µT and this model is proving quite successful for practical turbulent flows in external airfoil
applications. The model is not well-suited for more general flows, as it leads to serious errors even for
simple shear flows (round jet).
The most popular version of two equation models is the k-ε model, where ε is the rate at which turbu-
lent energy is dissipated to smaller eddies (Launder and Spalding [1974]). This is included in almost
every commercial and in-house code and is a de-facto standard in industrial applications. A modelled
transport equation for ε is solved and then L is determined as Cµ k3/2/ε where Cµ is a constant. Several
commercial codes also include variants of the standard k-ε model, which improve predictions under
special circumstances as explained in 4.4.1 below.
The second most widely used type of two equation model is the k-ω model, where ω is a frequency of
the large eddies (Wilcox [1998]). A modelled transport equation for ω is solved and L is then deter-
mined from k1/2/ω. The k-ω model performs very well close to walls in boundary layer flows, particularly
under strong adverse pressure gradients (hence its popularity in aerospace applications). However it
is very sensitive to the free stream value of ω and unless great care is taken in setting this value, spu-
rious results can be obtained in both boundary layer flows and free shear flows. The k-ε model is less
sensitive to free stream values but is often inadequate in adverse pressure gradients. Many different
variants are to be found in the literature to circumvent this problem. An interesting option has been
proposed by Menter [1994a, 1994b] through a model which retains the properties of k-ω close to the
wall and gradually blends into the k-ε model away from the wall. This model has been shown to elimi-
nate the free stream sensitivity problem without sacrificing the k-ω near wall performance.
The performance of two-equation turbulence models deteriorates when the turbulence structure is no
longer close to local equilibrium. This occurs when the production of turbulence energy departs signifi-
cantly from the rate at which it is dissipated at the small scales (i.e. ε), or equivalently when dimen-
sionless strain rates (i.e. absolute value of the rate of strain times k/ε) become large. Various attempts
have been made to modify two equation turbulence models to account for strong non-equilibrium ef-
fects. For example, the so-called SST (shear stress transport) variation of Menter's model [1993,
1996] leads to marked improvements in performance for non-equilibrium boundary layer regions such
as those found behind shocks or close to separation. However, such modifications should not be
viewed as a universal cure. For example SST is less able to deal with flow recovery following re-
attachment.
This type of model can handle complex strain and, in principle, can cope with non-equilibrium flows.
However, it is complex and expensive to compute. A much simplified form of second moment closure
can be derived from the RSTM which reduces the number of coupled differential equations to two (as
in two-equation turbulence models) whilst retaining the subtle interaction between stress and strain.
This form, known as an algebraic Reynolds stress model (ARSM), is generated by assuming the
transport (convection plus diffusion) of Reynolds stress (RS) in the RSTM equations is equal to the
transport of turbulence energy multiplied by the factor (RS/k). The result is an implicit algebraic rela-
tionship for the Reynolds stresses which is closed by solving transport equations for k and a length-
scale determining quantity such as ε (Rodi [1993], Launder [1984] and [1989]).
RSTM require boundary conditions for each of the stress components which can be difficult to specify.
Also, both RSTM and ARSM can give rise to problems of convergence. Such models are offered in
most commercial codes nowadays, but have not yet been widely adopted as an industrial tool, except
for very particular types of flow for which extensive calibration has been carried out and where the
standard k-ε model is known to do a poor job (see section 4.4).
A sub-class of these models are can be shown to be formally equivalent to algebraic Reynolds stress
models (Apsley et al. [1997], Gatski and Speziale [1993]). However, unlike ARSM, the stress compo-
nents appear only on the left-hand side of the equation, obviating the need for an implicit solution
process which, as mentioned above, often gives rise to convergence problems. For this reason mod-
els of this type are known as explicit algebraic Reynolds stress models (EARSM), and are gaining
popularity as an effective way of implementing ARSM.
The wall friction velocity uτ is defined as (τw/ρ)1/2 where τw is the wall shear stress. Let y be normal dis-
tance from the wall and let U be time-averaged velocity parallel to the wall. Then the dimensionless
velocity, U+ and dimensionless wall distance, y+ are defined as U/uτ and y·ρ·uτ /µ respectively. If the
flow close to the wall is determined by conditions at the wall then U+ can be expected to be a universal
(wall) function of y+ up to some limiting value of y+. This is indeed observed in practice, with a linear re-
lationship between U+ and y+ in the viscous sub-layer, and a logarithmic relationship, known as the law
of the wall, in the layers adjacent to this (so-called log-layer). For rough walls, this law of the wall must
be modified by scaling y on the equivalent roughness height, z0 (i.e. y+ is replaced by y/z0 ), and also
by adjusting the coefficients (Schlichting [1979]). The y+-limit of validity depends on external factors
3
Calibration in this sentence refers to testing the ability of a CFD code to predict global quantities of
interest for specific geometries of engineering design interest (see definition in chapter 2) and not to
tuning the coefficients of a turbulence model, which cannot be recommended for a novice user.
The standard wall functions are valid for smooth walls, but can be modified to allow for rough surfaces
by adjustment of the constants in the law of the wall (see Tennekes and Lumley [1972]). If a rough
wall is being modelled the wall distance in the law of the wall is non-dimensionalised with an equiva-
lent roughness height, and appropriate values must be selected from the data or literature.
These universal functions can be used to relate flow variables at the first computational mesh point,
displaced some distance y from the wall, directly to the wall shear stress without resolving the struc-
ture in between. A similar universal, non-dimensional function can be constructed which relates the
temperature difference between the wall and the mesh point to heat flux at the wall (Launder and
Spalding [1974]). This can be used to bridge the near-wall region when solving the energy equation.
Unfortunately, it is not always possible to satisfy these constraints everywhere within a flow and then
certain practical advantages (rarely improvements in accuracy) can be gained from basing wall dis-
tance appearing in the wall-functions on y* rather than y+ . For example, at flow re-attachment or at
point of impingement, τw vanishes and so y+ is zero irrespective of the value of y (an example of far
field influences penetrating through to the wall reducing the y+ limit of validity to zero). However, y* re-
mains large due to the high values of k convected towards the wall, facilitating the (apparent) satisfac-
tion of constraint b). Also, in this particular case the use of y* rather than y+ results in a qualitative im-
provement in the prediction of wall heat transfer. Wherever the conditions of constraint a) are met, y+
and y* are equivalent. Many commercial codes employ y* in the application of wall functions as the de-
fault4.
Standard wall functions are one of the biggest sources of misconceptions in turbulent flow computa-
tions, even for experienced users. Their purpose is to bridge the extremely thin viscous layer near the
surface. They do not free the user from the need to adequately resolve the turbulent portion of the
boundary layer. Adequate resolution means at least eight to ten points in the turbulent regime, if the
accurate prediction of boundary layer effects, like wall friction, heat transfer and separation is in-
tended. In addition to the lower limit on y+, which ensures that the first (integration) point does not fall
into the viscous sublayer, there are also upper limits due to the requirement of adequate boundary
layer resolution. These limits are the more restrictive the lower the running-length of the boundary
layer is. For boundary layers with a Reynolds number lower than Re=105 it is difficult to satisfy the re-
quirement that the first (integration) point has to lay outside the viscous sublayer and at the same time
to achieve a sufficient boundary layer resolution. The most sensible approach to satisfy the logarithmic
profile assumption and to resolve the boundary layer is to place the first (integration) point slightly
above the lower limit recommended by the code developers (typically around y+ = 20).
4
Throughout Chapter 4, y+ will be used to represent either y·ρ·uτ /µ or y* without distinction,
depending upon the wall function implementation adopted.
Standard wall functions are clearly a weakness of present day CFD methods, as they require a very
careful placement of the near wall grid points. In addition, they do not allow for a consistent grid re-
finement as the solutions deteriorate if the near wall grid is refined below the log-law limit. Also they
are rarely accurate in all regions of the flow.
Many turbulence models can be validly used for this purpose, others cannot. For example, the k-ω
two-equation model can be deployed through to the wall as can the one-equation k-L model (e.g.
