Time-averaging and temporal-filtering in

wall-modeled large eddy simulation

Cite as: Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0039651
Submitted: 08 December 2020 . Accepted: 26 January 2021 . Published Online: 03 March 2021

H. Hosseinzade, and D. J. Bergstrom

ARTICLES YOU MAY BE INTERESTED IN

Grid-point and time-step requirements for direct numerical simulation and large-eddy
simulation
Physics of Fluids 33, 015108 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0036515

On the H-type transition to turbulence—Laboratory experiments and reduced-order modeling

Physics of Fluids 33, 024105 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0036082

Taylor–Couette flows undergoing orthogonal rotation subject to thermal stratification

Physics of Fluids 33, 035107 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0035546

Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0039651 33, 035108

© 2021 Author(s).
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

Time-averaging and temporal-filtering

in wall-modeled large eddy simulation
Cite as: Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Submitted: 8 December 2020 . Accepted: 26 January 2021 .
Published Online: 3 March 2021

H. Hosseinzadea) and D. J. Bergstrom

AFFILIATIONS
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5A9, Canada

a)
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed: hadi.hosseinzade@usask.ca

ABSTRACT
A turbulent channel flow at a Reynolds number of Res ¼ 2000 is solved based on the spatially filtered Navier–Stokes equations using large
eddy simulation and an in-house code. A nonequilibrium wall model is implemented to predict the flow in the wall layer based on the
Reynolds-averaged approach. To mitigate the log-layer mismatch, which is often encountered in wall modeling, two temporal schemes are intro-
duced to average the wall layer solution and to filter the flow information input to the wall layer. It is found that the time periods used for the
time-averaging and temporal-filtering schemes affect the performance of the wall model. The results show that shorter time periods enable the
wall model to respond to the flow structures in the outer layer and correctly predict the friction velocity. However, the prediction of the friction
velocity also depends on the location of the matching point. Locating the matching point further from the wall results in better performance
due to the compatibility of the subgrid scale model with the grid resolution further from the wall. The temporal-filtering scheme is used to
remove nonessential high-frequency wavelengths that can disturb the functionality of wall modeling. Various combinations of the time-
averaging and temporal-filtering time periods are investigated for different locations of the matching point. Overall, it is concluded that using a
shorter period for time-averaging and a temporal-filtering period comparable to the turbulent diffusion timescale leads to improved results.
Published under license by AIP Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0039651

I. INTRODUCTION
Wall-bounded flows are still a challenging research topic in the
simulation of high-Reynolds number turbulent flows.1–4 Large eddy
simulation (LES) as an innovative approach to resolve unsteady tur-
bulent flows suffers from the excessive computational cost of resolv-
ing flow regions close to solid surfaces, which are characterized by
very small length scales. The most energetic motions in these near-
wall regions are typically scaled with a spatial filtering scheme as small
as the viscous length scale, which decreases with increasing Reynolds
number.5 This means that the required grid resolution in the near-
wall regions increases as a function of Reynolds number. Chapman6
indicated that the number of grid points varies as Ntotal / Re2:4x . The
high computational cost associated with resolving the flow on a fine
grid in the wall region at high-Reynolds numbers has led to the devel-
opment of alternative strategies near solid walls. In one of these
approaches, referred to as wall modeling, the flow in the wall layer is
modeled by replacing the no-slip boundary conditions with the
instantaneous wall shear stress.
The idea of wall layer modeling was introduced by Deadroff7 and
later further developed by Schumann.8 Schumann used an approxi-
mate wall boundary condition for a channel flow to relate the wall
shear stress to the velocity in the core. Assuming the plane-averaged
velocity at the first grid point to be located in the logarithmic law
region, he proposed that the local wall shear stress fluctuates around
the mean value proportional to the local instantaneous velocity. This
simple algebraic correlation was adequate in the absence of pressure
gradient effects.9 However, the advection and pressure gradient effects
on high-Reynolds numbers and separated flows are significant and
should be included in the model for the wall region.10 Balaras et al.11
suggested solving the full boundary layer partial differential equations
to estimate the wall shear stress. Subsequently, various wall models
have been developed as categorized in Fig. 1. All these wall models,
except for the wall function approach, implement a form of the
momentum and continuity equations on a separate grid to resolve the
wall layer. The additional grid can be embedded inside the LES
domain or be employed as a zonal layer between the LES domain and
the wall. In this respect, the wall models can be divided into two
groups: hybrid RANS/LES (Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes) and
wall stress models. In the hybrid RANS/LES models, two distinct
regions, i.e., the near-wall region and the outer region, are indepen-
dently resolved using the RANS and LES approaches, respectively. The
flow information is transferred only at the interface, which increases

Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651 33, 035108-1

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 1. Categories of wall models for high-Reynolds number turbulent flows.
the challenge of coupling the two layers, especially on unstructured
grids.12 Heinz13 reviewed the performance of hybrid methods on sepa-
rated flows and presented promising models for this category of wall
modeling. However, the main drawbacks of the hybrid wall model are
the artificial buffer layer and unrealistic physical structures, which can
contaminate the LES domain at some distance away from the match-
ing layer.14 In contrast, the wall stress models return the wall shear
stress as a new boundary condition to the LES, and the wall-modeling
grid is embedded inside the LES domain. There are different
approaches for the wall stress models as shown in Fig. 1. For a more
detailed insight into each group, see Piomelli and Balaras,15 Larsson
et al.,14 and Bose and Park.9 The wall modeling allows the use of a
coarse grid for the LES in the near-wall regions where there are small
flow structures. The effects of these small-scale motions must be
expressed in a time-averaged framework.15 Since the flow structures in
the wall layer experience several life cycles during a single time step of
the outer layer, the instantaneous governing equation is unable to
resolve them.
Chapman6 estimated that the number of the grid points required
to resolve a wall-modeled flow is significantly reduced (Ntotal / Re0:4 x ).
Although wall models can alleviate the computational costs in terms
of memory requirements and run-times, they often result in poor pre-
dictions for the skin friction that is related to the so-called “mismatch”
of the mean velocity profile in the overlap region.16–19 LES inherently
solves for the instantaneous velocity field, while wall models are based
on time-averaged approaches. Therefore, the wall layer experiences
large temporal fluctuations in velocity at the top boundary, whereas
overall it varies smoothly in time. This issue leads to the mismatch
between the flow properties in the wall layer and LES domain at their
interface. Regardless of what the wall-modeling approach is employed
from the categories shown in Fig. 1, the wall modeling potentially suf-
fers from the mismatch.3,4,14,19,20 This study attempts to address the
mismatch issue using a sophisticated wall-modeling scheme that has
demonstrated acceptable performance in different flow geometries.
The so-called dynamic wall models have been developed to accommo-
date the unsteadiness at the top boundary and reduce the mismatch.21
The performance of the dynamic wall model proposed by Park and
Moin22 in the simulation of a high-Reynolds number channel flow is
adopted.
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
Another topic that should be addressed in wall modeling is the
period of time used for averaging the flow field. Wall functions and
equilibrium wall models implement a time-averaging scheme over the
entire simulation period.8,23 The full RANS equations are applied to
resolve the wall layer in some nonequilibrium wall models.21 Taking
the average over too long a time period makes the wall model unre-
sponsive to the essential stress-carrying flow structures in the outer
layer. In contrast, other wall models apply a time-averaging scheme on
the thin boundary layer equations (TBLEs) to resolve the flow in the
near-wall region.1,23 The time-averaged approach implemented in this
study uses a predefined time period. Flow properties in the wall layer
are averaged over a certain number of (previous) time steps to provide
a more realistic instantaneous wall shear stress to the outer flow.
However, choosing the number of time steps for time averaging is a
challenge.
The wall layer also needs to respond to flow variations in the
LES. The flow information from the LES domain is used as input to
the wall layer. The input should correspond to the timescale of the
wall layer since the wall model is implemented in an unsteady RANS
(URANS) framework. Otherwise, the wall model could be adversely
affected by large velocity fluctuations. Thus, a temporal filtering is
required to filter the input information and provide the wall layer with
the low-frequency fluctuations in the LES as a top boundary condi-
tion.19,24 The temporal filtering is applied to the flow data transferred
from the LES domain to the wall layer at the interface. This paper
presents the results of wall-modeled LES in a high-Reynolds number
channel flow at Res ¼ 2000. The effects of the timescales used in time
averaging and temporal filtering on the wall-model performance are
systematically studied.
II. GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The finite-volume method is used to discretize the incompress-
ible spatially filtered Navier-Stokes equations with a second-order
accurate central differencing scheme on a structured collocated grid. A
two-step fractional step method and a second-order Adam–Bashforth
scheme temporally resolve the governing equations. An alternating
direction implicit solver based on the tri-diagonal matrix algorithm is
applied for the pressure correction. Applying the spatial-filtering oper-
ation to the continuity and Navier–Stokes equations in LES results in
the following governing equations:
e
u i;j ¼ 0; (1)
e
p ;i
u_ i þ ðg
e ui uj Þ;j ¼  þ eu i;jj  sij;j ; (2)
q
where e indicates a filtered parameter and sij are the SGS stresses.
A dynamic nonlinear subgrid scale (SGS) model (DNM) is
implemented to model the SGS stresses based on both the sym-
metric (strain rate) and antisymmetric (rotation rate) parts of the
filtered velocity gradient.25 The DNM estimates the SGS stresses
from a nonlinear constitutive relation to close the momentum
equation,
sij ¼ CS bij  CW cij  CN gij ; (3)
e 2 jSjS
g , c ¼ 4D e 2 ðe e2
where bij ¼ 2D S ik X e ike
e kj  X S kj Þ, and gij ¼ 4D
ij ij
ðe
S ike
S kj  1 e
3 S mne
S nm dij Þ. D is the filter size, dij is the Kronecker delta,
33, 035108-2
 Physics of Fluids
and Sij and Xij represent the strain rate and rotation rate, respectively.
Hereafter, the flow parameters in the LES domain are shown without
the tilde for simplicity. The local values of the coefficients CS ; CW , and
CN are determined by applying the Germano identity to the constitu-
tive relation evaluated on the grid scale and a coarser test grid.26
The wall layer is embedded in the LES domain; it extends
from the wall to meet the LES domain at the matching point as
shown in Fig. 2. At the matching plane, the velocities and pressure
are set as Dirichlet conditions for the wall layer, and the wall shear
stress is returned to the LES as a boundary condition. A dynamic
nonequilibrium wall model is used to model the region near the
wall.22 This dynamic wall model is implemented in a set of
URANS equations based on the TBLE formulation proposed by
Balaras et al.,11 i.e.,
 
