This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

BooksAudiobooksComicsSheet Music### Categories

### Categories

### Categories

Editors' Picks Books

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Audiobooks

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Comics

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Editors' Picks Sheet Music

Hand-picked favorites from

our editors

our editors

Top Books

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Audiobooks

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Comics

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Top Sheet Music

What's trending, bestsellers,

award-winners & more

award-winners & more

Welcome to Scribd! Start your free trial and access books, documents and more.Find out more

Simulation and Modeling of Turbulent Flows

ICASE/LaRC Series in Computational Science and Engineering

Series Editor: M. Yousuff Hussaini

Wavelets: Theory and Applications Edited by Gordon Erlebacher, M. Yousuff Hussaini, and Leland M. Jameson

Simulation and Modeling of Turbulent Flows Edited by Thomas B. Gatski, M. Yousuff Hussaini, and John L. Lumley

Simulation and Modeling of Turbulent Flows

Edited by Thomas B. Gatski NASA Langley Research Center M. Yousuff Hussaini ICASE John L. Lumley Cornell University

New York Oxford Oxford University Press 1996

**Oxford University Press
**

Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Bombay Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madras Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi Paris Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto and associated companies in Berlin Ibadan

**Copyright © 1996 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
**

Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue. New York, New York 10016 Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or any means otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Simulation and modeling of turbulent flows / edited by Thomas B. Gatski, M. Yousuff Hussaini, John L. Lumley. p. cm. — (ICASE/LaRC series in computational science and engineering) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-19-510643-1 1. Turbulence—Mathematical models. I. Gatski, T. B. II. Hussaini, M. Yousuff. III. Lumley, John L. IV. Series. TA357.5.T87S56 1996 532'.0527'015118—dc20 96-11573

1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

PREFACE

This book is based on the lecture notes of ICASE/LaRC Short Course on Turbulent Modeling and Prediction, held on March 14-18, 1994. The purpose of the course was to provide the scientists and engineers with a knowledge of the state-of-the-art turbulence model development including the latest advances in numerical simulations and prediction of turbulent flows. The lectures focussed on topics ranging from incompressible, low-speed flows to compressible, highspeed flows. A key element of this short course was the systematic, rational development of turbulent closure models and related aspects of modern turbulent theory and prediction. The first chapter is based on the lecture by John Lumley written in collaboration with Gal Berkooz, Juan Elezgaray, Philip Holmes, Andrew Poje and Cyril Volte. It covers the basic physics pertaining to turbulent scales and spectral cascades for both equilibrium and nonequilibrium flows. It also includes a discussion of proper orthogonal decomposition and wavelet representation of coherent structures in turbulent flows. The next two chapters are on the numerical simulation of turbulent flows - the direct numerical simulation (DNS) by Anthony Leonard, and the large-eddy simulation (LES) by Joel Ferziger. Both have been among the pioneers in this field. The chapter on DNS explains the critical issues of numerical simulation, and discusses various solution techniques for the Navier-Stokes equations, in particular divergence-free expansion techniques and vortex methods of which the author has been a leading proponent. The chapter on LES examines the modeling issues, surveys the various subgrid-scale models, and describes some accomplishments and future prospects. In the fourth chapter written in collaboration with I. Staroselsky, W. S. Flannery and Y. Zhang, Steven Orszag provides an introduction and overview of modeling of turbulence based on renormalization group method, which he and his group has pioneered for over a decade. Although the application of RNG method to Navier-Stokes equations is by no means rigorous, this chapter illustrates its usefulness by the quality of results from its application to a variety of turbulent flow problems. A key feature is the emphasis on the grey areas which require further analysis.

Emily Todd for her usual skillful attention to detail and organization which resulted in a very smooth week of lectures. Lumley . Thanks also goes to Ms. Thomas B. Gatski M. Leanna Bullock for her expert revamping of many of the figures so that they could be electronically assimilated into the text. Both the authors are well-known leaders in the area of turbulence modeling which is receiving ever increasing attention in national laboratories and industries. on the prediction of turbulent flows using turbulent closure models. and to Ms. Shannon Keeter who typed or reformatted some of the manuscripts.vi Preface The fifth chapter is based on the lecture by Charles Speziale on modeling of turbulent transport equations. We want to thank Ms. Yousuff Hussaini John L. whereas the sixth chapter. Barbara Stewart and Ms. by Brian Launder.

3.3 The POD as a Representation of Coherent Structures .5 Comparison with the Wall Region 3.2 Delay in Crossing the Spectrum 2.2 The Role of Coherent Structures in Turbulence Dynamics 3.CONTENTS PREFACE INTRODUCTION v 1 1 FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF INCOMPRESSIBLE AND COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT FLOWS 5 John L.7 Wavelet Representations 5 6 9 10 11 13 13 14 19 20 23 25 26 28 29 29 32 33 37 42 52 67 .2 Kolmogorov Scales 1.4 Low-Dimensional Models Constructed Using the POD 3.8 Eddy Shocklets 3 PROPER ORTHOGONAL DECOMPOSITION AND WAVELET REPRESENTATIONS 3..3 Equilibrium Estimates for Dissipation 1.1 The Energy Cascade in the Spectrum in Equilibrium Flows 1.6 Alignment of Eigenvectors 2. 2.3 Negative Production 2.7 Dilatational Dissipation and Irrotational Dissipation 2.4 Mixing of Fluid with Different Histories 2.5 Deformation Work in Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Situations 2.6 Generation of Eigenfunctions from Stability Arguments 3.4 The Dynamics of Turbulence 2 EQUILIBRIUM AND NON-EQUILIBRIUM FLOWS 2..1 The Spectral Cascade in Non-Equilibrium Flows . Lumley 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Coherent Structures 3.

2 2.6 4.4 4.3 4. VISCOUS VORTEX METHODS 91 SIMULATION OF COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENCE 100 REFERENCES 104 109 109 111 111 3 LARGE EDDY SIMULATION Joel H.1 4. Ferziger 1 2 2.1 RANS Models Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) FILTERING SUBGRID SCALE MODELING Physics of the Subgrid Scale Terms Smagorinsky Model A Priori Testing Scale Similarity Model Dynamic Procedure Spectral Models Effects of Other Strains Other Models WALL MODELS NUMERICAL METHODS ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROSPECTS COHERENT STRUCTURE CAPTURING The Concept 112 115 116 118 118 119 123 125 127 132 135 137 138 141 143 146 146 .8 5 6 7 8 8.1 INTRODUCTION TURBULENCE AND ITS PREDICTION The Nature of Turbulence 2.8 4 Dynamics with the Wavelet Representation in a Simple Equation REFERENCES Contents 68 72 79 2 DIRECT NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF TURBULENT FLOWS Anthony Leonard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 INTRODUCTION 79 PROBLEM OF NUMERICAL SIMULATION 80 SIMULATION OF HOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE TURBULENCE 85 WALL-BOUNDED AND INHOMOGENEOUS FLOWS 86 FAST.viii 3.7 4.5 4.3 3 4 4.2 4.

1 2.4 3.2 2.3 3. Speziale 1 2 2. Orszag 1 2 3 4 5 INTRODUCTION PERTURBATION THEORY FOR THE NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS RENORMALIZATION GROUP METHOD FOR RESUMMATION OF DIVERGENT SERIES TRANSPORT MODELING REFERENCES 155 159 162 169 182 5 MODELING OF TURBULENT TRANSPORT EQUATIONS Charles G.2 9 10 ix Modeling Issues 148 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . .5 2.4 2. .3 2. 223 Compressible Two-Equation Models 226 Illustrative Examples 227 CONCLUDING REMARKS 234 REFERENCES 236 .2 3. . 149 REFERENCES 150 4 INTRODUCTION TO RENORMALIZATION GROUP MODELING OF TURBULENCE 155 Steven A.6 2.7 3 3.1 3.Contents 8.5 4 5 185 INTRODUCTION 185 INCOMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT FLOWS 187 Reynolds Averages 187 Reynolds-Averaged Equations 189 The Closure Problem 189 Older Zero.and One-Equation Models 190 Transport Equations of Turbulence 192 Two-Equation Models 193 Full Second-Order Closures 210 COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENCE 220 Compressible Reynolds Averages 221 Compressible Reynolds-Averaged Equations 221 Compressible Reynolds Stress Transport Equation .