Wolfshtein [1969]). The standard k-ε and RSTM models cannot. Various so-called low-Reynolds num-
ber versions of the k-ε and RSTM models have been proposed incorporating modifications which re-
move this limitation (see, for example, the reviews in Patel et al. [1985] and Wilcox [1998]). Alterna-
tively the standard k-ε and RSTM models can be used in the interior of the flow and coupled to the k-L
model which is used to resolve just the wall region (see the review by Rodi [1991]). Whatever model-
ling approach is adopted, a sufficient number of mesh points must be packed into a very narrow region
adjacent to the wall in order to capture the variation in the flow variables.
The advisory actions are drawn from an extensive literature on the subject and should not to be
viewed as definitive cures. There is no a priori guarantee that the advice given will yield significantly
improved results, and careful validation is always appropriate. The manuals of commercial and in-
house codes may proffer alternative and equally effective advice, and many commercial codes will in-
clude alternatives to the standard k-ε model. Where the action given below involves a modification or
adjustment to the standard k-ε model, this should be regarded as a specific palliative for the weakness
under consideration and will not usually prove of general benefit (and may even be worse).
If the unsteadiness is self-induced, such as vortex shedding from a bluff body or highly separated flow
from an airfoil at high incidence, then the difficulties with turbulence modelling are much worse. There
is presently no known turbulence model able to handle correctly highly stalled airfoils. See also section
3.6 on temporal discretisation errors.
The simplest way around this problem is to calculate the flow as a turbulent one or to prescribe the lo-
cation of transition if it is available from experiment. If a k-ε model with a low Reynolds number behav-
iour is applied, then the turbulent kinetic energy is approximately zero in the nominal laminar flow re-
gimes, and in this case the models are able to predict a transitional behaviour. However, much care
has to be exercised, as this does not ensure that the physics of the transition is respected by the tur-
bulence model. The physics can be very complex and highly different according to the type of transi-
tion, such as by-pass transition, separation induced transition, etc. (see, for example Mayle [1991] and
Savill [1996]).
¾ Particular care is needed with the specification of inlet mass flow as a boundary condition for
compressible flow-fields with supersonic regions, as the flow may be choked and unable to pass
the mass flow specified.
There are many applications where the nominal geometry is symmetric but the flow is asymmetric,
and the flow field can be asymmetric even in the case of symmetry of the geometry (for example, an
oblate spheroid at very high incidence). This can be an important factor in predicting the detail of the
dynamical behaviour of fluid flows. Asymmetry can also be forced if the real inflow conditions are not
geometrically perfectly symmetrical or some minor distortions are present within the inlet flow.
Due to the physical temporal instability of the flow (for example, in a Karman vortex street or the peri-
odic attachment and detachment of a hot jet below a cold ceiling) or due to time-dependent boundary
conditions the flow field can be unsteady. This effect should be carefully examined because the flow
solvers can often compute a spurious steady solution of the flow field which is in contradiction to the
physics. In cases with very strong unsteady effects within the flow field the solution algorithm does not
always converge to a steady solution.
While the first two points are associated with the user’s attitude and personal disposition the remaining
points refer to the question of experience and training.
A formal management Quality Assurance (QA) system with checklists can help to support the inexpe-
rienced user to produce quality CFD simulations. It has been noted by Roache [1998], however, that a
CFD project can meet all formal QA requirements and still be of low quality (or flatly erroneous). On
the other hand high quality work can be done without a formal QA system.
The guidelines given below provide examples of the sorts of issues that should be dealt with in a for-
mal QA management system. The issues covered are based on the process of carrying out a CFD
simulation as outlined in chapter 2.
¾ Produce plots of parameters that are relevant to the physical understanding of the flow (such as
pressure fields, velocities, entropy, losses, wall shear stresses, regions of reverse flow, etc.), and
also of parameters that might help in the interpretation of the quality of the simulation (such as the
ratio of turbulent to laminar viscosity, grid skewness, grid aspect ratio, residuals, etc.).
¾ Don’t be seduced into believing that the solution is correct just because it has converged and pro-
duced high-quality colour plots (or even seductive video presentations) of the CFD simulations.
Make sure that an elementary interpretation of the flow-field explains the fluid behaviour and that
the trends of the flow analysis can be reconciled with a simple view of the flow.
¾ Be aware of the possible errors from bugs in the pre- and post-processors (interpolation, extrapo-
lation, averaging, etc.). Make sure that the mean values of engineering parameters derived from
the simulation are computed consistently (e.g. mass-average values, area-average values, time-
average values). Calculation of local and mean engineering parameters with external post-
processing software may be inconsistent with the solution method of the code used (e.g. calculat-
ing shear stresses from the velocities, calculating shear stresses using nodal values instead of
wall functions). Check that any test data used for comparison with the simulations is also com-
puted in the same way as the data from the simulation.
¾ Consider whether the interpretation of the results, and any decisions made on the basis of them,
are within the accuracy of the computation.
Depending on the CFD software, additional training on grid generation may be advisable.
The size and complexity of large CFD software packages inevitably mean that code errors (bugs) may
still be present in the software even if it has been in use and development for many years. For an illu-
minating description of some errors that were unobserved for many years, see Roache [1998]. He
quotes an example where a Fortran code used the symbol MACH for Mach number, which is auto-
matically interpreted as an integer. The mistake went undiscovered as all of the validation and verifica-
tion cases were for integer values of the Mach number!
The painstaking but straightforward process of verification provides a means of checking that the code
faithfully reproduces the model approximations incorporated in the algorithms being programmed. The
main problem associated with code verification is that the accuracy of a code can never be formally
demonstrated for all possible conditions and applications, and for all possible combinations of valid
code input options. In fact it can never be proven that a code is correct in that sense, as at any time a
new bug may be found.
CFD validation is undertaken by systematic comparison of CFD results to reliable and appropriate ex-
perimental data or algebraic solutions, when available. This is a highly time-consuming process, as it
requires careful selection of suitable experimental data, assessment of its accuracy, careful and sys-
tematic simulation of the test case and analysis of the results. Verification is limited to simple test
cases likely to be performed by code developers. In industrial flows verification, validation and calibra-
tion, as defined in chapter 2, cannot be entirely separated.
• The cases should be selected to show each of following important physical effects: strong swirl,
heat transfer, flow in rotating components (turbomachinery), compressible flow, and unsteady
flow.
• The cases should individually show two or three of the following effects of relevance to the best
practice guidelines: numerical errors, grid dependency, spatial discretisation, temporal discretisa-
tion convergence, turbulence model, wall function, application uncertainty (boundary conditions
and geometry).
• The test cases should include some comparison with experimental data or to an analytic solution.
Various code vendors and code developers offered a selection of test cases for inclusion in these
guidelines. From discussions at the workshop, and in accordance with the conditions outlined above, a
selection from the various test cases was made. It is important to note that the presence of an exam-
ple from a particular code vendor in a particular application area is not intended to provide any en-
dorsement of the acceptability of the code for this particular purpose. Likewise, the absence of an ex-
ample from a particular code vendor in a certain application area provides no statement on the unsuit-
ability of the code for this particular application.
The literature references which are of direct relevance to the specific test case are given at the end of
the test case, but references of a more general nature are given in chapter 13.
9.2.1. Introduction
The purpose of this example is to demonstrate the effects of the order of temporal discretisation. A
first-order scheme (Euler Implicit) is compared with a second-order scheme (Crank-Nicholson). This
example substantiates the best practices described in section 3.6.
Additionally, the effects of the order of spatial discretisation are illustrated on the same case. A first-
order scheme is compared with the second-order scheme above using Crank-Nicholson temporal dis-
cretisation. This example illustrates the points in section 3.5.
A perfectly circular scalar "bubble" is initially positioned at the bottom left of a square domain, in a
fixed constant velocity field directed at 45 degrees towards the top right of the domain. The bubble cir-
cular shape should be preserved as it convects across the mesh. The ability of the numerical scheme
to preserve this perfectly circular shape is a function on the temporal and spatial order of discretisa-
tion. High temporal accuracy is important for any applications which rely on time-dependent propaga-
tion phenomena, such as pressure pulses, and especially when the propagation occurs across mesh
lines, as with vortical flow structures. Therefore, applications such as acoustic analyses or large-eddy
simulation (LES) rely on higher-order capabilities or else the discretisation practice will introduce un-
physical effects (phase change, or distorted eddies) which may be indistinguishable from the true
physics. High spatial accuracy is necessary to preserve the sharpness of bubble interface.