@ui @ @ 1 @ p @ ui
@
þ ð
u1uiÞ þ
 ð
unuiÞ ¼ 
 þ ð þ  t Þ ;
@t @x1 @xn q @xi @xn @xn
(4)
where n is the wall-normal direction and i ¼ 1 and 3 represent the
streamwise and spanwise directions, respectively. The overbar indi-
cates that the parameter is time-averaged. The value of the wall-
u n ) is estimated by solving the continuity equation to
normal velocity (
conserve mass in the wall layer. The pressure gradient in the wall-
normal direction is assumed to be negligible, and the instantaneous
pressure specified at the matching point is based on the LES field. An
eddy viscosity model is used to predict the residual stresses; it is
obtained from the relation
 ij S ij
R
 t ¼  t þ   ; (5)
2S ij S ij
where the modeled eddy viscosity,  t , is obtained from Prandtl’s
mixing-length hypothesis ( t ¼ ðjyÞ2 jSjD), where the von Karman
constant is j ¼ 0:41. The van Driest wall-damping function is
included as D ¼ ½1  exp ðyþ =Aþ Þ2 , with Aþ ¼ 26, and Rij is the
resolved Reynolds stress in the wall layer.
To begin the simulation, the initial velocities were estimated
based on Spalding’s mean velocity profile27 and introducing random
fluctuations on the order of 5% of the local mean velocity. The simula-
tion was run for a sufficient time period to transition from the initial
random fluctuations to real turbulence.
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 2. Interaction between the wall layer
and LES domain in a side view of the
channel flow: (a) the extent of the wall
layer on the vertical symmetry plane
showing streamwise velocity contours and
(b) a schematic of wall-modeling grid
embedded in the LES domain.
Since the wall layer is resolved using a form of the URANS equa-
tions, a time-averaging operator is required to average the flow param-
eters. An exponentially weighted-averaging function ensures that the
flow parameters in recent time are more significant than older values.
It is defined as follows:28
ð
 1 t
/ðtÞ ¼ /ðt 0 ÞeDt=Tav dt 0 ; (6)
Tav 1
where t and t 0 are the current and previous times, respectively, Tav is
the characteristic averaging timescale, and Dt is the computational
time step. Using a first-order approximation and Leibniz’s rule for dif-
ferentiation under an integral, Eq. (6) can be simplified into a linear
correlation.29 As such, a combination of weighted terms based on the
previous time-averaged value and the new value is implemented to
estimate the time-averaged parameter in the current time and reduce
the memory load,30
 nþ1 ¼  /nþ1 þ ð1  Þ /
n ;  ¼ Dt=Tav
/ ; (7)
1 þ Dt=Tav
n
 is the time-averaged parameter from the previous time step
where /
and /nþ1 is the new value. The characteristic averaging timescale is
comparable to the convective timescale taken as a ratio of the channel
height to the velocity at the center of the channel. The time-averaging
scheme using this strategy ensures that a wall model that can respond
to the instantaneous flow structures in the LES.
Recall that the wall layer is coupled to the instantaneous velocity
and pressure fields in the LES at its upper boundary as shown in
Fig. 2. These flow parameters can fluctuate at high frequencies and
with short wavelengths. The input of high-frequency fluctuations to
the wall layer can lead to an overprediction or underprediction of the
skin friction that becomes manifest in the mean velocity field as the
log-layer mismatch.14 One solution to mitigate this mismatch is to
filter the input flow data at the matching point over a particular time
period before inputting it to the wall layer.19 Eliminating the high-
frequency unsteadiness reduces the log-layer mismatch. Hence, the
top boundary of the wall layer becomes more compatible with the wall
model’s averaging timescale. A similar exponentially weighted opera-
tor is employed to filter the velocity and pressure parameters in the
LES at the matching point,24
33, 035108-3
 Physics of Fluids
Dt
h/ðtÞi ¼ e /ðtÞ þ ð1  eÞ h/ðt  DtÞi; e¼ ; (8)
Tfl
where h:i represents a temporal-filtered parameter. In contrast to the
time averaging, the characteristic timescale Tfl used in temporal filter-
ing is defined based on the turbulent diffusion timescale across the
wall layer.
Studies have found that locating the matching point between the
top of the viscous layer (yþ > 50) and the outer layer (y=d < 0:2)
accurately predicts the effects of the solid surface.31 In high-Reynolds
number flows, the efficacy of the SGS model deteriorates significantly
in the coarse mesh near the wall.4 This issue motivates locating the
matching point further into the LES domain where the grid resolution
is compatible with the requirements of the SGS model. The effects of
the matching point’s location on the time-averaging and temporal-
filtering methods are systematically investigated in the present study.
III. NUMERICAL SETUP
The computational domain for the turbulent channel flow at
Res ¼ 2000 was 2pd  2d  43 pd in the streamwise, wall-normal, and
spanwise directions, respectively, where d is the half of the channel
height. A uniform grid was used in all directions with 96  64  64
(Nx ; Ny ; Nz ) control volumes giving a resolution of (Dxþ ; Dyþ ; Dz þ )
 (130, 63, 130). The matching point is located at the fifth node off
the wall where yþ  272, and a nonuniform grid with 30 grid points
is implemented to resolve the wall layer with y1þ  0:8. The grid reso-
lution in wall-parallel planes is similar to that for the LES. The wall
layer statistics are averaged over the convective timescale given by
Tav ¼ d=uc , where uc is the mean velocity at the center of the channel.
The filtering timescale is determined as a fraction of Tfl ¼ hwm =jus ,
where hwm is the height of the wall layer and us is the friction velocity.