3 2.3 1.2 3.1 3.4 2.7 3 3.2 2.4 1.5 2.1 2.3 3.4 4 INTRODUCTION The Reynolds Equations Mean Scalar Transport The Modeling Framework Second-Moment Equations The WET Model of Turbulence CLOSURE AND SIMPLIFICATION OF THE SECOND-MOMENT EQUATIONS Some Basic Guidelines The Dissipative Correlations Non-Dispersive Pressure Interactions Diffusive Transport dij.2 1.5 2 2. Launder 1 1. dio Determining the Energy Dissipation Rate Simplifications to Second-Moment Closures Non-Linear Eddy Viscosity Models LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER TURBULENCE NEAR WALLS Introduction Limiting Forms of Turbulence Correlations in the Viscous Sublayer Low Reynolds Number Modelling Applications REFERENCES 243 243 245 246 247 253 255 255 257 258 273 275 278 281 284 284 286 288 299 302 311 INDEX .1 1.6 2.x Contents 6 AN INTRODUCTION TO SINGLE-POINT CLOSURE METHODOLOGY 243 Brian E.

CA 94305-3030 (415) 723-3615 Brian E. Box 88 Manchester M60 1QD ENGLAND (44) 161 200 3701 Anthony Leonard Graduate Aeronautical Laboratories California Institute of Technology Pasadena. NY 14853-7501 (607) 255-4050 Steven A. Orszag Program in Applied and Computational Mathematics 218 Fluid Dynamics Research Center Forrestal Campus Princeton University Princeton.O. Ferziger Thermosciences Division Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University Stanford. NJ 08544-0710 (609) 258-6206 Charles G.LECTURERS Joel H. Speziale Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering Boston University 110 Cummington Street Boston. MA 02215 (617) 353-3568 . CA 91125 (818) 356-4465 John L. Launder Department of Mechanical Engineering UMIST P. Lumley Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Upson and Grumman Halls Cornell University Ithaca.

This page intentionally left blank .

Simulation and Modeling of Turbulent Flows .

This page intentionally left blank .

Both Proper Orthogonal Decomposition and wavelet representations are discussed. With an understanding of the broad dynamic range covered by both the turbulent temporal and spatial scales. Such DNS methods. as well as their modal interactions. An insightful analysis of spectral energy transfer and scaling parameters is presented which underlies the development of phenomenological models. in which all the important length scales in the energy-containing 1 . it is necessary to focus on the key relevant issues which now face the engineer and scientist in their utilization of the turbulent closure model technology. The important topical issue of coherent structures and their representation is presented in the latter half of the chapter. Chapter 1 focuses on the fundamental aspects of turbulence physics.Introduction The aim of this book is to provide the engineer and scientist with the necessary understanding of the underlying physics of turbulent flows. The non-equilibrium effects of compressibility are presented with particular focus on the alteration to the turbulent energy dissipation rate. While a comprehensive review of the entire field could only be thoroughly done in several volumes of this size. Distinctions between equilibrium and nonequilibrium turbulent flows are discussed in the context of modifications to the spectral energy transfer. it is apparent that direct numerical simulation (DNS) of turbulent flows would be highly desirable and necessary in order to capture all the relevant dynamics of the flow. and to provide the user of turbulence models with the necessary background on the subject of turbulence to allow them to knowledgeably assess the basis for many of the state-of-the-art turbulence models. The organization of this book is intended to guide the reader through the subject starting from key observations of spectral energy transfer and the physics of turbulence through to the development and application of turbulence models.

Rather. the reality of the broad spectral range of such flows. The remainder of the book indeed focuses on the present state-of-the-art approaches to the turbulence modeling problem. yet succint discussion on the subject. A chapter on LES of reasonable length can not possibly be comprehensive. however. but the emphasis in the remaining chapters will be . the concept of turbulence modeling makes its first appearance. while the utopic desire is to perform simulations of tubrulent flows without recourse to models of any type. It begins with some cryptic remarks on the nature of turbulence and the prediction methods. and explains their relation to LES. Unfortunately. It concludes with a discussion of modeling issues and author's retrospect and prospect. discussed and exemplified in the first two chapters. However. This can be done in a variety of ways. As the reader can assess from both the DNS and LES formulations. including the divergence-free expansion technique. the modeling approach is to represent the effect of the turbulence on the mean flow in toto. explicitly. A key feature is the discussion of accomplishments and exploration of the feasible boundaries for LES applications. the largest scales of motion are represented explicitly. or just the large turbulent scales. Chapter 3 updates earlier reviews and provides a relatively comprehensive. In the LES approach. Unlike the DNS and LES approaches.2 Introduction range and in the dissipation range are accounted for explicitly is presented in Chapter 2. precludes such calculations in most flows of engineering interest. Emphasis is on spectral methods for incompressible flows. Then the stage is set for the discussion of LES with a brief overview of methodologies for the Reynolds-aver aged Navie-Stokes equations and DNS. the attempt is to directly compute either all (or most) of the turbulent scales. no attempt is made to explicitly represent any of the turbulent scales through direct computation. It contains a long section on subgrid-scale modeling which is a distinguishing feature of LES. and the small scales are approximated or modeled. in computational studies using the large eddy simulation (LES) method. This overlaps nicely with the preceding and following chapters which deal in some detail with the DNS and phenomenological modeling of turbulence respectively. Vortex methods for incompressible bluff body flows are described and some techniques for compressible turbulent flow simulations are also discussed briefly. Thus. and further includes a section on numerical methods in practice for solving the relevant equations.

such as the Reynolds stress or second-moment closures. Chapter 4 discusses the basis for the RNG method and its application to a variety of flow problems. While . A more common formulation in turbulent flow prediction methods is the utilization of modeled transport equations for the turbulent Reynolds stresses and/or turbulent kinetic energy. In Chapter 5. particularly those involving large departures from equilibrium or high-speed compressible effects. The concept of renormalization group (RNG) applied to the development of turbulent closure models has been shown to be rather successful. of the small scales which can be used to isolate the large scales. This leads to equations of motion for the large scales. specifically. In regard to the latter flows. Chapter 6 presents both the methodology and specific closure proposals for modeling the turbulent Reynolds stresses. Particular attention is given to second-moment closure in which evolution equations are solved for the Reynolds stresses themselves. the theoretical foundations of Reynolds stress models in turbulence are assessed from a basic mathematical standpoint. plays a key role in the application of the RNG technique. and turbulence models for the prediction of large-scale flow properties. The development of reliable Reynolds stress models for more complex turbulent flows.Introduction 3 on the development of transport equations for turbulent single point second moments. Once again. such as the turbulent Reynolds stresses or turbulent kinetic energy. Properly calibrated versions of these models perform extremely well in the prediction of two-dimensional mean turbulent flows that are not too far from equilibrium. The central points of the chapter are illustrated by a variety of examples drawn from compressible as well as incompressible turbulent flows. the fundamental assumption of the universality of the small scales. RNG theory then provides a description. Higher-order models. or model. an understanding of the spectral structure of turbulent flows. presents greater difficulties. It is shown how second-order closure models and two-equation models with an anisotropic eddy viscosity can be systematically derived from the Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible turbulent flows that are near equilibrium and only weakly inhomogeneous. solved in conjunction with a suitable turbulent scale equation. recent progress in the modeling of compressible dilatational terms is discussed in detail. are being used more frequently in solving complex turbulent flows.

and become sensitized to the important link between sound mathematical and physical analysis underlying the development of well-posed turbulence models. . these chapters provide both a thorough introduction and state-of-the-art assessment of predicting turbulent flows through simulations or transport equation modeling. This scheme permits many types of near wall flows to be handled without 'wallreflection' corrections. the reader can begin to get a clearer understanding of the focus of turbulent modeling research at this time. This leads to a scheme with a better sensitivity to secondary strains that is possible at the quadratic level. As the reader can readily see. With this overall view of the field.4 Introduction the capabilities of 'the basic model'. used in current CFD software. Also presented is a new non-linear eddy viscosity model that links the turbulent stresses explicitly to strain and vorticity tensors up to third order. are briefly reviewed. most attention is given to a new non-linear closure based rigorously on realizability constraints.