The 2-dimensional domain extends 3m x 3m, the left and bottom faces of which are defined as inlet
boundaries at u = v = 0.5m/s. The top and right faces are defined as outlets.
9.2.5. Results
The results of the simulations with different temporal and spatial resolutions are shown in Figure 1. In
Case 1, (row 1) it is noticeable that the shape of the bubble distorts; it becomes elongated on the
propagation direction, and the interface becomes smeared in this direction. This is a feature of lower-
order temporal discretisation.
In contrast, Case 2 (row 2) preserves the shape of the bubble (higher-order temporal discretisation) by
smearing the bubble interface. This is a feature of lower-order spatial discretisation.
Finally, Case 3 (row 3) retains the shape and the sharpness of the bubble.
9.2.6. Conclusions
The importance of higher order temporal and spatial discretisation for preservation of the phase and
sharpness of a propagating flow features has been demonstrated. The first-order method distorts and
smears, whereas the second-order method preserves phase and sharpness. This example also illus-
trates the strong coupling between spatial and temporal discretisation. For accurate solutions in time
dependent calculations it is necessary to use higher-order discretisation in both time and space.
Figure 1: Evolution of the scalar bubble for different temporal and spatial discretisations.
Upper row: 1st order temporal, 2nd order spatial discretisation.
Middle row: 2nd order temporal, 1st order spatial discretisation.
Lower row: 2nd order temporal, 2nd order spatial discretisation.
9.3.1. Introduction
This case is related to the isothermal swirling flow developing in a T-junction between a high Reynolds
number main pipe and an auxiliary pipe at very small and zero mass flow rates. The motivation is to
understand and model the hydraulic behaviour of various auxiliary lines connected to the primary cir-
cuit of Pressurised Water Reactors. Experimental data have been obtained on a hydraulic mock-up
using flow visualisation and particle image velocimetry (PIV). They show an helicoidal (corkscrew) flow
extending along the auxiliary pipe.
This case illustrates the importance of the choice of the turbulence model k-ε eddy viscosity model
and a Reynolds stress turbulence model) for computing this type of swirling flow and a grid depend-
ency study shows the determining influence of the mesh refinement on the quality of the results.
VA R = 50 mm
2000 mm
VM
outlet Main pipe (inlet)
100 mm
500 mm
1500 mm
R = 130 mm
100 mm
At the inlets (main pipe and auxiliary pipe), Dirichlet conditions are used for all variables. In the main
pipe, the incoming flow is fully developed. Hence, the mean velocity and turbulent quantities were ob-
tained from preliminary periodic pipe computations with the same bulk velocity and the same cross-
section. For the auxiliary pipe, due to the very small flow-rates, it is not necessary to describe so accu-
Flow rates and corresponding bulk velocities are given in Table 1. Note that the bulk flow rate remains
constant and the auxiliary flow rate varies from zero to 1% of the bulk flow rate. At the outlet (main
pipe), zero gradient conditions were applied for all transported variables. Wall functions were used at
solid walls.
9.3.3. Grid
The equations are discretized on a 3D semi-staggered grid. Velocity is located at the vertices and
pressure is cell-centred. When the k-ε model is used, the turbulent variables are located at the verti-
ces, whereas they are cell-centred with the Reynolds stress model. The mesh is single block struc-
tured in Cartesian orthogonal coordinates. Curved boundaries are represented by special features of
the code which enables the treatment of slanted boundary cells (prisms, tetrahedrons, etc.).
A grid dependence study has been carried out with meshes of 100 000, 400 000, and 1 500 000
nodes for each turbulence model and each auxiliary mass flow rate considered (except for zero mass
flow rate, for which only the finest grid has been used). Aspect ratios (ratio of the longest to the small-
est edge in each cell) have been kept approximately between 1 and 2.
The fluid is incompressible and its viscosity is ν = 1.03 10-6 m2/s. The corresponding Reynolds number
based on the main pipe bulk velocity and the diameter of the auxiliary pipe is 895 000.
Default initial conditions implemented in the code have been used for each simulation.
The flow investigated being unsteady, the convergence had to be determined from time averages.
Hence, once the vortical motion was fully established, time average values of the variables were esti-
mated in the dead leg. The vortex penetration was then determined by visualising secondary veloci-
ties. The calculations were stopped once the value for the mean vortex penetration was stabilised.
9.3.5. Results
Figure 2 compares the length of vortex penetration obtained by numerical simulation with experimental
measurements. The length of the vortex penetration has been determined numerically by visualising
the time-averaged velocity field obtained in different planes of the dead leg. This method is consistent
The prediction of the vortex penetration in the dead leg using Reynolds stress model on the finest
mesh is in very good agreement with the experiments. The differences between medium and fine
meshes illustrate the necessity to use very fine grids with the Reynolds stress model. It might be nec-
essary to perform yet another simulation on an even finer mesh to achieve full grid independence.
With the k-ε model, on the contrary, the computed vortex penetration is not satisfactory, even on the
finest mesh. Moreover, the very small difference between the results obtained on medium and fine
meshes indicates that the use of even more refined meshes would be unlikely to bring significant im-
provement.
H/D 10
Experimental
2
0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 VA/VM (%)
Figure 2: Length of vortex penetration for different flow rates in the auxiliary pipe.
Comparison between Reynolds stress model (SMC) and k-ε model.
Coarse, medium and fine meshes have been used.
Figure 3 presents the rotation velocity at different sections in the auxiliary pipe obtained by both nu-
merical and experimental simulations. According to tests by Robert [1992], the strength of the rotation
velocity in the auxiliary line is very sensitive to geometric details of the T-junction. Small differences
between the mock-up geometry and the numerical mesh could generate differences on the rotation
velocity. To validate independently the vortex decay in the auxiliary line, numerical and experimental
results are compared using dimensionless quantities. The rotation velocities obtained from numerical
and experimental simulations are scaled by the corresponding rotation velocities near to the T-junction
taken at H/D = 3. Using Reynolds stress model, the vortex decay is very close to the experimental re-
sult, whereas it is overestimated with the k-ε model.
k-ε
0.75
Experimental
0.50
0.25
0.00
2 4 6 8 10
H/D
Figure 3: Maximum of rotation velocity scaled by the corresponding value at the section H/D=3.
Comparison between Reynolds stress model (SMC), k-ε results and experimental data.
Figures 4 and 5 help to visualise the flow features. They represent the vortex penetration in the dead
leg for VA/VM = 0.25 % (k-ε model and RSTM respectively). The positive vertical velocity component is
displayed in black and the negative in grey: black trajectories represent fluid particles coming from the
main pipe and grey trajectories represent the fluid particles coming from the top of the auxiliary pipe.
Velocity vectors are plotted at three different sections of the auxiliary pipe H/D=2, 5 and 7 from the re-
sults of fine, medium and coarse meshes.
H/D= 9
H/D= 7
H/D= 5
H/D=3
Vm
Figure 4: k-ε model prediction of vortex penetration in the dead leg: VA/VM = 0.25 %.
H/D= 9
H/D= 7
H/D= 5
H/D=3
Vm
Figure 5 : Reynolds stress model prediction of vortex penetration in the dead leg: VA/VM = 0.25 %.
9.3.6. Conclusions
Numerical calculations performed on the T-junction with coarse (100 000), medium (400 000) and fine
(1 500 000) meshes were used to test the influence of the grid. The results illustrate that a thorough
mesh refinement is necessary before trying to draw conclusions from any numerical simulation. In-
deed, on too coarse a mesh, results from the Reynolds stress model might turn out to be significantly
worse than those obtained with a k-ε model.
The numerical results obtained with the Reynolds stress turbulence model on the finest mesh confirm
the presence of the swirling flow structure observed experimentally in the dead leg. On the other hand,
with the k-ε eddy viscosity model, the vortical penetration in the dead leg is not satisfactorily repro-
duced. This demonstrates that Reynolds stress modelling might be a very interesting alternative to
less sophisticated turbulence models, such as the k-ε model, especially to capture swirling flows.