The CFL (Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy) number is 0.3 in the LES region,
whereas the wall model uses CFL ¼ 15. A no-slip boundary condition
is implemented at the upper and lower walls, and the flow is periodic
in the streamwise and spanwise directions. The mean time step nondi-
mensionalized by the viscous timescale (tv ¼ =u2s ) is dt þ ¼ 1:2. The
simulation is initially run for 3000 time steps to eliminate any initial
transients (25d=uc ). Thereafter, the flow statistics are sampled over a
period of 75d=uc .
IV. RESULTS
The first set of results pertains to a fully developed channel flow
for a Reynolds number of Res ¼ 2000 similar to the study of Park and
Moin22 but in a much shorter computational domain and with the
dynamic nonlinear SGS model rather than the dynamic Smagorinsky
model (DSM). The wall modeling uses the time-averaged TBLE
(URANS) instead of the full-RANS equations, and a temporal-filtering
scheme is introduced, which was recently investigated for a wall func-
tion by Yang et al.19 The performance of the wall-modeled LES is ini-
tially evaluated by time averaging over a dimensionless time period of
TW ¼ 1:0 as used by Park and Moin22 for averaging the eddy viscosity
(TW is the averaging time period, Tav, nondimensionalized by d=uc ).
The initial dimensionless filtering time period is TF ¼ 1:0, which is
the ratio of the filtering time period (Tfl) to the turbulent diffusion
timescale (hwm =jus ). This time period was recommended to reduce
the strength of the log-layer mismatch.19 Figure 3 demonstrates the
results of using the time averaging on the TBLE in the wall-modeling
strategy and compares them with results taken from the literature. The
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
friction velocity (us ) is estimated based on the flow data in the wall
layer and used to nondimensionalize the mean velocities and Reynolds
stresses in both the LES and wall-modeling domains. The time-
averaged velocity at the first grid point of the wall layer is used to esti-
mate the wall shear stress (sw ¼ l du dy ) and subsequently the friction
velocity.
As shown in Fig. 3, the mean velocity profile obtained from the
LES is in good agreement with both the DNS results of Hoyas and
Jimenez32 and the wall-modeled LES of Park and Moin.22 The velocity
profiles in both Fig. 3(a) using inner coordinates and Fig. 3(b) based
on the outer coordinates match the reference profiles, although there
is an overprediction in the region close to the wall. This deviation is
expected based on previous studies and relates to the fact that the SGS
model is unable to properly model the subgrid scale flow structures for
the very coarse grid near the wall. The results of wall modeling have
the potential to be used as an alternative for the prediction of the
mean velocity below the matching point. This issue will be discussed
further in following paragraphs. The results of the WMLES overpre-
dict the mean velocity profile in comparison to the results of Park and
Moin.22 This might be due to the domain size implemented by Park
and Moin,22 which is much longer and wider than the present flow
domain. The effects of domain size in the streamwise direction have
been studied for turbulent channel flows using DNS by Abe et al.,33
Lozano-Duran and Jimenez,34 and Lee and Moser.35 The results indi-
cate that the large-scale flow structures diminish when the size of the
flow domain decreases for the same Reynolds number and grid resolu-
tion. Lozano-Duran and Jimenez34 showed that an overprediction can
be observed at the center of a channel using a very short domain. Note
that the grid resolution at the center of a channel flow using the DNS
is low and comparable to the grid resolution in the wall region using
the WMLES. Also, the velocity variance increases, and statistical noise
is observed when a shorter domain is implemented.
The results are promising in the outer layer and center of the
channel. They substantiate the performance of the self-calibrating
mechanisms used in the DNM to estimate the forward and backward
rates of turbulence kinetic energy transfer between the filtered and sub-
grid scales compared to the DSM.25 Consistent with the deficiency of
the SGS model in the near-wall region, the Reynolds stresses shown in
Fig. 3(c) show a poor prediction for y  0:2d but improve toward the
center of the channel in comparison to the results of Park and Moin.22
The prediction of u0rms þ matches the profile of Park and Moin,22
although both underpredict u0rms þ compared with the DNS. On the
other hand, v0rms þ and w0rms þ present better predictions above the
matching point and smoothly reduce to match the results of Park and
þ
Moin22 at the center of the channel. The turbulent shear stress (u0 v0 )
depicts a very good agreement with the reference data above the match-
ing point. Consideration of Fig. 3(c) shows that only the v0rms þ profile
decreases to zero below the matching point, while both the u0rms þ and
w0rms þ profiles increase in the wall region. Note that in the WMLES,
only the wall-normal velocity (v) takes the zero-velocity boundary con-
dition at the wall. Overall, the results in Fig. 3 confirm the potential of
the wall model. The next paragraphs will evaluate the effects of different
time-averaging and temporal-filtering schemes on its performance.
The effects of the temporal-filtering scheme will now be investi-
gated. Two scenarios are introduced, Scenario A and Scenario B, based
on the location of the matching point. In Scenario A, the matching
point is located at the first node off the wall, while Scenario B moves
33, 035108-4
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 3. (a) Mean velocity profile in wall coordinates, (b) mean velocity profile in outer coordinates, and (c) Reynolds stresses (w0rms and u0rms profiles are shifted by þ0.5 and
