RANS Predictions of Junction Flow with
Localized Suction
1
Shakeel Ahmed, 2Dr A. Malik, 3Dr Khalid Parvez
1,2,3
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Institute of Space Technology
Islamabad, Pakistan
Abstract—Horseshoe vortex is a prominent feature in junction
flows which not only changes the local flow patterns but is also
responsible for aerodynamic loses in the region. In the past many
investigations using wind tunnels and CFD have been made to
study the junction flow. These studies have shown that RANS
prediction of the junction flow demonstrate an acceptable
qualitative match with the experimental results. The present
investigations extend the CFD investigations to RANS predictions
of the junction flow with boundary layer control using localized
suction. Localized suction is an active technique that has proved
successful, in the past through wind tunnel measurements, in
elimination of the junction horseshoe vortex. The present
investigations used these experimental results to evaluate the
RANS predictions from the current study. During the course of
this study, six cases of junction flows with and without localized
suction were numerically simulated and compared with the wind
tunnel measurements. For no suction case, CFD and experiment
have been found in total agreement where location and size of
vortex core formation was observed to be similar. When suction
was applied, CFD predicted its effect by showing reduction in
size of the vortex core similar to the results observed during the
wind tunnel experiment. RANS simulations have predicted fairly
accurate results in almost all the cases in comparison with the
experimental data.
Index Terms — Junction flow, Horseshoe vortex, RANS
predictions, Localized suction, Flow control
I. INTRODUCTION
Junction flows are observed whenever a boundary layer
growing on a flat plate like surface is encountered with an
obstruction in the surface. Therefore these types of flows are
encountered in numerous engineering applications like aircraft
wing-fuselage attachments, bridge support pillars, car side
view mirrors, sail and hull junction on submarines etc.
Horseshoe vortex is a prominent feature in these junction flows
which not only changes flow but is also responsible for
aerodynamic loses in the region [1]. Hence, the junction flow
has been the subject of many investigations.
This kind of vortex starts as a two dimensional flow
separations that transforms in to three dimensional complex
flows due to interaction between the approaching boundary
layers and the pressure field produced by the wing. This
horseshoe vortex originates from a stagnation point ahead of
the wing and wraps around the complete wing [2].
Understanding the physics of horseshoe vortex is of prime
importance in order to improve the aerodynamic performance
of junction flows.
Work of Paciorri et al. [3] demonstrated that CFD can
predict the junction flow with sufficient qualitative accuracy
and hence CFD may be used to understand the physics of the
junction vortex. Similar results were also obtained by
J.L.Coombs et al. [4] where they presented assessment of
various turbulence models for junction flows and showed that
RANS based turbulence models are able to give acceptable
results in comparison to the experimental data. Similarly,
A.M.Levchenya et al. [5] in their paper have simulated the
presence of horseshoe vortex in the junction region using two
versions of RANS based turbulence models (Mentor SST
model). They found out that these models produced
qualitatively correct results when compared the quantitative
data with the experimental results. Despite so much research in
understanding the behavior of junction flows and horseshoe
vortices, surprisingly attempts to understand horseshoe vortex
behavior after application of localized suction using CFD is
still relatively a less explored area.
The present study investigated the CFD / RANS capability
in prediction of junction flows with localized suction. Many
researchers in the past have investigated various active and
passive control techniques to eliminate or reduce the strength
and size of the vortex. Among those attempts uses of localized
suction, by Phillips and Barberis, have been successful
attempts in removing or decreasing the strength of the
horseshoe vortex. In this paper wind tunnel experiments
performed by Barberis et al. [6] have been numerically
simulated to evaluate RANS capability in prediction of
boundary layer control by localized suction just ahead of the
model. The commercial CFD package Fluent [7] has been
utilized to perform the simulations. The CFD predictions from
the current study will be bench marked against these studies. A