9.3.7. References
Mattéi J.D., Simonin O., "Logiciel (1993), “Reference manual : ESTET - Manuel théorique de la
version 3.1 - Tome 1 - Modélisation physiques" , EDF report HE-44/92/038/A.
Deutsch E., Montanari P., Mallez C. (1997), "Isothermal study of the flow at the junction between
an auxiliary line and primary circuit of pressurised water reactors", Journal of hydraulic Research Vol.
35, No. 6, 799-811.
Robert M. (1992), "Corkscrew flow pattern in piping system dead legs", NURETH-5, September,
Salt Lake City, USA.
9.4.1. Introduction
The test case chosen is the computation of the steady-state, natural convection flow of a compressible
fluid (air) in a square cavity, with differentially heated vertical walls. It is customary to assume incom-
pressible flow (the local Mach numbers are extremely low), constant flow properties and to model
buoyancy forces with the so-called Boussinesq approximation (Gray and Giorgini, [1976]). Under this
• the effect of the flow model on the heat transfer results (modelling errors);
• the grid-sensitivity of results (numerical errors).
9.4.3. Grids
The grids used consist of a series of structured quadrilateral meshes, slightly clustered near the solid
boundaries where stronger gradients occur. In order to conduct a grid-convergence study, the follow-
ing meshes were used: 20x20, 40x40, 80x80, and 160x160.
The numerical scheme used for the computations is an elliptic finite element solver based on an as-
ymptotic approximation of the Navier-Stokes equations at low Mach numbers in which the pressure is
split into an average time-dependent thermo-dynamic pressure which obeys the perfect gas law, and a
hydrodynamic fluctuation pressure which obeys a Poisson pressure equation just as for incompressi-
ble flow. The discretisation is based on bilinear quadrilateral elements (Galerkin method), and the so-
lutions are obtained by time-marching to steady state using a time-accurate scheme.
Ref. In-
ε=0.01 20x20 40x40 80x80 160x160 comp.
Sol.
<Nu> 8.379 8.760 8.822 8.832 8.826
(5%) (0.7%) (<0.1%) (<0.1%)
Nu_min 1.018 0.982 0.981 0.981 0.979
(4%) (0.3%) (0.2%) (<0.2%)
Nu_max 15.046 16.999 17.433 17.510 17.536
(14%) (3%) (0.6%) (<0.2%)
Table 1: Heat transfer results for ε = 0.01 case; grid convergence study and comparison with refer-
ence solutions; the figures in brackets represent the relative error with respect to Le Quéré et al.
[1985].
The grid convergence study shows that the solution varies sensibly up to the 80x80 mesh, and very lit-
tle when the mesh is refined further (see Fig. 1). Thus, one can assume that the solution on the
160x160 mesh is nearly grid converged. For that solution, the results are in close agreement (relative
error in heat transfer of the order of 0.2%) with reference solutions found in the literature, which corre-
spond to incompressible flow models with the Boussinesq approximation. Thus, discrepancies be-
tween the solutions computed on the coarse meshes and the reference solutions can be attributed to
numerical errors, stemming from the use of too coarse meshes or excessively dissipative schemes.
On the other hand, on fine enough meshes, the incompressible flow models and the more general low
Mach number compressible flow models yield extremely close results (and within the band of refer-
ence solutions). Thus, for small temperature differences, the modelling errors (errors due to the choice
of flow model) are negligible compared to numerical errors.
Table 2 shows the grid converged heat transfer results obtained on the fine mesh (160x160) (validated
against other compressible solvers by Paillère et al., [1999]), alongside the reference incompressible
flow results. Note that the average Nusselt number has remained almost constant (as was observed in
Chenoweth et al., [1986], Le Quéré et al., [1992] and Paillère et al., [1999]). However, the minimum
and maximum Nusselt numbers are substantially different, as may be observed from the distribution
plots in Fig. 2, which display a noticeable non-symmetric character attributed to compressibility effects.
The maximum local Mach number in the flow was found to be of the order of 3.4 x10-4 . Relative errors
in heat transfer prediction between the compressible and the incompressible flow models are of the
order of 5%.
Thus, for large temperature differences, the incompressible flow model with Boussinesq approximation
and the low Mach number compressible flow model yield substantially different results. The difference
can be attributed to modelling errors, as it is known (but unfortunately often forgotten) that the former
model is only valid for small temperature differences in Gray et al. [1976].
9.4.6. Conclusions
This example illustrates two sources of error that can affect a CFD simulation, numerical error due to
insufficient grid refinement and modelling error due to inappropriate choice of flow model. When ana-
lysing flow with heat transfer and very low Mach numbers, care must be used in the choice of flow
model (i.e extremely low Mach does not imply incompressible flow), and grid-sensitivity assessed by
comparing results on grids of different size.
9.4.7. References
Chenoweth, D. and Paolucci, S. (1986), “Natural Convection in an Enclosed Vertical Layer with
Large Temperature Differences”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 169, pp. 173-210.
Gray, D.D. and Giorgini, A., (1976) “The Validity of the Boussinesq Approximation for Liquids and
Gases”, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol. 15, pp. 545-551, 1976
Le Quéré, P., Masson, R. and Perrot, P. (1992), “A Chebyshev Collocation Algorithm for 2D Non-
Boussinesq Convection”, J. Comput. Phys., 57, pp. 320-335.
Le Quéré, P. and Alziary de Roquefort, T. (1985), “Computation of Natural Convection in Two-
dimensional Cavities with Chebyshev Polynomials”, J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 57, pp.210-228.
Paillère, H. and Magnaud, J.P. (1998), “A Finite Element Elliptic Flow Solver for Low Mach Number
Compressible Flows”, pp. 419-424, Proc. 10th Int. Conf. on Finite Elements in Fluids, Tucson, Arizona,
January 5-8, 1998.
Paillère, H., Viozat, C., Kumbaro, A. and Toumi, I. (1999), “Comparison of Low Mach Number
Models for Natural Convection Problems”, EUROTHERM Seminar No. 63 ‘Single and Two-Phase
Natural Circulation`, Genoa, Italy, 6-8 September 1999
20
15
Nu(y) 10
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
y/L
15
Nu(y) 10
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
y/L
9.5.1. Introduction
The test case has been included to provide information about heat transfer at flow re-attachment, and
to compare predictions with mean flow and turbulence experimental data in a spreading shear layer.
The focus of the presented work is the sensitivity of the results to mesh errors and the accuracy of the
turbulence model applied for global predictions of the flow-field and heat transfer. Results are pre-
sented for the k-ε turbulence model with wall functions. In addition, a modification to the turbulence
model is suggested to improve prediction of heat transfer in a region of flow re-attachment.
The geometry of the test problem is a sudden pipe expansion, as illustrated in Figure 1. Turbulent flow
approaching the expansion from the inlet pipe separates at the step corner forming a shear layer
which finally attaches to the larger pipe wall at a distance downstream of the expansion. A recirculat-
ing region of flow is contained between the shear layer, step and larger pipe wall and a secondary re-
circulation is set up in the corner. In the heat transfer experiments, a constant heat flux was applied to
the larger pipe side wall, the other walls being insulated, and the inlet flow was at uniform temperature.
The experimental data of Szczepura [1985], and Baughn et. al [1984] were used as control data for
the velocity and thermal fields respectively.
Figures 3 show the variation at inlet for the velocity, turbulence energy and turbulence viscosity
(µeff=k1/2l, l is the length scale Cµk3/2/ε). This corresponds to a Reynolds number, based on the centre-
line speed and downstream pipe diameter, of 892000.
9.5.3. Grid
The mesh design as a layout of blocks or patches is shown in Figure 2. The grid design is parametric,
in that the parameter N controls the number of elements in both directions for each patch, as de-
scribed in Table 1, which also indicates the squeeze factors chosen. The squeeze factor shown pro-
vides the ratio of the dimension of an element in one direction in relation to its neighbour. Additionally,
to preserve the thickness of the wall element, a constant thickness layer of 0.005m is positioned next
to the walls. Table 2 gives the number of elements in each mesh. Each element consists of eight
nodes, with four corner and four mid-side nodes.