þ1.0, respectively) at Res ¼ 2000 with TW ¼ 1:0; TF ¼ 1:0.
the matching point to the fifth grid point in the LES domain. Figure 4
shows the mean velocity profiles for both scenarios with TW ¼ 1:0
and TF ¼ 1:0 using inner coordinates. The case with no filtering is
also shown, which means that the instantaneous flow field from the
LES is directly applied to the top boundary of the wall layer. Yang
et al.19 studied temporal filtering and no filtering for a WMLES chan-
nel flow using a wall function based on the logarithmic law. The effect
of temporal filtering was clearly evident in their study since the match-
ing point was located at the first node. The nonequilibrium wall model
implemented in the present study is able to respond to the inputs
based on the filtering time period being considered. The matching
points are highlighted by vertical dotted lines, and the mean velocity
profiles in Scenario B are shifted upward for clarity. Scenario A indi-
cates that the temporal filtering reduces the mismatch although the
difference between the results with and without temporal filtering is
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
þ þ
small. In comparison, there is no significant difference between the
two cases in Scenario B, which suggests that temporal filtering is
ineffective and perhaps unnecessary when the matching point is
located sufficiently far from the wall. On the other hand, it appears
that temporal filtering is essential when the matching point is
located at the first node off the wall as concluded by Yang et al.19
Note that the results of wall modeling below the matching point
(dashed-line) match very well with the DNS results of Hoyas and
Jimenez.32 As noted above, the prediction for the mean velocity
profile obtained from the wall modeling can serve as an alternative
to the results of LES in the wall region. Note that Fig. 4 shows the
results with TW ¼ 1:0 and TF ¼ 1:0 for the temporal-filtered cases.
The magnitude of the time-averaging and temporal-filtering time
periods should also be investigated to reveal their effects on the
mean velocity profile.
33, 035108-5
 Physics of Fluids
Figure 5 presents the simulation results where the values
TW ¼ 0:1 and TF ¼ 0:1 are introduced to evaluate the effects of
shorter time periods for time averaging and temporal filtering. Recall
that a smaller value for TF implies that the wall layer at the top bound-
ary is now responsive to the higher frequency flow structures. The
effects of temporal filtering are evaluated for TF ¼ 1:0 and 0.1. For
each of these values, two characteristic timescales for time averaging
are investigated, i.e., TW ¼ 1:0 and 0.1. In Fig. 5(a), the upper set of
mean velocity profiles for Scenario A indicates that the wall layer with
a temporal filtering using TF ¼ 0:1 underpredicts the mean velocity
profile (the consequence of the overpredicted friction velocity) regard-
less of the time-averaging period. In general, the results for TF ¼ 1:0
show a better prediction in comparison to the results for TF ¼ 0:1. It
confirms again the role of temporal filtering in mitigating the mis-
match when the matching point is located at the first node. For the
cases with TF ¼ 1:0, the velocity profile at TW ¼ 1:0 matches better
with the DNS. A similar analysis was conducted for Scenario B, and
FIG. 4. Temporal filtering vs no filtering with TW ¼ 1:0 and TF ¼ 1:0.
FIG. 5. The effects of various filtering and averaging time periods: (a) Scenario A with the matching point at the first node and (b) Scenario B with the matching point at the fifth
node.
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
the results are shown in Fig. 5(b). Compared with Fig. 5(a), it can be
concluded that the results are almost independent of the temporal-
filtering scheme. For both temporal-filtering cases, using a smaller
time-averaging period (TW ¼ 0:1) better predicts the flow field. The
results using TF ¼ 1:0 are slightly closer to the DNS than the results
with TF ¼ 0:1. The results of additional test cases that do not include
any temporal filtering (not shown) similarly confirm that shorter time
periods for time averaging, i.e., TW ¼ 0:1, improve the prediction of
the mean velocity profile.
The results of Fig. 5 indicate that the performance of time averag-
ing and temporal filtering depends on the location of the matching
point. Scenario A underpredicts the mean velocity profile in all cases.
As discussed earlier, the use of the SGS model on a coarse grid in the
near-wall region is problematic and results in the overprediction of the
friction velocity. It seems that higher values of TF and TW work better
in Scenario A. On the other hand, the effect of the averaging schemes
is minimal in Scenario B. Based on the small changes observed, it
seems that a combination of a lower value of TW and a higher value of
TF improves the performance of the averaging schemes for Scenario B.
Note that a higher location of the matching point requires more grid
points to resolve the wall layer, which, then, increases the computa-
tional costs of the wall modeling. For example, Scenario A resolves the
wall layer in the wall-normal direction with 20 nodes compared to the
30 nodes used in Scenario B. The grid spacing of the last node of the
wall layer (matching point) in Scenario B is Dyþ  16, whereas it is
Dyþ  0:5 in Scenario A.
To further examine the interaction between the LES and wall
model, two probes were placed in the spanwise mid-plane of the chan-
nel close to the matching point (x ¼ pd; y ¼ hwm ; z ¼ 23 pd). One
probe tracked the instantaneous and temporal-filtered streamwise
velocities inside the LES domain. The second probe was located at the