For example. Lumley Gal Berkooz.Chapter 1 FUNDAMENTAL ASPECTS OF INCOMPRESSIBLE AND COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT FLOWS John L. a turbulence may be produced in a boundary layer. For a while. and one from the dissipative range. for example. say shear. Certainly. if a turbulence involves more than one production mechanism (such as shear and buoyancy. such turbulence will have two length scales. Whether a turbulence is simple or not depends on how many scales are necessary to describe the energy containing range. a turbulence which was produced under one set of circumstances may be subjected to another set of circumstances. which is then subjected to a strain rate. Cyril Volte 1 INTRODUCTION Turbulence generally can be characterized by a number of length scales: at least one for the energy containing range. but they can be expressed in terms of these. Juan Elezgaray. there may be others. one corresponding to the initial boundary layer 5 . Philip Holmes Andrew Poje. Even if there is only one physical mechanism. or shear and density differences in a centripetal field) there will be more than one length scale.

In just the same way. Some progress can be made by applying rapid distortion theory. where we use the Einstein summation convention. and the other associated with the strain rate to which the flow is subjected. that is. and many flows of technological interest may be expected to have more than one scale of velocity.m. a turbulence may have different length scales in different directions.> 1//2 . turbulent fluctuating velocity. Turbulence with multiple scales is much more complicated to predict.s. x^. Note that. or an average over the full . u =< u. if an index is repeated. or one or another kind of stability theory. Lumley et al.1 The Energy Cascade in the Spectrum in Equilibrium Flows Fourier modes are too narrow in wavenumber space to represent physical entities. Or. and predicting the kinds of structures that are induced by the applied distortion. We will take as our scale of velocity the r. while we know that the largest entity of any physical significance in a turbulent . we understand a sum over i = I — 3. L.6 J. We will talk more about this later. however. to the initial turbulence. We may take this to be the integral length scale: where p(r) is the autocorrelation coefficient in some direction. Ordinary turbulence modeling is restricted to situations that can be approximated as having a single scale of length and velocity. 1.-u. a is an arbitrary direction.. and we adopt the convention of no sum on Greek indices. For now. Exactly the same remarks apply here. we will restrict ourselves to a turbulence that has a single scale of length in the energy containing range. £3}. Here. or an ensemble average. and one for the dissipative eddies.space. we will restrict our attention to flows that have a single scale of velocity in the energy containing range. in the above. say where x — {xi. > is a long time average. the corresponding statement is that Fourier modes extend without attenuation to infinity. turbulence. at least one for the energy containing eddies. any turbulence will have at least two velocity scales. In physical space. we are supposing that < .

of all the energy crossing a given wavenumber. and how to use them for a complete representation of the velocity field. We will talk more later about wavelets. and the other half from all its neighbors. the extent in physical space becomes narrower. For now. and feeding it to the smaller wavelets." This is an unfortunate choice of words. In Tennekes and Lumley (1972). Rather. There is some discussion in the literature of what is called "backscatter. we want to use the simplest properties of wavelets. there is no question that. the strain rate field does work on the vortex. it is shown that the cascade is not particulatly tight — a given wavelet receives half its energy supply from the immediately adjacent larger wavelet. This strain rate field induces anisotropy in the wavelet. and the remainder is distributed to all the even smaller wavelets. Hence. as the band in Fourier space becomes wider. increasing its energy. is known as the energy cascade. the energy transfer . three quarters goes to the next adjacent smaller wavelet. This process. and how to construct physical models using wavelets. Similarly. from which a = 1. this refers to transfer of energy in the spectrum in the direction from small to large wavelets. This is not at all what is meant.Fundamental Aspects 7 flow has a size not much larger than /. we have talked about "eddies.62/c and K/1. is turned around and ends up going in the other direction. Reasoning in the crudest way. That is. the numerical value can be obtained by requiring that KO. taking averages over long times or large regions of space. This energy extraction process is associated with vortex stretching: when a vortex is stretched by a strain rate field." but these have never been very well denned. — K/a = K. of extracting energy from the larger wavelets. we can to a crude approximation consider that the energy enters the spectrum at the energy containing scales. which permits it to extract energy from the larger wavelets. A reasonable size appears to be a band lying between about 1. the bandwidth is equal to the center wavenumber. a wavelet exists in the strain rate field of all larger wavelets. and then is passed from wavelet to wavelet across the spectrum until it arrives at the dissipative range. since it suggests that energy that started in one direction. Traditionally. This results in a wavelet in physical space that is confined to a distance of about a wavelength. Nevertheless.62. Now. we must seek another physical entity. where it is converted to heat. We want to introduce here the wavelet.62. and losing energy in the process. If we consider a clump of Fourier modes. We can now discuss how these wavelets interact in Fourier space.

but we would expect it to be of order one. until the flow is thoroughly three-dimensionalized. have highly anisotropic remnants of initial instabilities. We are approximating the integral of E from K/a to OK by K£.). and this is the mechanism for energy transfer. and for a while the energy transfer will surely be in the wrong direction. Now. gives the classical form of the high Reynolds number. and hence locally. since the mechanism is totally different. In fact. it is perfectly possible in a three dimensional turbulence. and if the turbulence is in equilibrium. it turns out experimentally that the left hand side is equal to about 0. There is no vortex stretching in two dimensional turbulence. E ~ ae 2 / 3 /^" 5 / 3 . . vortices coalesce to form larger vortices. since a is not a large number.)v(K/a)/2Ka/K). if one considers short time averages. and the energy transfer can proceed in the usual direction. Some initial instabilities are two-dimensional. let us consider the transfer of energy from one wavelet to another. which are young — that is. where we interpret EK — v2(K. to have coalescing vortices. instead. which is f (K/a)/(27ro//v). and the rate typical of the energy transfer will be set primarily by the strain rate of the wavelet at K/a. the energy cascade goes in the opposite direction. in fact. energy transfer in the "wrong" direction. and it must be equal to the dissipation s. temporarily. L. Lnmley et al in the spectrum of three-dimensional turbulence is from large scales to small. energy transfer in the "wrong" direction. Probably many flows of technological importance. inertial subrange equilibrium spectrum. If V(CLK) is the velocity typical of a wavelet with center wavenumber CLK. since the width of the wavelet in Fourier space is K. and turbulent structures that are highly anisotropic. we may probably approximate this by •y 3 (K)/(2?r/K) = e. Hence. If the Reynolds number is large. We should probably include a constant to be on the safe side. using the idea that it is probably associated with two-dimensionality. since physically the two sides should be of the same magnitude. which has a size of roughly 2?r/aK. the rate of energy transfer should be approximately v2(aK. or averages over only a small region of physical space. Now. It should not be difficult to build such a process into a model of the energy transfer. then the energy (per unit mass) in this wavelet is v2(aK).8 J. In two-dimensional turbulence. Now. and may well have for limited times or over limited regions. then we may expect this quantity to be approximately constant across a considerable range of wavenumbers in the middle of the spectrum.3£. not fully developed. This. however.

we can make scales dependent only on v and £. and the orientation of the jumps appears to be determined by the orientation of the mean gradient. and consider £ r . it would lose detailed information about the mechanism of energy production. However. It can be shown fairly easily that. we could presume that all information would be lost. velocity eddies can produce sharp fronts or interfaces between quite different scalar values. The anisotropy exists because the energy from the mean flow is fed into one component. serious anisotopy is introduced into the smallest scales. We may also mention at this point that there is permanent anisotropy even in the smallest scales of the velocity spectrum of a shear flow. Hence. Hence. and these are known as the Kolmogorov scales: If we adopt the Kolmogorov 1. e (in an equilibrium situation). Hence. it is still correct to say (from at least one point of view) that the velocity spectrum becomes increasingly isotropic in the small scales as the Reynolds number increases. it steadily decreases when considered as a proportion of the total mean square velocity gradient.Fundamental Aspects 1. At any finite Reynolds number. these sharp jumps correspond to very high wavenumber processes. This is discussed in Lumley (1992). as the energy was passed from wavelet to wavelet. If the number of steps in the cascade was sufficiently great.2 Kolmogorov Scales 9 In 1941. at very high Reynolds number the smallest scales in the velocity spectrum will be aware only of the amount of energy they receive. The small scales would know only how much energy they were receiving. Kolmogorov suggested that. averaged . but still somewhat anisotropic. They might be expected to be isotropic (having lost all information about the anisotropy of the energy-containing scales). the small scales would be expected to be less anisotropic than the energy containing scales. With these reservations in mind. in the presence of a mean gradient of the scalar.962 position. while the amount of anisotropy remains fixed as the Reynolds number increases. and must be redistributed to the other two. Note that these ideas cannot be applied directly to the spectrum of a passive scalar. Note that this state of isotropy would exist only at infinite Reynolds number (infinitely many steps in the cascade).