The standard high-Reynolds number k-ε turbulence model is solved using the q-f formulation (Smith
[1984]). Constant values are supplied for Cµ (0.09) c1ε (1.44) and c2ε (1.92).
Wall functions are assumed. The effective viscosity required to provide the log-law of the wall for the
tangential velocity is supplied to obtain all velocity components in the near wall element. The turbu-
lence variables are obtained by assuming a constant shear stress normal to the wall. The length scale
correlation l=Cµ1/4κy, where y is the distance normal to the wall, is reproduced in equilibrium boundary
layers, but when conditions deviate from this transport effects are also incorporated.
For the thermal energy equation, turbulent thermal fluxes are represented by an effective conductivity,
kT=Cpµt/σT, where σT is the turbulent Prandtl number. In the wall element, similarity between boundary
layers for velocity and temperature is assumed via the Jayatilleke function (Jayatilleke [1969]).
Separate calculations are also undertaken with the assumption that the turbulent length scale can
grow at a maximum rate of 0.25×y, where y is the wall distance. This improves the prediction of heat
transfer in flow re-attachment regions, as shown in the results section.
To solve, initial values are first provided for the turbulence speed, q, and length scale, l. These deter-
mine the eddy viscosity, to enable a single Newton-Raphson iteration of the Reynolds averaged Na-
vier-Stokes (RANS) equations. The turbulence variables are then updated, by a series of Newton-
Raphson iterations of the q and f equations. These values are relaxed with previous values to obtain
an eddy viscosity to plug into the RANS equations. This process is cycled until the maximum change
divided by the range for all variables, between successive cycles, is less than 0.003
9.5.5. Results
Results showing the sensitivity of the simulation to mesh errors are analysed first, followed by results
addressing turbulence modelling issues.
Two reference points are chosen to demonstrate sensitivity of axial velocity and effective viscosity to
mesh errors, point R1 located at x=0.05, r=0.25, and point R2, at x=1.0, R=0.1. The maximum Nusselt
number was also found on each mesh. Table 3 shows values of the axial velocity at point R2, effective
viscosity at point R1 and maximum Nusselt number on each of the meshes. It can be shown from
these values that the error relative to the solution on the N=16 grid decays with the fourth order of the
grid size (N4), which is consistent with the fourth order accuracy of the solution method being used.
The wiggles produced from the high order numerical scheme were analysed to indicate mesh errors;
the wiggle size is proportional to mesh Reynolds number. The maximum local error indicated on the
N=4 mesh is 38%, it is 12% on the N=8 mesh and 3% on the N=16 mesh. Average errors are much
smaller than this. The location of maximum error is near the corner.
Figures 4 and 5 show centre-line profiles of the turbulence energy and mean axial velocity in compari-
son with experimental values (calculated without the length scale limiter). The predictions give rea-
sonable agreement with experiment for the gross features in the flow, apart from in the re-circulation
region, where turbulence levels are significantly under-predicted, and near the centre-line edge of the
shear layer, due to the poor prediction of the spreading rate of the shear layer. The global features of
the flow prediction are not very sensitive to the use of the length scale limiter.
9.5.6. Conclusions
The finite element scheme used in this example makes use of quadratic basis functions and this pro-
vides a fourth order accurate numerical scheme. The results demonstrate that the mesh errors de-
crease with the fourth order of the mesh spacing or grid size (N4).
The standard k-ε turbulence model used seriously overestimates the heat transfer in a reattachment
region by a factor of 2. A length scale limiting device is essential to provide a reasonable prediction of
heat transfer in flow re-attachment regions. The predictions give reasonable agreement with experi-
ment for the gross features in the flow, apart from in the re-circulation region, where turbulence levels
are significantly under-predicted, and near the centre-line edge of the shear layer, due to the poor
prediction of the spreading rate of the shear layer.
9.5.7. References
FEAT User Guide Version 3.1.0 (1997), Nuclear Technology Branch, British Energy, Barnett Way,
Barnwood, Gloucester, GL4 3RS
Szczepura, R.T. (1985), “Flow characteristics of an axisymmetric sudden pipe expansion: results
obtained from the turbulence studies rig. Part 1, Mean and turbulence velocity results”, CEGB Report
TPRD/B/0702/N85.
Baughn, J.W., Hoffman, M.A., Takahashi, R.K., and Launder, B.E. (1984), “Local heat transfer
downstream of an abrupt expansion in a circular channel with constant heat flux”, J. Heat Transfer
106.
Smith, R.M. (1984), “A practical method of two-equation turbulence modelling using finite-
elements”, Int.J.Num.Meth.Fluids, 4, 1984, pp. 321-336.
Jayatilleke, C.L.V. (1969), “The influence of Prandtl number and surface roughness on the resis-
tance of the laminar sublayer to momentum and heat transfer”, Prog in Heat and Mass Transfer, 1,
Pergamon Press.
Ince, N.Z and Launder, B.E. (1995), “Three-dimensional and heat-loss effects on turbulent flow in a
nominally two-dimensional cavity”, Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, 16, pp. 171-177.
Table 3: Values of axial velocity, effective viscosity and maximum Nusselt number on the various
meshes
X=6.0
Centre
line
X=3.0
X=0.05
X=-0.25
Step corner,
x=0.0, r=0.257
4 7 10
R=0.4
3 6 9
R=.257
1 2 5 8
R=0
1.20E+00
1.00E+00
8.00E-01
radius
6.00E-01
4.00E-01
2.00E-01
0.00E+00
0.00E+00 6.00E-02 1.20E-01 1.80E-01 2.40E-01
0.01
0.009
0.008
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
radius
turbulent viscosity
7.00E-04
6.00E-04
5.00E-04
4.00E-04
3.00E-04
2.00E-04
1.00E-04
0.00E+00
0.00E+0 5.00E-02 1.00E-01 1.50E-01 2.00E-01 2.50E-01 3.00E-01
0 radius
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
Exp k
0.02
k
Pred k
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0 1 2 3
Axial Location
1.2
0.8
Axial Velocity
Exp U
0.6
Pred U
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3
Axial Location
9.6.1. Introduction
The purpose of this example is further to illustrate the effects of spacial discretisation. Two formally
second-order accurate schemes are demonstrated. The first uses a gradient-based advection scheme
which can be termed 2nd-order Upwind Differencing, and the second is a similar scheme based on a
more compressive monotone advection algorithm. The first scheme essentially uses a compact stencil
as a result of the upwinding practice that it employs while the more compressive scheme uses a wider
stencil and therefore it resembles a gradient-based central differencing scheme. This example is used
further to illustrate spatial discretisation practices described in section 3.5
The RAE2822 airfoil, Mach 0.731 at 2.51 degrees incidence and a Reynolds Number of 6.5 x106, is a
well known benchmark exhibiting supersonic expansion and shock compression. Predictions of the
In such cases which contain rapid expansions (leading edge suction) and compression (suction sur-
face shock), non-compressive schemes have the effect of smearing the high-gradient features. There-
fore, the prediction of critical parameters, such as lift, are adversely affected. Compressive discretisa-
tion practices are necessary.
Upstream conditions are defined as Mach 0.731 at 2.51 degrees to the airfoil chord.
9.6.3. Grid
In Figure 1 the computational mesh is shown. It contains 12288 cells, using a C-grid construction with
192 cells wrapped around the airfoil (128 of which are on the surface) and 64 in normal to surface di-
rection spaced appropriately to enable a low Reynolds number turbulence model to be used (see sec-
tion 4.3.3). For this grid, y+ for the near-wall cells range between 1.5 and 5.0, the higher part of the
range occurring around the suction peak.
9.6.5. Results
The figures 2 and 3 below show the Cp (Pressure coefficient) distribution on the airfoil surface, Mach
number and near-surface mesh distributions. The compressive scheme captures well the high leading
edge suction gradient and upper surface shock. In contrast the low-compression scheme positions the
shock correctly, but fails to capture the sharpness of both the leading edge suction and the shock. The
effect is to underpredict the upper surface suction, and reduce the predicted level of lift. In both cases,
drag is overpredicted. The two-equation eddy-viscosity k-ε model is known to overpredict turbulence
viscosity (section 4.4.1).