last node in the wall layer close to the matching point to monitor the
time-averaged velocity inside the wall layer. Recall that the temporal-
filtered velocity is input to the wall layer as the top boundary condi-
tion. The velocity fluctuations from these probes over the time
advancement are shown in Fig. 6 (T is normalized by the convective
timescale). In Figs. 6(a) and 6(b), the profiles corresponding to
33, 035108-6
 Physics of Fluids
FIG. 6. Tracking the streamwise velocity at the matching point (fifth node) for the instantaneous and temporal-filtered LES and time-averaged wall layer with the dimensionless
filtering time period: (a) TF ¼ 1:0 and (b) TF ¼ 0:1.
TW ¼ 1:0 are shifted a half unit upward for clarity, while the lower
part corresponds to TW ¼ 0:1. For both cases shown in Fig. 6(a),
where TF ¼ 1:0, the wall layer velocity and the temporal-filtered
velocity at the matching point effectively do not respond to the strong
fluctuations in the LES field. Figure 6(b) presents the results for a value
of TF ¼ 0:1. The velocity profiles in the upper region of Fig. 6(b) dem-
onstrate that the temporal-filtered velocities now begin to respond to
the LES field. However, the stronger temporal fluctuations are not evi-
dent in the wall-model velocity. For the profiles in the lower region of
Fig. 6(b), which are obtained with TW ¼ 0:1 and TF ¼ 0:1, a rapid
response to the LES is observed in the temporal-filtered velocity and
the wall layer closely tracks the temporal-filtered profile due to the
shorter time period used for time averaging. However, using TF ¼ 0:1
can lead to introducing nonessential high-frequency oscillations into
the wall layer and as such making the wall layer less responsive to the
critical stress-carrying flow structures. This issue was observed in Fig.
5(a) as an underprediction in the mean velocity profiles. Based on the
physical trends shown in Fig. 6, the effects of different values of TW
and TF on the mean velocity field in the wall layer will be evaluated in
a more systematic manner below.
The magnitude of the characteristic timescale for the time averag-
ing affects the response time of the wall layer. To illustrate this, three
probes were used to track the streamwise velocity inside the wall layer
in the log-law region, the buffer region, and the first node off the wall.
The channel flow in Scenario B with TF ¼ 1:0 was used to perform
the numerical experiment. The temporal-filtered velocity at the match-
ing point was also monitored, which drives the flow inside the wall
layer. Figure 7 shows the dimensionless velocity fluctuations for each
probe over time. The temporal-filtered profile (input) approaches a
local peak at T ¼ 76, and the probe furthest from the wall at yþ ¼ 112
reaches a peak at T ¼ 81 as shown in Fig. 7(a). The next two probes
show the peak in their profile at T ¼ 96 and T ¼ 117. The last probe
located at yþ ¼ 0:87 is representative of the fluctuations in the wall
shear stress. The blue line connects the peak points for all probes in
the wall layer and has a slope of 1/5200. Although a plausible peak in
the temporal-filtering profile is shown in the figure, it was not included
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
in determining the slope, since it varies too quickly to specify a local
peak. The wall layer responds to the fluctuations at the matching point
over a long time span (36 times the convective timescale) when
TW ¼ 1:0. For comparison, TW was decreased to 0.1, and a different
trend was observed as shown in Fig. 7(b). In this case, the peaks occur
at T ¼ 80; 82; 85, and 88 for the input, highest, middle, and lowest
probes, respectively. This indicates that the entire wall layer adapts to
the new input in less than 500 time steps (8 times the convective time-
scale). The slope of the fitted-blue line increases to 1/100 and for a sec-
ond peak reaches 1/30, which indicates a wall layer more responsive to
the oscillations in the flow field at the top boundary. Figure 7 implies
that an averaging time period comparable to the convective timescale
(TW ¼ 1.0) as used by Park and Moin22 makes the wall layer relatively
slow to respond to the fluctuations in the LES region.
In the following analysis, the wall shear stress, which is the main
feedback to the LES from the wall layer, is tracked over time as shown
in Fig. 8. The wall shear stress is representative of the velocity at the
first node in the wall layer since it is calculated from sw ¼ l dudy . Figure
8(a) presents sw fluctuations for four different cases in terms of TW
and TF as previously discussed in Fig. 6. The fluctuations in the wall
shear stress and velocity in the LES are normalized by the correspond-
ing mean values. For both cases with TW ¼ 1:0, the wall shear stress
profiles vary slowly with time. On the other hand, fairly rapid varia-
tions are observed in the two cases with TW ¼ 0:1, which implies that
a lower value for time averaging may be a better choice. The case with
TF ¼ 0:1 includes high-frequency signals that are damped in the case
with TF ¼ 1:0. Figure 8(b) is provided to visualize the wall shear stress
fluctuations in a wall-resolved LES (WRLES) channel flow. However,
due to the excessive resolution required for a wall-resolved channel
flow at Res ¼ 2000, a channel flow at Res ¼ 395 was considered. In
Fig. 8(b), sw fluctuations for both the wall-resolved and wall-modeled
low-Reynolds number channel flows are presented together with the
results of the WMLES channel flow at Res ¼ 2000 with TF ¼ 1:0 and
TW ¼ 0:1. The amplitude of the fluctuations in the WMLES at
Res ¼ 395 is higher than what was observed for the WMLES at
Res ¼ 2000. The wall modeling was strongly recommended for high-
33, 035108-7
 Physics of Fluids ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf

FIG. 7. Response of wall modeling to dif-

ferent inputs with the dimensionless aver-
aging time period: (a) TW ¼ 1:0 and (b)
TW ¼ 0:1.

FIG. 8. Wall shear stress fluctuations (a)

for various TF and TW values for the
WMLES channel flow at Res ¼ 2000
and (b) comparison of WMLES (at
Res ¼ 2000 and Res ¼ 395 with TF ¼
1:0 and TW ¼ 0:1) with WRLES at
Res ¼ 395 with/without temporal filtering
with TF ¼ 1:0.

Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651 33, 035108-8

Published under license by AIP Publishing
 Physics of Fluids
Reynolds number flows.15 The course grid near the wall provides the
time-averaged effects of small flow structures in the wall region. Note
that when using the wall modeling in low-Reynolds number flows, a
part of the effects of these small flow structures is resolved by a higher
grid resolution compared with the grid resolution used in high-
Reynolds number flows. The sw fluctuations in the WRLES at
Res ¼ 395 are also presented to make a comparison between the
results of the WRLES and WMLES channel flows. The temporal-
filtered sw is also depicted since the wall model is fed with the
temporal-filtered input. A similar temporal-filtering scheme is imple-
mented for sw in the WRLES channel flow (TF ¼ 1:0). Both profiles
(WRLES and WMLES) are obtained based on the flow data at
yþ  0:8. It is obvious that the fluctuations obtained from WMLES
are less responsive compared to the temporal-filtered WRLES. This
difference is due to using a Reynolds-averaged approach in the
WMLES, whereas the wall region is instantaneously resolved using an
unsteady approach (LES) in the WRLES. However, the amplitude of
the fluctuations demonstrates that the WMLES varies with a wider
range compared to the WRLES at a lower Reynolds number.
Based on the previous results, we can conclude that TF ¼ 1:0
and TW ¼ 0:1 show a better prediction of the wall shear stress in the
WMLES. This corresponds to using a temporal-filtering period com-
parable to the turbulent diffusion timescale across the wall layer and
using only a small fraction of the convective timescale for time averag-
ing in the wall layer. At this point, two other scenarios are introduced
to study a wall-modeled LES with the matching point at the third
node (Scenario C) and to evaluate the effects of changing the wall-
normal grid distribution while keeping the matching point at the first
node (Scenario D). In Scenario C, the number of grid points in the
wall-normal direction for the wall layer remains at 30, and the first
grid point in the wall layer is held at y1þ  0:87 by changing the grid
distribution. Scenario D has the matching point located at the first
grid point in the LES, and the first grid point in the wall layer decreases
to y1þ  0:17, while the number of grid points increases from 20 to 30.
Figure 9 shows the mean velocity profiles for Scenarios A to D with
TF ¼ 1:0 and TW ¼ 0:1. Scenarios B and C are presented in the upper
region of the figure. In general, the temporal-filtered (TF) cases yield
better predictions, while the cases without temporal filtering (NTF)
slightly underpredict the mean velocity profiles. This is different from
what was observed in Fig. 4, where the TF and NTF cases showed sim-
ilar results. In that case, the time averaging occurred with TW ¼ 1:0,
while a much shorter time period is implemented for time averaging
in Fig. 9. It is observed that moving the matching point from the 5th
to the 3rd node has minimal effects on the final results. Note that both
matching points are located above the buffer layer and in the log-law
region, i.e., yþ ¼ 272 for Scenario B and yþ ¼ 155 for Scenario C.
The results for Scenarios A and D are shown in the lower part of
Fig. 9. The temporal-filtered cases yield better results regardless of the
location of the first node in the wall layer, while the cases without tem-
poral filtering typically show a larger mismatch. Interestingly, the cases
in Scenario D give a better prediction for the mean velocity profiles in
comparison to the cases in Scenario A. This implies that moving the
first node in the wall layer closer to the wall (e.g., y1þ  0:17) helps to
mitigate the mismatch in the velocity profiles. The reason may be that
the wall layer becomes more dependent on the viscous sublayer than
the flow at the top boundary to predict the friction velocity. It can be
concluded that not only are the temporal-filtering and time-averaging
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
FIG. 9. Comparison of all scenarios with TF ¼ 1:0 and TW ¼ 0:1 using the
temporal-filtering (TF) and non-temporal-filtering (NTF) schemes. The profiles in the
lower region pertain to Scenarios A and D, where the matching point is located at
the first node. The upper region presents the results for Scenarios B and C with the
matching point located at the fifth and third nodes, respectively.
schemes able to alleviate the mismatch but also the wall-normal loca-
tion of the first node in the wall layer should be considered, especially
for matching points located at the first node in LES.
V. CONCLUSIONS
A wall-modeled LES channel flow was studied at Res ¼ 2000.
The instantaneous flow structures were solved by the filtered Navier-
Stokes equations, and a dynamic nonlinear model was applied to cal-
culate the residual stresses. The effects of time averaging in the wall
layer and filtering the input flow data from LES to the wall layer at the
matching point, as well as the location of the matching point, were
investigated. The performance of the SGS models in the near-wall
region is inadequate due to the use of a very coarse grid, which, on the
other hand, expedites the simulation run-time. This issue is observed
in the predictions for both the mean flow velocity and Reynolds
stresses in the region below the matching point. Time-averaging analy-
sis shows that the use of too large a time period for averaging the wall
layer makes the wall model unresponsive to the flow motions at the
interface. Hence, neither the temporal-filtered nor unfiltered flow data
from the LES domain lead to a realistic wall shear stress from the wall
model. A smaller time-averaging period results in a more appropriate
boundary condition to the LES in terms of the wall shear stress.
Applying temporal filtering to the input to the wall layer is more effec-
tive for a matching point located at the first node off the wall. A
temporal-filtering period comparable to the turbulence diffusion time-
scale is recommended for all scenarios with different locations of the
matching point. However, using the temporal filtering with TF ¼ 1:0
and TW ¼ 0:1 for the time averaging makes a robust and responsive
wall layer for scenarios with matching points located at a node further
away from the wall. On the other hand, for scenarios with a matching