However. then of course we can define scales rf and vr based on the local value of er. producing a Kolmogorov spectrum locally. which is to say. it is a slight stretch to apply the ideas of section 1. over a sphere of radius r. Using the definition of r)m. L. depending on the local value of £ r . We can use £ = u3/l to generate convenient forms for the various scales. This region must have a size of order rjm. it turns out that u3/I = e to within about 10%.the integral scale is of the order of the size of the flow. 1. We expect any turbulent flow to try to equilibrate all these rates. which is at first surprising. since we are in a range of wavenumbers where the wavelets are under the direct influence also of the mean flow. then averaging this spectrum (with certain assumptions on the distribution of £ r ) will produce slight changes in the power of K. we can easily obtain where RI — ul/v.e.3 Equilibrium Estimates for Dissipation Now. we can certainly ask whether u2u/l is constant. More mature consideration suggests that it is probably only true in flows that are in equilibrium. Lumley et al. those in which the rate associated with the energy containing eddies u/l is equal to the rate associated with the mean flow Uij.i. and ultimately they will all be equal (or at least evolve proportionately). the total dissipation must be given by where we are assuming that the average dissipation < £ > is determined by averaging over regions of the size of the integral scale. and possibly equal to £.10 J. We can use these ideas to obtain an upper bound on the variation of £ as a function of Reynolds number. since it is not fair to assume that the rate of energy transfer is determined entirely by the strain rate of the next largest wavelet. . If we consider that within each material domain there is a cascade. Hence. This is true in most flows . Suppose that the dissipation is so unevenly distributed that it is all in one tiny region. For example. In fact..2 in the energy containing range. Call this maximum value em. based on £ m .

g. and we designate the instantaneous total velocity by -u. For the moment we will consider the flow to be incompressible.-. of course. phase. or an ensemble average. of course. contribute nothing to the net turbulent kinetic energy budget. > is a long time average.-j + Ujii)/2. and < U{ >= 0.). we are paraphrasing Tennekes and Lumley (1972).1) which can be shown to be small at high Reynolds numbers. We are also designating d ( . The equation for the turbulent fluctuating kinetic energy can be written as: where < .4. e. two or three-dimensional space. and will not be a random variable. Properly speaking e = 1v < SijSjj >. Ui = Ui + Ui. This was the kind of average envisioned originally in the early work of Kolmogorov (1941). We have neglected a number of other terms in equation (1. > denotes some kind oi averaging (possibly time.Fundamental Aspects 11 1.-. at high Reynolds number this can be written as v < UijUij >.-j is = ([/. we must use either a time average or an ensemble average). they can be written as divergences of something. where < Ui >= £/. one. These are all of the form of transport terms . we can now turn to a discussion of the energetic dynamics of the turbulence. Then. We first split all quantities into a mean and a fluctuating part. for example. the mean strain rate 5. we will take the average to be an ensemble average. There are. In an inhomogeneous flow (where. other possibilities. where Sij is the strain rate of the fluctuating motion. or ensemble). and e is the dissipation of turbulent fluctuating kinetic energy.that is. and later we will consider what modifications we will have to make for the case of compressibility. In what follows. such a quantity may be a function of position.j. ) / d x j = (. For . Recall that we are supposing that < . but simply move kinetic energy from place to place. or an average over the full space. but it will be a smooth function. if integrated over a closed region. but if we do not indicate otherwise. where all the missing details can be found. or in an instationary flow (where we must use either a space average or an ensemble average) it may be a function of time. with q2 given by U{U{. These neglected terms are of importance in the neighborhood of the wall. where the local Reynolds number is low. however. Uiti = 0.4 The Dynamics of Turbulence With this prelude about turbulent scales and the turbulent spectrum. and hence.

DNS results suggest that this may not be a bad model in nearly homogeneous circumstances. unless otherwise noted. This was the point of view taken by Kolmogorov in 1962. L.1) can be regarded equally as the equation for the mean fluctuating enthalpy. while —Uj is the volume per unit time per unit area entering the surface.4. >. < p / p + q2 /2 >. centered at x. That is. or production for short.4. largely because it was difficult to measure and hard to predict. and. but more about that in the next section). and then to the molecular motion. There is a similar term describing deformation work against the stresses induced by the molecular motions. the work done against these stresses goes into the mechanism responsible for the stresses. This means that. but it is easy to show that this work is small compared to the deformation work done against the turbulent stresses. and designate such an average as v < u^jU^j > r = er(x). the turbulence.. it is now realized that it is probably of about the same magnitude as the other term. how much it varies depends on the value of r. (p is the concentration of <^>-stuff per unit volume. Homogeneous turbulence is observed to be approximately Gaussian in the energy containing scales (turbulence is never Gaussian in the small scales. at high Reynolds numbers. the work done to deform an arbitrary volume against the stresses induced by the turbulence. We will generally take the 1941 position. It was hoped at one time that the term < pui > /p would be small. It can also be identified as the deformation work.12 J.1) is called the turbulent kinetic energy production. This is now a random variable that varies erratically from time to time and from point to point in physical space.. one could average over a sphere of radius r. Such a term appears as a drain in the equation for the mean flow kinetic energy. due to the spectral transport. A Gaussian distribution has all zero third . At least one model for this term suggests that < pui > /p = —C < (g 2 /2)-u. The second term on the right is the transport of fluctuating enthalpy p / p + q2/I. the energy flow is from the mean flow to the turbulence. — < <j>U{ > is the flux of <j> per unit time into a surface with a positive normal in the z-direction. and may be of the opposite sign. The transport of any quantity <j> by the turbulence can be written as — < (f>Ui >. at high Reynolds numbers. of course. since < p >= 0. However. example. Lumley et al. that is. Equation (1. The first term on the right of equation (1. The 1962 point of view results in slight (but sometimes significant) changes in the conclusions from the 1941 point of view.

2 2. First. and thus transport. More than this. This picture has the consequence that the level of dissipation should be independent of Reynolds number at infinite Reynolds number. in a steady turbulent flow. these three quantities are not necessarily equal to each other. the rate at which turbulent fluctuating kinetic energy per unit mass is converted irreversibly to heat (to entropy). a change in the turbulent Reynolds . of course. We will see later. technically. > will vanish. however. that in an equilibrium situation. there is no reason for anything to flow from one place to another. associated with inhomogeneity. and maybe should be called something like spectral consumption. Hence. 1978). Finally. which does not work badly in practice (Panchapakesan and Lumley. and spacial derivatives are all zero in a homogeneous situation. however. This is. and the rate at which kinetic energy is passed from scale to scale across the spectrum. since the transport terms are of the form of a divergence. A formal expansion has been developed for the case of weak inhomogeneity. all transport vanishes. by the rate at which the turbulent kinetic energy enters the spectral pipeline. Hence. this is also the rate at which kinetic energy is removed from the energy containing scales. 1993). are associated with a departure from a Gaussian probability density. this quantity is only secondarily dissipation.1 EQUILIBRIUM AND NON-EQUILIBRIUM FLOWS The Spectral Cascade in Non-Equilibrium Flows In this section we describe briefly a model which was first presented in Lumley (1992).if everything is statistically the same everywhere. eventually to be consumed by viscosity when it reaches the dissipative scales. and hence < (g 2 /2)u. relating the third moments with the gradients (Lumley. non-zero fluxes. the last term is the dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy per unit mass discussed previously. specifically with the appearance of skewness in the density. we expect that probably all fluxes will vanish in a homogeneous flow . we believe that the level of dissipation is determined by the rate at which turbulent kinetic energy is passed from the energy-containing eddies to the next size eddies. In a non-equilibrium situation. by crude physical reasoning. In a homogeneous flow. and hence all fluxes of the form < U{U3u^ > will be zero.Fundamental Aspects 13 moments. that is.