CL(lift) CD(drag)
Non-compressive 0.693 0.0279
Compressive 0.733 0.0184
Experiment 0.743 0.0127
9.6.6. Conclusions
In this example, non-compressive and compressive disretisation practices have been employed to
predict the flow around an RAE2822 airfoil, and results compared with experimental data. The com-
pressive scheme has been shown to be necessary for capturing sharp flow gradients such as leading
edge suction and shock compression.
9.6.7. References
Cooke P., McDonald, M. & Firmin, M. (1979), "Airfoil RAE2822 - Pressure Distribution and Bound-
ary Layer Wake Measurements", AGARD AR-138.
-1.5
-1.0
Cp
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
chord
Figure 2: Pressure distribution on the surface of the airfoil for the compressive scheme.
-1.0
Cp
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
chord
Figure 3: Pressure distribution on the surface of the airfoil for the non-compressive scheme.
9.7.1. Introduction
The fluid flow inside an automobile engine cylinder is important for combustion efficiency and engine
performance. Understanding this flow is crucial in the design of the cylinder, the valve, and the inlet
port. This example has been included to show the effects of boundary condition uncertainty, discreti-
sation and convergence level in a realistic three-dimensional industrial geometry where important re-
circulation phenomena occur. The geometry and problem set-up for this case refers to the experimen-
tal study of a generic model engine valve (Chen et al, [1995]) in which a mixture of liquid phase tur-
pentine and tetraline was used to represent the working fluid.
9.7.3. Grid
A tetrahedral grid with 176461 cells, was used. The concentration of cells is higher in the vicinity of the
valve, due to the complexity of the flow in this region. The maximum skewness of the cells is 0.875.
Skewness is defined as (Optimal-Cell-Size – Cell Size)/(Optimal-Cell-Size) where optimal-cell-size is
the size of an equilateral cell with the same circumradius. According to this definition of skewness, a
The Reynolds number based on the diameter of the inlet port is Re = 24 970. The RNG k−ε turbulence
model with standard wall functions was employed in the calculation. The first order discretisation
scheme was used for momentum and turbulence equations. The calculation was then repeated with
second order discretisation to illustrate sensitivity to the discretisation method. All the variables were
initialised with a zero value prior to calculation. Results have been produced at two levels of conver-
gence to illustrate its impact on accuracy.
9.7.5. Results
For each of the best practice issues, figures have been produced in which FLUENT predictions can be
compared with experimental data. The plots show the velocity component in z direction at two different
values of the z co-ordinate. Plots are also shown for turbulent viscosity (although no experimental
data is available for this quantity). Where ‘best practice’ is applied the predicted velocities are seen to
be in good agreement with the measurements from Chen et al. [1995].
Z
X
Y
• Discretisation Method
Calculations were performed using both first and second order discretisation. The predicted velocity
profiles obtained in both cases are compared with experimental measurement in figures 2 and 3. It
can be seen that the second order scheme yields results that are in slightly closer agreement with the
experimental data points. However, for this application it would appear that the accuracy of the first
order results might be sufficient for most engineering purposes.
-2.00e-01
-4.00e-01
-6.00e-01
Z -8.00e-01
Velocity
[m/s] -1.00e+00
-1.20e+00
-1.40e+00
-1.60e+00
-0.025 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Y Position [m]
1st order
2nd order
measurements
1.50e+00
1.00e+00
5.00e-01
Z 0.00e+00
Velocity
[m/s]
-5.00e-01
-1.00e+00
-1.50e+00
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Y Position [m]
The iterative calculation was monitored and stopped when the ‘maximum residual’ value had fallen to
1.0E-2 and overall mass imbalance was 1.4%. [‘residual’ is defined in this case as the error associated
with the discretised equation, summed over all computational cells and normalised by the sum of the
centre coefficients of the equation. The term ‘maximum’ refers to the ‘residual’ for the transport equa-
tion showing the largest ‘residual’ value.] The situation described above represents the ‘not converged’
result shown in figures 4 and 5.
Further iterations were then performed to obtain the ‘fully converged’ result shown in figures 4 and 5.
Full convergence was deemed to have occurred when there was no further noticeable change in the
monitored variables, ‘maximum residual’ value was at 1.0E-5 and overall mass imbalance had fallen to
0.002%.
Figures 4 and 5 clearly show the error that can result if the user relies on an insufficiently converged
solution.
not converged
fully converged
measurements
1.50
1.00
0.50
Z 0.00
Velocity
(m/s)
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-0.040 -0.020 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080
Y
Z X
Position (m)
As already noted, no experimental data on inlet turbulence intensity was available. To examine the ef-
fect of this uncertainty two cases with different values of turbulence intensity were compared. The
comparison has been carried out by using the code’s default value of 10% in the first case and 1% in
the second case. The velocity plots in Figures 6 and 7 show the results.
For this application the assumption about inlet turbulence intensity is seen to have negligible effect on
the predicted velocity field down stream of the narrow valve opening. However, other transported
quantities are affected. This can be seen in figure 8 where predicted turbulent viscosity is compared
for the two cases.
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
Z -0.80
Velocity
(m/s) -1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
-0.025 -0.020 -0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Y
Z X
Position (m)
9.7.6. Conclusions
This example has illustrated the effects of discretisation, level of convergence and boundary condition
uncertainty on the quality of CFD prediction.
It has been shown that the use of a second order scheme can yield more accurate results than those
obtained using first order methods. However, in this particular application, the difference is very small
and might not warrant the additional computational expense.
The study of convergence error has clearly illustrated the need to ensure a properly converged solu-
tion and shows that unconverged solutions can be very misleading.
The effect of boundary condition uncertainty has also been demonstrated. For this application it has
been shown that uncertainty about inlet turbulence levels does not have any significant impact on the
quality of velocity predictions within the system. However, other transported quantities have been
shown to be more sensitive.
9.7.7. References
Chen, A., Lee, K.C., Yianneskis, M., and Ganti, G. (1995), “Velocity Characteristics of Steady Flow
Through a Straight Generic Inlet Port”, International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, 21:571-
590.
1.00
0.50
Z 0.00
Velocity
(m/s)
-0.50
-1.00
-1.50
-0.030 -0.020 -0.010 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080
Y
Z X
Position (m)
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
Z -0.80
Velocity
(m/s) -1.00
-1.20
-1.40
-1.60
-0.025 -0.020 -0.015 -0.010 -0.005 0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020
Y
Z X
Position (m)
6.00e-02
5.00e-02
4.00e-02
Turbulent
Viscosity 3.00e-02
[kg/m-s]
2.00e-02
1.00e-02
0.00e+00
-0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Y Position [m]
9.8.1. Introduction
The prediction of the flow and performance in turbomachinery blading is one of the major uses of CFD
in industrial applications. The simulation given below demonstrates the use of CFD for a radial com-
pressor calculation, and highlights the important effects of mesh size, turbulence modelling, and the
geometric modelling of the clearance gap above the impeller vanes on both the flow and the perform-
ance predictions. The test case is the NASA Low Speed Centrifugal Compressor (LSCC), which is an
experimental facility designed to duplicate the essential flow physics of high speed subsonic centrifu-
gal compressor flow fields in a large size, low-speed machine. A complete description of the facility
can be found in Hathaway et al. [1993].
where Cµ=0.09. The ratio of the turbulent viscosity to the laminar viscosity is set to 10 whereas the
turbulent intensity Tu is set to 2%, these values being standard for turbulent internal flow computa-
tions. As in the experiments, the hub wall of the impeller is moving with the rotor blade, while the dif-
fuser hub is stationary. The whole shroud is stationary and all solid wall boundaries are set adiabatic.
Periodic conditions are enforced along the boundaries upstream and downstream of the impeller as
well as in the gap.
9.8.3. Grid
Three different H-grids, obtained with the auto-grid generation software IGG/AutoGrid of NUMECA,
are used. The first mesh, Mesh-1 consists of 49x61x129, 13x61x33 and 13x13x65 points, in the tan-
gential, radial and streamwise directions, for blocks 1, 2 and 3 respectively, resulting in 422,735 points
in total. Hence there are 13 lines over the gap height and 13 lines across the blade profile. The second
mesh, named Mesh-2 hereafter, has 61 points, instead of 49 in Mesh-1, over a pitch in Block 1 and 73
points, instead of 61 in Mesh-1, from hub to shroud in Blocks 1 and 2. The total grid number of Mesh-2
is 616,739.