comparison of the results obtained by the turbulence model
with the wind tunnel experimental data (from Barberis) have
been made to determine the capability of this RANS based
turbulence model for such cases. Based on the findings from
this investigation CFD may be used in the design of localized
suction setups for various applications.
II. SELECTION OF TURBULENCE MODEL
In this regard, RANS based eddy viscosity turbulence
model i.e one equation Spalart Allmaras [8] have been
employed to study its utility. In all turbulent flows velocity
fields fluctuate rapidly both in space and time.
Computationally it is very expensive to directly simulate both
the small scale and high frequency fluctuations for any useful
engineering problem. There are two methods to eliminate the
need to resolve these small scales and high frequencies;
namely, Reynolds Averaging and Filtering. The present
investigations are only concerned with the Reynolds
Averaging. In this method all flow variables are divided into a
mean component and a rapidly fluctuating component and then
all equations are time averaged to remove the rapidly
fluctuating components. For the continuity equation the new
equation is identical to the original equation, except that the
transported variables now represent the mean flow quantities.
In the Navier-Stokes equation; however, new terms appear
which involve mean values of products of rapidly varying
quantities. These new terms are known as the Reynolds
Stresses, and solution of the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equation initially involves the construction of suitable
models to represent these Reynolds Stresses. These models
include various one equation and two equation models, like
Spalart Allmaras, K-omega, K-epsilon etc.
A low Reynolds number one equation Spalart-Allmaras
turbulence model has been selected for numerically simulating
the junction flow with localized suction in order to study the
RANS capability for prediction of such flows. This has been
selected due to the known ability of the turbulence model to
predict the flow within the boundary layer right down into the
laminar sub-layer. This turbulence model is widely used for
predictions of wall-bounded flows and it is believed to perform
well for boundary layers subjected to adverse pressure
gradients [9]. This aspect of the turbulence model is important
in the planned three dimensional half wing applications, since
this study involves junction flow separation which originates
due to the adverse pressure gradient effects upstream of the
wing leading edge.
III. NUMERICAL METHODOLOGY
Governing equations of the fluid flow are the full set of
Navier Stokes equations together with continuity equation.
These equations are subjected to the laws of conservation of
mass, momentum and energy. In Reynolds averaging, the exact
Navier Stokes equations are decomposed into mean and
fluctuating components. However, doing so produces
additional terms in the N-S equations to represent the effects of
turbulence. The Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)
equations are represented in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2.
( )   
̃
( ̃) ( ̃ ) [ {( ̃) }
̃
̃
( ) ] ̃ (3)
Where, is the production of turbulent viscosity and is
the destruction of turbulent viscosity that occurs in the near-
wall region due to wall blocking and viscous damping. ̃ and
are constants and ̃ is the molecular kinematic viscosity. ̃
is a user-defined source term. More details about the turbulence
model can be found in the FLUENT 6.3 User’s guide [10].
IV. CFD MODEL DESCRIPTION, COMPUTATIONAL DOMAIN
AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS
Wind Tunnel Model Description
Barberis et al. [3] were able to significantly decrease the
magnitude and strength of the horseshoe vortex using an active
control scheme. They employed localized suction just upstream
of the wing leading edge in the subsonic wind tunnel to
eliminate the boundary layer which essentially removes the
spanwise vorticity. They employed suction holes at different
locations in the symmetric plane in front of the leading edge
and concluded that applying suction in this manner
considerably reduces the horseshoe vortex strength. The wing
model was shaped like cylindrical obstacle of 360 mm
diameter at the leading edge ending in a shaped trailing edge
[3]. The model had a total chord length of 1090 mm and height
of 940 mm. The aerofoil of the wing model as utilized in the
reference paper [3] is shown in Fig. 1. Half wing geometry
with the same dimensions as mentioned in the experiment has
been modeled for numerical simulations as shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 1. Definition of Obstacle (dimensions in mm) as appeared in [3]