We can compute this time lag. we can write down an exact equation for the dissipation. we suspect that there must be production of dissipation and destruction of dissipation. is governed by the energy containing scales. 2. There appears to be not much question that the level of dissipation in a steady state is determined by scales of the energy containing range.2.14 J. and these concepts give us a model that works reasonably well.by analogy with energy. 1972) this is expressed entirely in terms of the small scales. Much more to the point. but in an unsteady situation they may not be (see figure 2. and the destruction of fluctuating vorticity by viscosity.2. 2. but in ways that we do not fully understand.2 Delay in Crossing the Spectrum We can place this model on a much sounder physical footing. L. these are equal. while the destruction of dissipation should keep pace with the destruction of energy. is the behavior of the dissipation under changing conditions. To first order this is a balance between two large terms. both spacially and temporally.1). a 3 K. Of course. of course. corresponding to the time it will take the energy lost to the energy containing wavenumbers to be reduced in size to the dissipative wavenumbers. We believe everyone who uses this model. number should change only the wavenumber where the dissipation takes place. so that the eddies have the same width in wavenumber space as their center wavenum- . but as has been detailed elsewhere (Tennekes and Lumley. where a = (1 + 5 1/2 )/2 (fig. In a steady state. Lumley et al. is uneasy.2). At the moment. and we suppose that production of dissipation should keep pace with the production of energy. representing the stretching of fluctuating vorticity by fluctuating strain rate. 1978) . the entire equation must be modeled phenomenologically (see Lumley.. however. these terms are slightly out of balance. The quantity that appears in the equation for the turbulent kinetic energy is the true dissipation. and the imbalance.. If we divide the spectrum logarithmically into eddies centered at OK. as opposed to the rate at which energy is lost from the energy containing wavenumbers to the next smaller wavenumbers. however. It seems likely that there will be a lag in the development of the true dissipation. of course. We need a dynamical equation for the dissipation. At the next order. These are all ideas of Kolmogoiov (1941). . using the model suggested in Tennekes and Lumley (1972).

that all the energy must pass through each wavenumber . the idea of a simple lag suggests that the cascade is tight. + l(aN K. in fact. where K is at the peak of the energy containing range. for low Reynolds number. Note that these eddies. Impressions of the distribution of spectral flux against wavenumber in steady state (a) and in unsteady state (b). which we introduced in 1972 are..55.) + l(a3K.2. the time shrinks to a very small value. probably the only thing that is significant is the general form. to place this at the peak of the dissipation range. while for high Reynolds number it goes to 2l/u.29JRJT1/2). and aNKr/ = 0.)/u(a3K) + l(a5K)/u(a5K) + .}/u(aN K). say nl = 1.1. and the value of the exponent. since the energy is dissipated at essentially the same wavenumber where it is produced. Bear in mind that we should not pay too much attention to the numerical values of the coefficients in the expression for T. where / and u are scales characteristic of the energy containing range.3.1.. then the time required to cross the spectrum is something like I(O. Now.K) / U(O. Note also that.Fundamental Aspects 15 Figure 2.K. Adding this up (supposing that all terms are within the inertial subrange) we find that the total time T = 2(//u)(l . as pointed out by Sreenivasan (Zubair et al. ber. wavelets. 1992).

It is also possible to determine this from exact simulations. This approach is rather complicated.see Monin and Yaglom 1971).16 J. Band 1 would be represented by a horizontal line at a value of 2.3). a sort of telegraph equation. using the codes of Domaradzki et al.2. L. Simplified view of spectral flux being passed from eddy to eddy. the dissipative wavenumbers receive a small amount of energy almost immediately.2. This would produce a hyperbolic behavior. and increasing amounts as time goes on. in order to arrive at the dissipative scales. although most of the energy is passed to the next wavenumber.2.2. The figure completely supports our speculation regarding the energy transfer (at the end of the last paragraph). from the discussion in Tennekes and Lumley (1972) that at each step. We know. how- . as we have suggested in figure 2. finally receiving it all in a time of the order of T. normalized to its value at t = 0.2. input at the energy containing wavemtmbers. (1990).2. The results are obtained from direct numerical simulation of forced isotropic turbulence. Band n represents the energy in wavenumbers 2™~ 1 < k < 2 n . (1992) (their figure 11). The figure represents the time evolution of the energy in logarithmic wavenumber bands after a pulse of energy was added to the first band.4 is reproduced from Meneveau et al. like diffusion with a finite velocity (only in time instead of space . Figure 2. 1972) and it is. a diminishing fraction is passed to all higher wavenumbers (see figure 2. the energy received at the dissipative wavenumbers resulting from a step in. in principle. Lumley et al. The fractions and times involved are known (Tennekes and Lumley. Thus. Figure 2. however. possible to work out as a function of time.

Hence.. Hence. we must add to this equation an expression for the advection by the mean flow and the turbulence.Fundamental Aspects 17 Figure 2. and that which had gone to a 5 K is redistributed to a 7 K and a 9 K. etc. e(i) would be governed by the following differential equation: T here can now be a function of time. since its use . . this equation is of no use. Now the flux crossing the wavenumber K goes mostly to eddy &K. we do not have a value for /. and . a 5 K.. carried along by the mean flow and the energy. We would thus expect that dissipation would be given by something like We are ignoring..3. etc. that which had gone to a. Hence. (Note that it would be satisfactory to use e/g 2 for u/l in T. for simplicity. ever. the possibility that T is a function of time. In its turn (at the second step). whereas it would not on the right hand side of the £ equation. but a decreasing fraction goes to a 3 K. at the same time that which had gone to a3K is redistributed to &5K. All of these considerations relate to a given mass of fluid of energy-containing scale. and it seems likely that this can be modeled satisfactorily by an exponential. From the point of view of turbulence modeling. which it will be in general.K is redistributed to a 3 K. On the third step. each packet must again be redistributed. etc. a 5 K.2. since we need a value for £ in order to determine a value for /. This is only the second step. More realistic view of spectral liux.containing velocities.

4. From Meneveau et al. and has become standard. L. Lnmley et al. normalized to its value at t = 0. and in fact the difference between the production and the transport and rate of increase in kinetic energy is the dissipation. Figure 2. and some is transported. Band n represents the energy in wavenumbers 2 n ~ 1 < k < 2n. there would vitiate the equation). . it has been the best we could think of. The time evolution of the energy in logarithmic wavenumber bands after a pulse of energy was added to the first band. among them that some of the turbulent energy extracted from the mean flow goes to increase the kinetic energy. The most likely candidate as a model for u3/l is the turbulent energy production. and not the rate at which energy enters the spectral pipeline. although this is not quite right for several reasons. (1992).18 J. giving as an equation This is the equation that has been used to obtain £ in turbulence modeling essentially since the beginning.2. —Uij < UiUj >. with the slight modification that our time scale T is now a weak function of Reynolds number. However. Band 1 would be represented by a horizontal line at a value of 2.

but. we can examine more closely (on the basis. if we can successfully handle these. however. presumably of order unity. for example. We are interested here. improving on the simple exponential behavior. jets and shear layers. which is true at the edges of wakes. It is an approximation to the extent that the rise has been modeled as exponential. partly due to the vanishing of the mean strain rate. We can see two ways to improve the equation: first. and it is not at first clear where to search. there are regions in many turbulent flows where the turbulent kinetic energy production is zero (or even negative in small regions). but also due to the vanishing of the Reynolds stress resulting from advection by the fluctuating velocity field of material with different strain histories. The turbulent kinetic energy production is not a. 2. since the turbulent energy production is only an approximation for the rate at which energy enters the spectral pipeline. We . and dissipation is approximately equal to the rate at which energy enters the spectral pipeline. energy will still be entering the spectral pipeline in these regions.bad guess in many circumstances. However. Let us restrict our attention to isothermal shear flows.Fundamental Aspects 19 We have introduced a constant c. For example. we may expect our model using the turbulent kinetic energy production to fail in these regions. We see that the second term (on the right) does not represent destruction of dissipation. it will surely be possible to develop successive approximations. for example. we can try to find a better approximation for the rate at which energy enters the spectral pipeline. for example. this estimate is an equilibrium estimate. buoyantly driven. We do not think this is likely to make much difference. of the simple model in Tennekes and Lumley. we can later consider other flows. Hence. 1972) the rate of arrival of energy at the dissipative wavenumbers. but rather reflects the presumed exponential rise of the energy arriving at the dissipative wavenumbers in response to a step input to the spectral pipeline. The centerlines of wakes and jets are examples where the production goes to zero. The current model suggests that in equilibrium situations production will approximately equal dissipation. it is usually estimated as u 3 //. of course.3 Negative Production Second. This is a lot harder to do. assuming the production is approximately equal to dissipation. in precisely those situations that are not in equilibrium.