Particular care has been taken in order to ensure sufficient resolution in the end walls and blade
boundary layers by controlling the position of the mesh points close to the solid surfaces. The grid lo-
cation near the blade surfaces for Mesh-1 and for Mesh-2 produces a y+ value for the first cell center
less than 1. A third mesh named Mesh-3, coarser than the two first counts 31x37x129, 13x37x33 and
13x17x65 points with in total 178201 mesh points. The y+ value at the first inner cell is about y+ =2.
9.8.5. Results
Table 1 lists the cases of CFD results presented in this report. There are three different meshes,
Mesh-1, Mesh-2 and Mesh-3, two different tip gap sizes, Design Gap and 50% Design Gap, and two
turbulence models, Baldwin-Lomax (B-L) and linear k-ε models.
In many radial compressor simulations there is some considerable uncertainty in the running tip clear-
ance of the blades, due to the effects of centrifugal and bending stresses in the blades, temperature
distortions of the casing and manufacturing tolerances. The sensitivity to these effects have been ex-
amined by running a single simulation with a smaller tip gap. For the design gap case, the gap height
is constant from the leading edge to the trailing edge while for the 50% design gap case the gap
height is linearly reduced from the design height at the leading edge to half of it at the trailing edge.
Figure 2 shows the effect of grid density, geometry and turbulence models on overall absolute total
pressure ratio. We notice that the CFD data obtained with the k-ε model on Mesh-2 is in excellent
agreement with the experimental data. For the coarser mesh, Mesh-1, the k-ε solution underpredicts
slightly the pressure ratio. Reducing the tip gap size by 50% at the trailing edge, the pressure ratio in-
creases about 0.4%. The computation on the coarse mesh Mesh-3 gives the lowest pressure ratio
prediction with an underestimation of about 1%.
The effect of turbulence model is shown at the design flow rate of 30 kg/s where the Baldwin-Lomax
model gives a lower pressure ratio than the k-ε model on Mesh-1 and Mesh-2, putting the calculated
operating point further away from the experiments.
Figure 3 presents grid density (Mesh-1 and Mesh-2) and geometry influence for the k-ε model at the
design flow rate. A comparison of reduced static pressure measured at six sections from 5% to 98%
span is shown. As seen, in all the computations, with different meshes and different gaps, apparent
difference in the predicted pressure at the spanwise sections can only be found downstream of the
mid-chord. The best agreement with the experimental data is obtained on the fine mesh, Mesh-2. The
98% spanwise distribution clearly shows an effect of gap size.
Figure 4 shows the effect of grid density, and turbulence model on the throughflow velocity at design
conditions. A comparisons of computed throughflow isolines and the experimental results at the ex-
perimental station 165 are presented. This station is located at 6% of meridional shroud length up-
stream of the impeller exit. The throughflow velocity is normalized with the exit tip speed. We observe
on Mesh-1 that the k-ε model reproduces better the isolines trend and in particular the location of the
maximum throughflow velocity near the suction side. As expected, the Mesh-2 computation gives bet-
ter results than those obtained on the coarser mesh, Mesh-1, showing the necessity to have sufficient
grid density in the spanwise and circumferential directions. This grid density effect is also seen from
the computation on Mesh-3 where the maximum velocity location is shifted towards the hub, showing
a flow pattern similar to the prediction of the Baldwin-Lomax model on Mesh-1.
9.8.6. Conclusions
The 3D viscous flow in the NASA LSCC impeller has been computed with different meshes, different
tip gap sizes, and different turbulence models to demonstrate the sensitivity of the simulations to these
effects. It is shown that compared to a low Reynolds k-ε turbulence model, the algebraic Baldwin-
Lomax turbulence model underpredicts the global pressure ratio and is not able to predict the flow pat-
tern with the same accuracy, showing the necessity to use precise turbulence models for quantitative
simulations in turbomachines. It is also shown that grid density in the spanwise and circumferential di-
rections play an important role in the accuracy of the global performance data such as the pressure ra-
tio as well as on local flow features. The sensitivity to the uncertainties in the geometry is demon-
strated by a 50% tip gap reduction where the gap height is linearly reduced from the design height at
the leading edge to half of it at the trailing edge. The tip gap reduction slightly increases the global
pressure ratio and affects the pressure distribution mainly on the pressure side near the shroud (in the
region where a tip leakage vortex could be expected to lie).
Figure 3: Effect of grid density and geometry on static pressure distribution at six sections from 5% to
98% span
(circle: experiments; Full line: Mesh2, Design Gap; Dashed line: Mesh1, Design gap; Dashed dotted
line: Mesh1, 50% gap)
Experiments
Figure 4: Comparisons of computed throughflow isolines with the experimental results at the station
located at 6% of meridional shroud length upstream of the impeller exit
9.9.1. Introduction
The selected test case involves the modelling of two-dimensional, turbulent flow in a model nuclear
reactor outlet plenum. Experimental results for this case were reported by Boyle and Golay (1983). It
features the following phenomena which are challenging for turbulence models:
The assumption of two-dimensionality allows the concepts of iteration, truncation, and solution (discre-
tization) error estimation, the assessment of boundary condition uncertainty and, ultimately, turbulence
model performance to be demonstrated within reasonable computing time and memory requirements.
The methods and algorithms used in this report can be directly transferred to three-dimensional appli-
cations.
Because of the symmetry of the geometry, inlet conditions, and data, the flow in one half of the ge-
ometry was simulated. A symmetry boundary condition was used along the centre line.
The steady-state inlet mass flow rate in the experiments of Boyle and Golay (1983) correspond to a
Reynolds number of 70000, based on chimney width, H. The inlet boundary conditions are compiled in
Table 1.
At the outlet, the average static pressure, P, was set to zero. The no-slip condition in conjunction with
the scalable wall function method developed by Grotjans and Menter (1998) was applied along all
solid walls.
9.9.3. Grid
A sequence of hexahedral numerical grids was used for the calculations. The finer grids were derived
from the coarse grids by successive division of the flux element sizes in the x - and y -direction.
Figure 2 shows the basic grid structure using the coarsest grid. Details on the grid size and quality of
all the grids are summarised in Table 2.
The standard k − ε turbulence model is used in this initial study. Future work will build on this first
component to investigate the performance of different turbulence models. However, as turbulence
model uncertainties stand at the end of the uncertainty chain, it is necessary to assess other sources
of uncertainties before being able to make any scientific statement on the turbulence model perform-
ance.
The first step in uncertainty or error quantification is to establish target quantities. The target quantities
are problem and case dependent. They can be whole fields, norms, or integrated quantities like
forces, or efficiencies. In this test case the target quantities are:
• The efficiency, η . Efficiencies are often very sensitive to changes in computational parameters,
making them good candidates for error and uncertainty analysis.
• Profiles of the normal velocity, V , at a line corresponding to y = 113.4 mm.
• Profiles of the turbulent kinetic energy, k , at a line corresponding to y = 113.4 mm.
In this test case, attention is focussed on the target quantity efficiency, η . The efficiency is defined as
the ratio of mass-averaged total pressure at the inlet to that at the outlet:
Pt , 2
η= .
Pt ,1
9.9.5. Results
Iteration Error
Iteration errors arise from insufficient convergence criteria. The convergence criterion used is that the
maximum normalized residual for the discrete momentum and mass conservation equations fall below
a specified value. It is up to the code user to ensure that this convergence criterion is sufficient. A pro-
cedure for determining if a convergence criteria is sufficient is demonstrated below. This procedure is
independent of the software used and also independent of the particular definition of the residuals
used for measuring convergence.
The procedure consists of monitoring target quantities as a function of the value of the given conver-
gence criteria. For this case, the efficiency, η , as the most sensitive target quantity, is used to deter-
mine the necessary convergence level. When η ceases to change with the value of the convergence
criterion, one can deem the solution to be converged.