point at the first node (yþ < 100), a longer time period (i.e.,
TW ¼ 1:0) for time averaging yields a better prediction. The
33, 035108-9
 Physics of Fluids
application of these results to more complex flows, i.e., flows without
homogeneity and using more complex grids, will present additional
challenges. For example, the appropriate location of the matching
point to mitigate the mismatch is also affected by local flow character-
istics, which can vary significantly in complex flows. However, the
insight provided by the present study will be useful in such flows.
Overall, this study demonstrates how the time-averaging and
temporal-filtering schemes effectively reduce the mismatch of the
mean velocity profile in the wall-modeled LES turbulent flow.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and
Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) (grant no.
05103-2016) for providing financial support for this project.
DATA AVAILABILITY
The summary simulation data presented in this study are avail-
able from the corresponding author upon request and with appropri-
ate limitations.
REFERENCES
1 24
M. Wang and P. Moin, “Dynamic wall modeling for large-eddy simulation of
complex turbulent flows,” Phys. Fluids 14, 2043–2051 (2002).
2
T. J. Craft, S. E. Gant, H. Iacovides, and B. E. Launder, “A new wall function
strategy for complex turbulent flows,” Numer. Heat Transfer, Part B 45,
301–318 (2004).
3 26
A. Frère, C. C. de Wiart, K. Hillewaert, P. Chatelain, and G. Winckelmans,
“Application of wall-models to discontinuous Galerkin LES,” Phys. Fluids 29,
085111 (2017).
4
H. J. Bae, A. Lozano-Duran, S. T. Bose, and P. Moin, “Dynamic slip wall model
for large-eddy simulation,” J. Fluid Mech. 859, 400–432 (2019).
5
S. B. Pope, Turbulent Flows (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000).
6 29
D. R. Chapman, “Computational aerodynamics development and outlook,”
AIAA J. 17, 1293–1313 (1979).
7
J. W. Deadroff, “A numerical study of three dimensional turbulent channel
flow at large Reynolds numbers,” J. Fluid Mech. 41, 453 (1970).
8
U. Schumann, “Subgrid scale model for finite difference simulations of
turbulent flows in plane channels and annuli,” J. Comput. Phys. 18, 376–404
(1975).
9 32
S. T. Bose and G. I. Park, “Wall-modeled large-eddy simulation for complex
turbulent flows,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 50, 535–561 (2018).
10
G. I. Park, “Wall-modeled large-eddy simulation of a high Reynolds number
separating and reattaching flow,” AIAA J. 55, 3709–3721 (2017).
11
E. Balaras, C. Benocci, and U. Piomelli, “Two-layer approximate boundary con-
ditions for large-eddy simulations,” AIAA J. 34, 1111–1119 (1996).
12
G. I. Park and P. Moin, “Numerical aspects and implementation of a two-layer
zonal wall model for LES of compressible turbulent flows on unstructured
meshes,” J. Comput. Phys. 305, 589–603 (2016).
13
S. Heinz, “A review of hybrid RANS-LES methods for turbulent flows:
Concepts and applications,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 114, 100597 (2020).
Phys. Fluids 33, 035108 (2021); doi: 10.1063/5.0039651
Published under license by AIP Publishing
ARTICLE scitation.org/journal/phf
14
J. Larsson, S. Kawai, J. Bodart, and I. Bermejo-Moreno, “Large eddy simulation
with modeled wall-stress: Recent progress and future directions,” Mech. Eng.
Rev. 3, 15-00418 (2016).
15
U. Piomelli and E. Balaras, “Wall layer models for large eddy simulations,”
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34, 349–374 (2002).
16
U. Piomelli, E. Balaras, H. Pasinato, K. D. Squires, and P. R. Spalart, “The
inner-outer layer interface in large-eddy simulations with wall-layer models,”
Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 538–550 (2003).
17
J. Lee, M. Cho, and H. Choi, “Large eddy simulations of turbulent channel and
boundary layer flows at high Reynolds number with mean wall shear stress
boundary condition,” Phys. Fluids 25, 110808 (2013).
18
S. T. Bose and P. Moin, “A dynamic slip boundary condition for wall-modeled
large-eddy simulation,” Phys. Fluids 26, 015104 (2014).
19
X. I. Yang, G. I. Park, and P. Moin, “Log-layer mismatch and modeling of the
fluctuating wall stress in wall-modeled large-eddy simulations,” Phys. Rev.
Fluids 2, 104601 (2017).
20
S. Chen, Z. Xia, S. Pei, J. Wang, Y. Yang, Z. Xiao, and Y. Shi, “Reynolds-stress-
constrained large-eddy simulation of wall-bounded turbulent flows,” J. Fluid
Mech. 703, 1–28 (2012).
21
S. Kawai and J. Larsson, “Dynamic non-equilibrium wall-modeling for large
eddy simulation at high Reynolds numbers,” Phys. Fluids 25, 015105 (2013).
22
G. I. Park and P. Moin, “An improved dynamic non-equilibrium wall-model
for large eddy simulation,” Phys. Fluids 26, 015108 (2014).
23
W. H. Cabot and P. Moin, “Approximate wall boundary conditions in the
large-eddy simulation of high Reynolds number flow,” Flow, Turbul. Combust.
63, 269–291 (2000).
X. I. A. Yang, J. Sadique, R. Mittal, and C. Meneveau, “Integral wall model for
large eddy simulations of wall-bounded turbulent flows,” Phys. Fluids 27,
025112 (2015).
25
B. C. Wang and D. J. Bergstrom, “A dynamic nonlinear subgrid-scale stress
model,” Phys. Fluids 17, 035109 (2005).
M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, and W. H. Cabot, “A dynamic subgrid-
scale eddy viscosity model,” Phys. Fluids A 3, 1760–1765 (1991).
27
D. B. Spalding, “A single formula for the ‘law of the wall,’ ” J. Appl. Mech. 28,
455 (1961).
28
H. Xiao and P. Jenny, “A consistent dual-mesh framework for hybrid LES/
RANS modeling,” J. Comput. Phys. 231, 1848–1865 (2012).
R. Tunstall, D. Laurence, R. Prosser, and A. Skillen, “Towards a generalised
dual-mesh hybrid LES/RANS framework with improved consistency,”
Comput. Fluids 157, 73–83 (2017).
30
C. Meneveau, T. S. Lund, and W. H. Cabot, “A Lagrangian dynamic subgrid-
scale model of turbulence,” J. Fluid Mech. 319, 353–385 (1996).
31
S. Kawai and J. Larsson, “Wall-modeling in large eddy simulation: Length
scales, grid resolution, and accuracy,” Phys. Fluids 24, 015105 (2012).
S. Hoyas and J. Jimenez, “Scaling of the velocity fluctuations in turbulent chan-
nels up to Res ¼ 2003,” Phys. Fluids 18, 011702 (2006).
33
H. Abe, H. Kawamura, S. Toh, and T. Itano, “Effects of the streamwise compu-
tational domain size on DNS of a turbulent channel flow at high Reynolds
number,” in Advances in Turbulence XI—Proceedings of the 11th
EUROMECH European Turbulence Conference, Porto (2007), pp. 233–235.
34
A. Lozano-Duran and J. Jimenez, “Effect of the computational domain on
direct simulations of turbulent channels up to Res ¼ 4200,” Phys. Fluids 26,
011702 (2014).
35
M. Lee and R. D. Moser, “Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel
flow up to Res ¼ 5200,” J. Fluid Mech. 774, 395–415 (2015).
33, 035108-10