1). with a fading memory (figure 2. at a given point. It also suggests that at equilibrium the (inverse) time scale based on e/q2 is equal to that based on [ S i j S i j ] 1 ' 2 . 2. depending on its history.each packet of fluid brings its own value of Reynolds stress. backward along the mean trajectory though the point in question.4. However. ideally. in that the strain rate vanishes at extrema of the mean velocity profile. and on the centerline equal quantities of fluid are seen. l/u. Hence. the latter being determined by history. where the sign and magnitude of the strain rate are quite different (figure 2. might hope to build a slightly better model if we take the magnitude of the mean strain rate as an estimate of u/l = [ S i j S i j ] 1 / 2 .4. We need not actually write this as an integral in our equation. and since the Reynolds stress is both positive and negative. and the local value of the time scale. This is why the Reynolds stress on the centerline of a wake is zero . If a material region remains subject to the same sign and magnitude of strain rate during its entire lifetime (that is to say. This has a similar problem. as time passes. that have spent their lifetimes in regions of positive and negative strain rate. fluid will arrive from many different regions. where energy is certainly still entering the spectral pipeline. then we expect that the characteristic time scale of the region. In an inhomogeneous flow.4 Mixing of Fluid with Different Histories To get a model that avoids these difficulties. with a growing Gaussian (in first approximation) averaging volume. however. and write u3/I = [SijSij]l/2q2/3. the net value is zero. we must consider what it is that determines the time scale of a material region. the rate at which energy enters the spectral pipeline should be determined by the local value of the energy.20 J. we can rather write an auxiliary equation for the quantity. We might also consider averaging the production itself (instead of the strain rate magnitude). which is probably only true in regions far from extrema where most of the fluid has been subjected to the same strain history during living memory. for times of the order of l/u).2). we should consider averaging over the magnitude of the strain rates in the areas from which fluid is advected to the point in question. which would give a different weighting. Lumley et al. L. will become equal to the magnitude of the (inverse) strain rate [ S ^ j S i j ] ' 1 / 2 . .

or rate. we need an equation of the type where VT — c'q4/e. since they only determine the exact size of the region over which the averaging is done. which we may call S. and T = ciq2/£. The point shown is influenced by the histories of material points arriving (at different times) along the trajectories indicated.1.4. Then we can write . where c' and c\ are constants of order unity. If we consider an auxiliary quantity.Fundamental Aspects 21 Figure 2. This will give just such a spreading Gaussian average with fading exponential memory of scale 7~ back along the mean streamline. an inverse time scale. Zone of influence in a turbulent flow. The exact values of c' and c\ probably are not too critical.

Lumley et al.22 J. the initial value of u/l is determined by the grid. or decays. We should identify S with (proportional to) the value of u/l determined by whatever mechanism. Figure 2. Stan Corrsin (1975) pointed out some years ago that the k — e model was also non-local for similar reasons. In an equilibrium homogeneous shear flow (which may not exist).4. S will take on the value [SijSij]1/2 asymptotically. in which the point shown is influenced by an integral back along the mean streamline through the point. where c" is another constant of order unity.1 replaced by a model. which will have the value f/'/A/2 = u/l^/2. The real process of figure 2. thereafter.2. with a spreading zone of influence and a fading memory. If we apply this model to grid turbulence we may obtain some relations among the constants. there is no further input to determine the value of u/l (since Sjj is identically zero) and it simply relaxes. Note that this is now a non-local theory. L. In a grid turbulence. If we identify the initial value S0 (at time .4.

it becomes We presume that the 1-direction is the direction of maximum positive strain rate. but it will be smaller in magnitude that the other two. If we write the production in principal axes of the mean strain rate. and hence to require that n should have this behavior also. which will be attenuated. It seems reasonable to require both c\ and c2 to have this behavior with Reynolds number. A typical value of n is about 1. and a down arrow a decrease. The strain rate in the 2.direction is intermediate in value. From our reasoning we expect that 1 /o c2 oc (1 — c^Rl ). it may be positive or negative. while associated with the vorticity in the 3-driection is velocity in the 1and 2-direction. we require cj = n/2. and c" = \/2 — C22\/2(ft + l)/ft. which will be intensified. We can make a chart: where a horizontal arrow indicates no change. where clearly we require c2 < n/2(n + 1). We should examine the data of Comte-Bellot and Corrsin (1966) for confirmation. 2. while an up arrow indicates an increase.5 Deformation Work in Equilibrium and Non-Equilibrium Situations We can construct a simple picture of the turbulence production —Sij < UiUj >. As a result of .and 3-direction velocity. although there is a weak variation with Reynolds number that should be investigated. Imagine a velocity field that consists of randomly oriented vorticity with equal amounts in all directions.Fundamental Aspects 23 t 0 ] of S in the decaying grid turbulence as the value of u/l\/2 at t0. where q2 oc t~n. Associated with the 1-direction vorticity is 2. while the 3-direction is the direction of maximum negative strain rate. Now. the vorticity in the 1-direction will be stretched and intensified. we have S0t0/3 — n/2\/2. while the vorticity in the 3-direction will be shrunk and attenuated.25. In order for similarity to hold.

In this vicinity. W2 may go up or down somewhat. < u\ > — < u? >< 0. and will be in equilibrium with that mechanism. A good example of this is the wall jet. As a result. Let the flow be in the x\ direction. material is sometimes swept past which has come to equilibrium with the strain rate field on the wall side of the maximum. reverse the direction of the strain rate . That is. this sometimes happens. and that this turbulence will then be subjected to a distortion of a wholly different nature. and the principal axes will have taken on an equilibrium orientation. In the real world. If the initial vorticity is more-or-less uniformly distributed. A more impressive situation can be generated in a special wind tunnel. and hence the net value of the Reynolds stress does not vanish at the point where the strain rate vanishes. the amounts of the two types of material are not equal. where the strain rate has the opposite sign. Because of the lack of symmetry. however. which has a maximum which is not symmetric. and the tunnel be arranged to produce a positive strain rate along the x? axis. There is. in the sense that the time scales will have equilibrated. to this distortion for long enough. the production can take on both positive and negative values. The anisotropy of the turbulence is consequently in equilibrium with the strain rate field.that is. and there will be consequent small changes in < u\ > and < u§ >. Since 5n > 0. the boundary layer formed on the pressure surface of a leading edge slat on an aircraft wing (in take-off configuration) is suddenly subjected to the strain rate due to passage through the gap between the slat and the wing. it is also quite likely that the turbulence will have been generated by one mechanism. and 633 < 0. We have designated these as "no change" with a horizontal arrow. If the turbulence is subjected. we have described a situation in which the anisotropy of the turbulence has been generated by the strain rate field. while < u\ > will remain essentially unchanged. L. both terms of the expression for the production will be positive.24 J. for simplicity. of course. Lumley et a]. the turbulence structure will have come to equilibrium with the strain rate. a narrow region in which the production is negative. . What we have described is an equilibrium situation. while < w§ > . it is evident that there will be a net decrease in < u\ > and a net increase in < u| >. thus. will have lived its entire lifetime under this mechanism. For example. At this point. Under these circumstances. but these will be smaller than the changes due to wj and u^. and a negative strain rate along the #3 axis.< u\ » 0. and sometimes from the other side of the maximum. £22.