( ) ( ) [ (

)] ( ̅̅̅̅̅)

Where, the additional term ̅̅̅̅̅ is known as Reynolds

stresses and must be modeled for solving Eq. 2 [10]. The
simulations in this work have been carried out using ANSYS
Fluent CFD code, one equation Spalart Allmaras Turbulence
Model. Transport equation for Spalart Allmaras model is given
in Eq. 3. Fig. 2. Aerofoil of the Wing Model for RANS Simulation
Computational Domain note that for case with no suction, the face was selected as no
In order to reduce the computational cost, taking benefit of slip wall and for cases with suction, it was selected as velocity
the symmetric characteristics of the wing model, only half inlet and given the values with negative sign (to simulate
wing model has been used for numerical simulations. outflow).
Leading edge of the wing model was positioned at a
TABLE I. BOUNDARY CONDITION ON ALL THE FACES
distance of 3000 mm from the inlet on the center line of the
section to get a symmetric flow for the experiment. Face Name
Boundary
Value Remarks
Computational domain has been selected in a way to get the Condition
same flow conditions at the wing leading edge. Distance of the Vel Inlet Velocity Inlet 50 m/s For all cases
inlet has been kept 3000 mm from the leading edge of the wing “0” gauge
Pressure outlet Pressure Outlet For all cases
pressure
model; however, in order to avoid back flow at the outlet, it has
Outer Wall Wall No Slip For all cases
been extended 6000 mm downstream of the wing trailing edge.
Bottom Wall Wall No Slip For all cases
Height and width of the computational domain has been
selected same as that of the height and width of the test section Top Wall Wall No Slip For all cases
of the wind tunnel. Top view of the computational domain to Wing LE Wall No Slip For all cases
get clarity is shown in Fig. 3; whereas, three dimensional view Wing TE Wall No Slip For all cases
of computational domain is shown in Fig. 4. Wing Top Wall No Slip For all cases
Symmetry Symmetry Symmetry For all cases
For case-I
Wall No Slip
(no suction)
-5 m/s For case-II

Suction -10 m/s For case-III

Velocity Inlet
(z component -20 m/s For case-IV
of velocity) -40 m/s For case-V
-55 m/s For case-VI

Fig. 3. Two Dimensional View of Computational Domain
The three dimensional view of the computational domain
along with the suction hole (50 x 82 mm2) at distance of 102
mm from the wing leading edge is shown in Fig. 4.
V. GRID INDEPENDENCE
In order to carry out grid independence analysis, one of the
widely used methods i.e. the standard convergence analysis
approach has been used. In this approach, a problem with lesser
number of grid points is first solved and some parameters like
velocity, pressure difference are recorded. Same parameters are
recorded with increasing the number of grid points until the
difference between results obtained in two consecutive grid
sizes become negligible. Finally, the 2nd last grid size is
selected for further study of the problem. For the purpose of
this study, three grids with different coarseness were generated
and results were simulated for the no suction case, only. The
grid with fine mesh settings was finally selected for further
analysis; the finally selected mesh has total 1485619 nodes.
Pictorial view of the selected 3D grid of the half wing model
within the computational domain is shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 4. Computational Domain with Named Faces

Boundary Conditions
All the faces encompassing the computational domain were
given names for identification as can be clearly seen in Fig. 4.
A total of 6 different cases were numerically simulated for
comparison with the experimental data available in literature.
These 6 cases included the case with no suction, case with
suction rate of 5 m/s, 10 m/s, 20 m/s, 40 m/s and 55 m/s.
Boundary conditions on all the faces (except face named as
“suction”) were same for all the 6 cases. Summary of the Fig. 5. Computational Domain with Named Faces
boundary conditions are given in Table. 1. It is important to
 VI. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS in size of the vortex core has been observed in the results
Results obtained for all the six cases have been compared obtained with RANS simulation as well. This phenomenon can
with the experimental results attained by Barberis et al. [3]. be seen in Fig. 9. In this case, the experimental results show
The parameters utilized for comparison purposes between that the vortex core has formed at a non-dimensional distance
experiment and numerical simulations are the streamlines of and height of about 0.14 and 0.025 respectively from wing
the flow and velocity vectors obtained on the symmetric face leading edge and bottom floor during wind tunnel experiment.
ahead of the wing leading edge. Symmetric plane is the origin Location of the vortex core with the numerical simulation is
of the junction horseshoe vortex and therefore streamlines and also same as that of experiment with negligible differences in
velocity vectors in this plane are a meaningfully parameters in streamline patterns. Hence, RANS has correctly predicted the
the junction flow investigations. Close observation of the behavior of flow in the symmetric plane with localized suction
streamlines and velocity vectors ahead of the wing leading at a rate of 5 m/s.
edge clearly shows the formation of the vortex which is in fact
the 2D representation of the horseshoe vortex responsible for
producing the aerodynamic drag. Results obtained by RANS
simulations would be compared with the experimental data for
all the six cases, one by one in coming paragraphs.
Case-I with No Suction
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 show flow patterns in the symmetry plane
for the no suction case. The experiment shows development of Fig. 8. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
vortex with high return velocity in the vicinity of wall [3] as suction rate of 5 m/s [3]
shown in Fig. 6. Results obtained with the RANS simulations
for this case is shown in Fig. 7. It can be seen by comparison of
Fig. 6 and Fig. 7 that for no suction case numerical simulation
have predicted fairly accurate results. In both cases, the vortex
core has formed at a non-dimensional distance of about 0.24
and 0.035 from wing leading edge and bottom floor,
respectively. A strong agreement has been observed between
experiment and numerical simulation for vortex formation.
Fig. 9. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
suction rate of 5 m/s with RANS Simulation