Conv. Criteria η ∆η , %
-2
1x10 0.682 32.4
5x10-3 0.636 23.5
1x10-3 0.615 19.4
5x10-4 0.610 18.4
1x10-4 0.513 0.0
5x10-5 0.514 0.0
1x10-5 0.515 0.0
5x10-6 0.515 0.0
1x10-6 0.515 0.0
A detailed study has been done for Grid 1. Table 3 shows the efficiencies for a range of convergence
levels. The data show that a convergence criterion corresponding to a maximum normalized residual
of no more than 1x10-4 is necessary to reduce iteration errors to insignificant values. It is interesting
Table 4 shows the change in efficiencies for the other grids when going from a convergence criterion
of 1x10-3 to a convergence criterion of 1x10-6.
It must be emphasized, that different target quantities will generally have different convergence criteria
for arriving at the same iteration error. Efficiencies, which are associated with viscous losses, usually
require tougher convergence criteria than, for instance, pressure forces.
Truncation Error
Truncation, or round-off, errors should be checked to ensure that the accuracy of the chosen computer
is sufficient for the problem. Round-off errors can be quantified by performing the same calculation
with single and double precision executables and by comparing the results for the target quantities.
Table 5 shows the evolution of efficiencies predicted for a single and double precision version of the
code on Grid 3.
Both versions converge to the same result for this case. It is, however, evident that conclusions on the
influence of machine accuracy and round-off problems should only be made once the problem is suffi-
ciently well converged.
Solution Error
Solution error is defined as the difference between a solution on a grid with finite grid width and the
`exact' solution of the very same problem on a grid with infinitely small grid width. In most practical
cases the exact solution is not known. Hence solution error can only be estimated, see Roache
(1997). A method based on Richardson extrapolation is used in this report.
The first target quantity to which the solution error estimation method is applied, is the efficiency, η .
Table 6 shows the predicted efficiencies for the various grids as a function of the number of grid nodes
in the y -direction.
This solution error analysis indicates that a grid number of more than 140 is required for an assess-
ment of efficiency which is independent of the computational grid.
Figure 3 shows the velocity profiles at y = 113.4 mm. The calculated velocity profiles converge to a
single `grid-independent’ solution. The results obtained on Grids 3 and 4 are almost indistinguishable.
The agreement with data is satisfactory. Large discrepancies appear for the turbulent kinetic energy,
k, shown in Fig. 4. The standard k-ε turbulence model over predicts the level of turbulent kinetic en-
ergy because it is insensitive to streamline curvature. This problem will be addressed by application of
a second-moment closure turbulence model.
The results and analysis presented for this test case demonstrate a means for determining required
levels of convergence from a suitable convergence criteria. The application of an approach for esti-
mating solution error has been shown as a means for assessing the necessary grid resolution for grid
independence of a solution.
A basis for subsequent analysis of the performance of alternative turbulence models in predicting the
flow phenomena particular to this case has been established. Application of a second-moment closure
turbulence model will be reported in Scheuerer and Stokes (1999).
The list of possibilities for this work is very large, but specific examples with major industrial impact
might be taken from the following areas:
• External flows on airframes and wings.
• Turbomachinery component performance prediction.
• Heat transfer and cooling of gas turbine blades.
• Internal and external building flows.
• Pollutant dispersion problems.
• Automotive engine flows.
• Internal automotive cooling flows.
• External automotive flows.
• Internal flows for the power industry.
5
Calibration in this sentence refers to testing the ability of a CFD code to predict global quantities of
interest for specific geometries of engineering design interest (see definition in chapter 2) and not to
tuning the coefficients of a turbulence model, which cannot be recommended for a novice user.
¾ Particular care is needed with the specification of inlet mass flow as a boundary condition for
compressible flow-fields with supersonic regions, as the flow may be choked and unable to pass
the mass flow specified.
6
The CFL number is generally defined as CFL=∆t (v+a) / ∆x, where ∆t is the time step, ∆x the local
cell size, v the local velocity and a the sonic velocity. For incompressible flows computed with an in-
compressible solver, the CFL number is defined by CFL=∆t v / ∆x.
The production of the guidelines was organised by the Fluid Dynamics Laboratory of Sulzer Innotec,
Ltd. in a contract issued by the ERCOFTAC SIG (Special Interest Group) on Quality and Trust in In-
dustrial CFD. The major organisational and editorial work in association with the document and its
preparation was carried out by the project leader at Sulzer Innotec, Dr. Michael Casey, assisted by
Torsten Wintergerste.
The first version of the best practice guidelines was produced in May 1999 with major input from the
following persons: Dr. G. Scheuerer, Dr. F. Menter, Dr. J. Ferreira and Dr. S. Phillipson of AEA Tech-
nology, Dr. F. Mendonca of Computational Dynamics, Dr. M. Rabbitt of British Energy, Prof. M. A.
Leschziner of University of London, Prof. I. Castro of the University of Surrey, Dr. C. Lea of HSE, Dr.
S. Gilham of WSA, Dr. N. Hakimi of Numeca, Dr. P. Wild of Fluent and Dr. M. Casey, Dr. E Lang, Dr.
P. Holbein, Dr. M. Wehrli and T. Wintergerste of Sulzer Innotec.
The first version was reviewed and improved at a technical Workshop held in Zurich on June 21 and
22, 1999. The following invited persons were present, giving coverage of both academic and industrial
points of view from a range of applications, levels of experience, and European countries: Dr. M. Ca-
sey, Dr. E. Lang, Dr. P. Holbein, Dr. M. Wehrli, T. Wintergerste, Miss E. Wiederkehr of Sulzer Innotec,
Dr. E. Benz (ABB), Dr. J. Vos (EPFL), Prof. A. Hutton (DERA), Dr. C. Carey (Alstom), Dr. A. Kelsey
(HSE), Dr. N. Rhodes (Mott Macdonald), Dr. S. Gilham (WSA), Dr. P. Tucker (NAFEMS), Dr. P. An-
dreasson (Vattenfall Utveckling), Prof. Ch. Hirsch (VUB), Prof. W. Rodi (Karlsruhe), Dr. F. Klimetzek
(Daimler Chrysler Cars), Dr. W. Haase (Daimler Chrysler Aerospace), Dr. F. Archambeau (EDF), Dr.
H. Paillere (CEA), Dr. F. Mendonca (CD), Dr. S. Phillipson (AEA), Dr N. Hakimi (Numeca) and Dr. P.
Wild (Fluent). Many other persons offered their services for the workshop but could not take part either
because numbers were limited or because the date was unsuitable.
An interim version based on the input from the workshop was produced by Sulzer Innotec for final edit-
ing, with particularly high quality and helpful input to chapter 3 from Dr. Marc Wehrli (Sulzer Innotec)
and to chapter 4 from Prof. Tony Hutton (DERA). Helpful revisions to the interim version were received
from Dr. P. Andreasson (Vattenfall Utveckling), Dr. C. Lea and Dr. A. Kelsey (HSE), H.-D. Grein
(NEC), Dr. P. Holbein (Sulzer Innotec), Dr. H. Pailliere (CEA), Dr. M. Rabbitt (British Energy) Dr P.
Drtina and Dr. H. Keck (Sulzer Hydro), Prof. Ch. Hirsch (VUB), Prof. I. Castro (Surrey University), Prof.
W. Rodi (Karlsruhe University), Dr. W. Haase (Daimler Chrysler Aerospace), Dr. F. Archambeau and
Dr. N. Gay (EDF), Dr. S. Phillipson, Dr. G. Scheuerer and Dr. F. Menter (AEA).
A draft of the final version was prepared for the ERCOFTAC SIG meeting in Florence at the end of
October 1999. After this meeting, some additional revisions of the chapter on turbulence modelling
were received from Prof. Ian Castro, Dr. Georg Scheurer, Prof. Mike Leschziner and Prof. Tony
Hutton, and these were incorporated into the final version.
The test cases were calculated by the code vendors and code developers whose names appear in the
sections of chapter 9. Sulzer Innotec and the ERCOFTAC SIG extend many thanks to the manage-
ment and staff of the code developers and code vendors who have encouraged and supported the
work in this way. Individual thanks go to Dr. F. Mendonca, Dr. F. Archambeau, Dr. H. Pailliere, Dr. M.
Rabbitt, Dr. N. Hakimi, Dr. P. Wild, Dr. G. Scheuerer and Dr. J. Stokes