we are replacing the real process with an artificial one which does not relax at all until l/2u. and vice versa.6 Alignment of Eigenvectors The question of whether the turbulent field is in equilibrium with the mean strain rate field arises also in connection with the eigenvectors. This is really just another way of looking at the same question. only in equilibrium situations can the value of the Reynolds stress be related directly to the strain rate field. with no rotation). In a shear flow.0.Fundamental Aspects 25 let the positive strain rate be in the x3 direction.this means. In fact. the principal axes of the Reynolds stress would be aligned with those of the strain rate field. in practice. Any model for turbulence which hopes to deal with non-equilibrium situations must take this into account . the principal axes of the Reynolds stress are found at 30° and 120°. and then relaxes completely. we expect to find the principal axes of the Reynolds stress rotated clockwise from those of the strain rate. The agreement with our crude calculation is too good to be true. to give something like ( l / 4 ) ( l / u ) d U i / d x 2 = 1/4. the material with its principal axes is rotated clockwise. the principal axis of positive strain rate is at 7T/4. however. which takes some time. perhaps a more enlightening way. but at least the direction and order of magnitude . although the strain rate tries to align the principal axes of the Reynolds stress with its own principal axes. Hence. This is easy to arrange in practice the direction that had been shrinking now begins to expand. By picking the value of 1/2. In our shear flow. A material region is being continually rotated clockwise in this flow. it is found that the production immediately becomes negative throughout the tunnel and remains so until the anisotropy of the turbulence can adjust itself to the new value of the strain rate field. we have rotation as well as strain rate. while the principal axis of negative strain rate is at 37T/4. and the negative strain rate be in the x-i direction. or some 15°.e. we are trying to account for the fact that the relaxation is going on continually . 2.0. and the mean angular velocity is (\/1)dU\/dx^. that a separate equation must be carried for the Reynolds stress. The net angle through which the axes will rotate is perhaps half of this. Hence. say Ui : Ui(x2). In a pure strain (i. rotated clockwise exactly 15° from the axes of the mean strain rate. Experimentally. The relaxation time of the turbulence is of the order of l/u.

below 5) we may expect the effects of compressibility on the turbulence to be relatively small. so that the rotation and relaxation of the principal axes of the Reynolds stress can gradually accommodate to the mean strain rate history.65u*. this does not matter much. even at a fluctuating Mach number of unity. it is essential that the equation for the Reynolds stress be used. we have ignored compressibility. slit is also not clear in such situations how to calibrate the relationship. The speed q is about 2. . the wall temperature rises. Hence. the skin friction drops. unless the mean flow is hypersonic. Note that the relative fluctuations in the isentropic speed of sound are of order (7 — l)m 2 /4. As the Mach number rises. in the boundary layer at low Mach number U/u* is about 30 (between 25 and 35) between a length Reynolds number of 107 and 5 X 10s. where any of the components may be the important one. which means that the two tensors are forced to have the same principal axes. In turbulence modeling of the k — £ type. As a result. Hence. In non-equilibrium situations. and the density and. are both correct and believable. In more complex situations. but if it passes through a shock compressibility effects will be felt. must be wrong. L. The relationship is calibrated to give the correct value of the offdiagonal stress. Lumley et al. which means that the diagonal stresses. at moderate mean flow Mach numbers (say. In calculating simple shear flows. the fluctuations in the isentropic speed of sound are of order 10%. In fact. boundary layer turbulence may be essentially incompressible. is interaction with a shock wave. 2. the Reynolds stress is parameterized as being proportional to the mean strain rate. so that this ratio increases somewhat. since the normal stresses are not used. hence. Hence. and can be ignored in the definition of the fluctuating Mach number. the mean velocity'is about 11 times the turbulent speed.7 Dilatational Dissipation and Irrotational Dissipation Up to this point. the turbulent Mach number will not be anywhere close to one. with a Mach number in the neighborhood of 12-15. it matters. This means that the fluctuating Mach number is of the order of 1/11 or smaller of the mean flow Mach number. where m is the fluctuating Mach number. however (such as separated flows). of course. the turbulent intensities.26 J. An exception. being at any instant probably misaligned with those of the mean strain rate.

of course. Now. in Nitrogen (Sherman. we may write < TIJTIJ >=< Wj-u. Under compression (9 negative). so that we may write .-)/2). for example. 1955). The second term may be written as < u^jUj^ > — < O2 > (in a homogeneous flow). Hence. [iv is the bulk viscosity.is the deviatoric strain rate. we can write The first term. Let us begin by considering the stress in a compressible flow.Fundamental Aspects 27 Let us consider the dissipation.66/J..s'.-. and < SijSij > = < s'-s'. that is. Thus the actual (negative) average normal stress is higher than the thermodynamic pressure (see. so that the translational temperature is a little higher than the thermodynamic relation predicts.j = (uitj . This can be written as where 9 = Ui^.7.-j = (uij + Uj^/2. M. J. If we now form the equation for the turbulent fluctuating energy in a homogeneous flow. but the rotational temperature is lagging behind the translational temperature. Light hill. > /2.> + < O2 > /3. or the recoverable work. p = (7 — l)/oe. The (negative of) the average normal stress —r. is the pressure-dilatation correlation. r\. This is zero in a monatomic gas.. and is of the order of Q. where e is the internal energy./3 is not equal to the thermodynamic pressure because there is a lag between the rotational temperature and the translational temperature. we can write (in a homogeneous situation) In addition. In a monatomic gas there would be no dependence. The remainder is the entropy production. we may write (if 5.. all temperatures are rising. where 9 = w ti .1) we can see that the viscous stress depends on the dilatation only through the bulk viscosity. From (2. 1956).-Uj i . and p is the thermodynamic pressure.

Viewed from this perspective. the compressibility can be . Lumley et ad. In an extension of the dilatational dissipation modeling. and hence correspond to high wavenumbers. 1990).uz. Now.. The proposed model has been compared to results from DNS of compressible homogeneous shear flow (Sarkar et a/. It thus seems fairly safe to identify // < u. the ordinary dissipation should be unchanged (Zeman. say Vi + W{ . where «. even when the fluctuating Mach number is above unity. Hence. Both Zeman (1990) and Sarkar (1992) have developed models for the compressible component of the dissipation. change only slowly in space) to be relatively incompressible and the rate at which energy is transferred into the spectral pipeline in the usual way should be unchanged from the incompressible case. while w^ is irrotational (but compressible).8 Eddy Shocklets We tell our classes.. the total entropy production may be written as Let us consider the Helmholtz decomposition. This purely kinematic decomposition states that any vector field Uj can be written uniquely as the sum of two components. Sarkar (1992) has also examined contributions to the pressuredilatation using an analogous decomposition of the pressure field into incompressible and compressible parts. L. Finally. this compressibility correction is essential for predicting the spreading rate correctly.28 J. and we believe. we expect to find relatively incompressible turbulence separating a distribution of randomly oriented shocklets. that in incompressible turbulence the level of the dissipation is controlled by the rate at which energy is fed into the spectral pipeline at the large scale end. 2. though energetic. Note that. which are relatively thin. Thus. Ui is associated only with the solenoidal component v.. and (fiv + 4///3) < # 2 > as the dilatational dissipation. Presumably in a compressible turbulence. while 0 is associated only with the irrotational component w^. we expect the energy containing range (characterized by motions which.> as the conventional (solenoidal) dissipation.-.is solenoidal (but rotational). 1991). In the compressible mixing-layer flow (Sarkar and Lakshmanan. in an inhomogeneous situation. there are other terms that vanish only as the Reynolds number becomes infinite. 1991).

if we look at mixing layers . the work that is done by the normal stress during the compression. the eddy is compressed in the direction normal to the shock. form shocklets. which might be expected to rise with wavenumber. that in the passage through the shock. This is presumably < p9 > at work. 3 PROPER ORTHOGONAL DECOMPOSITION AND WAVELET REPRESENTATIONS Coherent Structures 3. Energetic eddies.Fundamental Aspects 29 characterized by the spectrum of < $2 >. and the passage through these shocklets removes energy from the eddy. where it is dissipated.-/3p)# >. This supports our physical argument. There are indications from the work of Zeman (1991) that < p9 > stores energy during passage through the shock. Certainly. On the other hand. the energy is getting from the low wavenumbers to the high wavenumbers. so that the compressibility would occur primarily at the larger wavenumbers. It probably does all of these. and increases its wavenumber. Somehow. It seems rather. Incidentally. and this may also result in a reduction in scale. the flow tries to avoid the shock. The dilatation is almost completely confined to the shocklet. Consider the dilatational dissipation from a physical point of view. returning it to the vortical mode downstream of the shock. it results in a transfer of energy from one component to another. not all of which is recoverable. In addition. certain simple models suggest that under some circumstances the term < p9 > will have the form of an additional dissipation. hence to high wavenumbers. we will discover that the proportion of organized and disorganized turbulence in each flow is different. the existence of the shock alters the velocity field approaching it. and this reduces its scale. it is clear from our discussion above that < p9 > and [iv < d2 > are just two parts of the same thing: < (—r. turning aside to go around it if possible. and is consistent with the shocks being thin. causing an increase in the turbulent intensity on the downstream side.-.1 If we examine pictures of various turbulent flows. For example. which locally exceed m = 1. This certainly does not seem to be by the usual cascade process of vortex stretching.