Case-III with Suction Rate of 10 m/s

In this case, suction was applied ahead of the wing through
the suction hole at a rate of 10 m/s. With the increase in suction
rate, the vortex size started to reduce and also the vortex core
started to move closer towards the leading edge. The vortex
Fig. 6. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry for No core has formed at a non-dimensional distance of about 0.12
Suction case [3] and 0.020 from wing leading edge and bottom floor
respectively during wind tunnel experiment. Fig. 10 shows
flow patterns as seen in the wind tunnel by Barberis et al. [3];
whereas, result obtained by RANS simulations has been
depicted in Fig. 11. The comparison show that RANS
simulation has also predicted the phenomenon of reduction in
size of vortex with increase in suction rate as the location of
vortex formation is same as that of experiment with
insignificant differences in streamline and velocity vector
patterns.
Fig. 7. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry for No
suction case with RANS Simulation

Case-II with Suction Rate of 5 m/s

When suction was applied ahead of the wing through the
suction hole at a rate of 5 m/s, the vortex formed at the junction
was observed to reduce in size as shown in Fig. 8. It is also
noted that the vortex core has moved closer to the wing leading
Fig. 10. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
edge and floor of the test section. Similar behavior of reduction suction rate of 10 m/s [3]
 Fig. 11. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry: Fig. 14. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
suction rate of 10 m/s with RANS Simulation suction rate of 40 m/s [3]

Case-IV with Suction Rate of 20 m/s

In this case, suction rate has further increased to 20 m/s.
The streamlines and velocity vectors showing the formation of
horseshoe vortex during the wind tunnel experiment is shown
in Fig. 12. Result obtained by RANS simulations with suction
rate of 20 m/s is shown in Fig. 13. As described earlier, with
increasing the suction rate the vortex core size is reducing and
it is moving closer towards the wing leading edge. Similar to
the first three cases, results obtained by experiment and
simulations are the same in terms of vortex location and size
for this case as well. The vortex core has formed at a non-
dimensional distance of about 0.095 and 0.018 from wing
leading edge and bottom floor respectively in both the
approaches.
Fig. 12. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
suction rate of 20 m/s [3]
Fig. 15. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
suction rate of 40 m/s with RANS Simulation
Case-VI with Suction Rate of 55 m/s
In this last case, suction rate through the suction hole was
increased to 55 m/s. The vortex core in this case has formed at
a non-dimensional distance of about 0.05 and 0.010 from wing
leading edge and bottom floor respectively during experiment
as well as in the RANS simulation. Results from experiment is
shown in Fig. 16; whereas, results from numerical simulation is
shown in Fig. 17. The strong agreement between the wind
tunnel experimental and numerical simulation results is a
testimony of the capability of RANS based turbulence model in
prediction of junction flow behaviors with localized suction.
As predicted earlier, the size of the vortex core which is in fact
two dimensional representation of the three dimensional
horseshoe vortex has reduced with each increase in the suction
rate.

Fig. 13. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:

suction rate of 20 m/s with RANS Simulation Fig. 16. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
suction rate of 55 m/s [3]
Case-V with Suction Rate of 40 m/s
The suction rate in this case has been increased up to 40
m/s. The size of the vortex is observed to be reducing but now
at a slower pace as compared to the increase in suction rate.
Formation of vortex core at a non-dimensional distance of
about 0.07 and 0.015 from wing leading edge and bottom floor
respectively during experiment is shown in Fig. 14. Result
obtained by RANS simulations has the same vortex core
location and is shown in Fig. 15. Similar to all the previous
Fig. 17. Mean velocity vector and streamlines on plane of symmetry:
cases, results obtained by experiment and simulations are the suction rate of 55 m/s with RANS Simulation
same in terms of vortex location and size for this case as well.
 VII. CONCLUSION
The primary objective of this study was to examine the
capabilities of an eddy viscosity RANS based turbulence
model i.e one equation Spalart Allmaras in predicting the
turbulent junction flows with and without localized suction in
the region ahead of the wing leading edge. It has been clearly
established through comparison of the simulation results with
the wind tunnel experimental data available in literature from
Barberis et al. [3], that Spalart Allmaras turbulent model can
provide reasonable estimates of complex behavior of junction
flows with localized suction applied to reduce the horseshoe
vortex, due to its ability to capture the small vortices appearing
in the boundary sub layers. It can also be concluded that CFD
can be utilized to design experimental set up with localized
suction in junction flow when wing is fixed at zero degree to
the incoming flow.
The study can further be extended in future to large eddy
simulation (LES) of the turbulent junction flows with localized
suction. Results obtained by LES can be used to compare with
the results obtained with RANS simulation performed during
this study and the experimental results available in literature.
This will help to evaluate the optimized scheme for numerical
simulations of complex flows encountering in real life
engineering problems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Authors would like to acknowledge the all-out support
extended by Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad for carrying out the
numerical simulations in its Modeling and Simulations Lab.
REFERENCES
[1] J.L. Fleming, R.L. Simpson, J.E. Cowling and W.J. Devenport,
“An experimental study of a turbulent wing-body junction and
wake flow” Experiments in Fluids 14, Springer and Verlag,
1993, pp. 366-378.
[2] D. B. Philips, J. M. Cimbala, A. L. Treaster, “Suppression of
Wing-Body Junction Vortex by Body Surface Suction” Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 29, No. 1, Jan-Feb 1992, pp. 118-122.
[3] R. Paciorri, A. Bonfiglioli, A. Di Mascio, B. Favini, “RANS
Simulation of a Junction Flow” International Journal of
Computational Fluid Dynamics, Vol. 19, No. 2, February 2005,
pp. 179-189.
[4] J.L.Coombs et al, “Assessment of Turbulence Models for a
Wing-in-Junction Flow” 18th Australian Fluid Mechanics
Conference, Launceston, Australia, 3-7 December, 2012.
[5] A.M.Levchenya, E.M.Smirnov, V.D.Goryachev, “RANS-based
numerical simulation and visualization of horseshoe vortex
system in the leading edge end wall region of a symmetric
body” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, Volume 31,
No. 6, December 2010, pp. 1107-1112.
[6] D. Barberis, P. Molton, T. Malaterra, “Control of 3D Turbulent
Boundary Layer Separation Caused by a Wing-Body Junction”
Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, Vol. 16, 1998, pp. 54-
63.
[7] Fluent-Commercial CFD software package based on finite
Volume Method. Fluent Inc., Centerra Resource Park, 10
Cavendish court, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA.
[8] Spalart P.R. & Allmaras, (1992), “A one equation turbulence
model for aerodynamic flows”, Reno, NV, 30th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, January 6-9, 1992, AIAA Reston
No. 92-0439.
[9] Fluent Inc., (September 2006), “Tutorial 3-Modeling external
compressible flow”, Fluent Inc., Centerra Resource Park, 10
Cavendish Court, Lebanon, NH 03766, USA.
[10] Fluent Inc., (September 2006), “FLUENT 6.3 User’s Guide”,
Fluent Inc., Centerra Resource Park, 10 Cavendish Court,
Lebanon, NH 03766, USA.
.