though similar. leaving in the downstream development of the turbulence the remnants of the instability structure.thin laminar boundary layers on the inner surface of the nozzle . On the other hand. However.although the organized component is still visible. if the boundary layers on the inside of the nozzle are initially thick and turbulent.then there is initially a laminar instability which gradually becomes three-dimensional and undergoes transition. if the wake is visualized far from the body. with a thick. in the same type of flow. although the nearly twodimensional organized structures have from the beginning a stochastic component. Thus. nor are their strengths equal. there is evidently a substantial difference between this flow and the mixing layer. turbulent boundary layer on the splitter plate. we find that the proportion of organized component is considerably less . are the remnants of initial laminar instability. the organized structure becomes essentially undetectable. and there are no visible organized remnants in the turbulent motion. to the extent that they are present. On the other hand. have different relative strengths of organized and disorganized components. and new distinct.that is. we see a somewhat. Thus. which only relatively slowly becomes three-dimensional and disorganized. we find the same difference . which evidently is the remnant of the initial laminar instability. if we examine a mixing layer from quite disturbed initial conditions. if the flow from the orifice is initially undisturbed .30 J. though similar organized structure. even under similar conditions. we find that there is an energetically large organized component. Let us look at the wake of a flat plate normal to the stream. there is no initial laminar instability. the organized component of this flow is a very great deal weaker than that in the mixing layer under the same circumstances. More than this. different. It is bearly discernible. when the initial conditions are disturbed. so that their occurrence is not precisely periodic. Evidently the organized structures initially present decayed. So far it seems that the organized structures. We examine a different flow. Even in the undisturbed state. we can conclude that different flows. L. structures arose. If the wake is visualized close to the plate. it is no longer dominant. If we examine the wake of . however. from undisturbed initial conditions (with only thin laminar boundary layers on the splitter plate). for example a jet. we find that the initial conditions change the relative strength of the organized and disorganized components. we see one kind of organized structure. Lumley et al.

because they have reached a non-linear energetic equilibrium. and hence disturbed. that. since they must be imagined to grow from a mean velocity profile (and a profile of turbulent stresses) existing without the organized structures. In direct numerical simulations. where we are in the flow (how far downstream). inhomogeneous direction is largely fixed by the boundaries of the flow. however. and their transport is modifying the mean velocity profile. we find at first a turbulent wake without organized structures. in any given situation we may expect to find organized structures the relative strength of which are a function of the initial conditions of the flow. Consider. the existence of one structure seems to suppress the presence of another. wakes. The precise form then. or homogeneous direction. What these profiles are is moot. If we restrict our attention to narrow two-dimensional shear flows (jets. another one appears. as well as the turbulent stresses. but as soon as we are sufficiently distant from a structure. drawing on the mean velocity profile to obtain energy. the type of flow. Organized structures are much more difficult to find in homogeneous flows. and giving up energy to the turbulent transport. mostly because it is not clear where to look. mixing layers) we will find that the organized structures occur with more-or-less the same orientation and distance from the flow centerline each time. and which may be remnants of initial instabilities or may be a new instability of the turbulent flow. the homogeneous shear. their orientation and position in the cross-stream.Fundamental Aspects 31 a plate (still normal to the stream) which is sufficiently porous so as not to give rise to an initial instability. Their initial growth is complicated also. However. The energy budget for such existing organized structures is complex. as well as of the distribution of the turbulent stresses.) It seems reasonable to conclude that the organized structures that appear in the late wake are a type of instability of the developed turbulent flow. We will return to these ideas later when we discuss the prediction of these organized structures. will be a function of the mean velocity profile. after a time the organized structures present in the late part of the initially disturbed wake spontaneously appear in this initially undisturbed wake (we say undisturbed. in the streamwise. for example. Moin and his coworkers have found hairpin vortices . There is nothing in the flow to pin them down to a particular location. is. but of course the wake is initially turbulent. the location is more random. organized structures are not initially present. Hence.

and hence the location of the organized structures is fixed by this inhomogeneity. or that produces streamwise rolls in a turbulent boundary layer. then they will scale in the same way. the age of the flow. they can all be lumped together and the evident differences ignored. when considering the dynamical behavior. Both of these flows are inhomogeneous in the direction normal to the surface. We may probably conclude that any turbulent flow will have a more-or-less organized component. Many of the features of the mixing layer that are thought to be as- . When we study a turbulent flow for practical purposes.32 J. and tells us little about the flow. They are thought to arise from a type of non-linear instability connected with the same instability that produces Langmuir cells in the ocean surface mixed layer. the strength of which will be a complex function of the type of flow. Lumley et al. throughout the flow. 3. The orientation of these hairpin vortices is determined by the direction of the mean velocity shear. depending on the situation. will have a different answer in different situations. and then being transported in the streamwise direction at different rates at different heights. L. See Shih et al. due to a gradient in the Stokes drift. be random in orientation and location in up to three dimensions. if the coherent structures in the flow scale in the same way as the disorganized motions. we are seldom interested in more than the Reynolds stress.2 The Role of Coherent Structures in Turbulence Dynamics Whether it is necessary to take into account the presence of organized structures in a turbulent flow. The instability mechanism depends on transverse vorticity associated with the mean shear being deflected vertically (in the direction of the mean gradient). Often. and need not be considered separately. This is not a very sophisticated property of a turbulent flow. (1987). and have been growing together since the origin. in the turbulent mixing layer. For example. where a compressible turbulent mixing layer was successfully predicted using a second order turbulence model that completely ignored the presence of coherent structures. if both the turbulence and the organized structures have the same origin. and which may. but their location in three dimensions is random. resulting in a stretching and intensification of the streamwise component of vorticity. it is uninfluenced by subtle changes in the structure of the flow. and the initial conditions.

The use of these modes for a low dimension dynamical system . We must also consider that the initial turbulence may already have an organized structure with which it is in equilibrium. the asymmetry of the entrainment at the two sides of the mean velocity profile) are in fact mandated by the dynamics of the situation and must be produced by whatever physical mechanism is doing the transporting of momentum. if a turbulence produced under one set of circumstances. This is thus a systematic way to find organized motions in a given set of realizations of a random field. The different structures are identified with the orthogonal eigenfunctions of the proper orthogonal or Karhunen-Loeve decomposition theorem of probability theory (Loeve. Lumley (1967) proposed an unbiased technique for identifying such structures. whether organized or disorganized. giving rise in its turn to a new organized structure. for example) it is quite likely that the new conditions will give rise to a new instability of the turbulent profiles.3 The POD as a Representation of Coherent Structures The extraction of deterministic features from a random. we will have a situation consisting of background disorganized turbulence with one set of scales. (1977) write: "there are no consistent methods for identification which are independent of the techniques and the observer" and "we cannot unambiguously define the signature of an eddy without a priori knowledge of its shape and its location relative to the observation station and cannot map such an eddy because we do not have a proper criterion for pattern recognition. The transport produced by this combination will be quite difficult to predict unless explicit account is taken of the organized structure. and consequently having a given set of scales. The method applied here is optimal in the sense that the series of eigenmodes converges more rapidly (in quadratic mean) than any other representation.g. is subjected to a different set of conditions (a new strain rate field." In contrast. However. Until the scales have had a chance to equilibrate. The method consists of extracting the candidate which is the best correlated.Fundamental Aspects 33 sociated with the coherent structures (e. with the background velocity field. Zilberman et al. in a statistical sense. 3. 1955). on which are growing organized structures with a different set of scales. fine grained turbulent flow has been a challenging problem.

Lumley (1967) proposed a method of identification of coherent structures in a random turbulent flow. we will develop a model for the wall region of the boundary layer (from x 2 + = 0 to x%+ = 40 in wall units (Tennekes and Lumley. 1984. and selecting the structure which maximizes the projection in quadratic mean. given an ensemble of realizations of the field. as we shall see. L. based on linear normal modes. Given a realization of an inhomogeneous. has derived twodimensional orthogonal modes from large eddy simulations. the purpose is to find the structure which is the best correlated with all the elements of the ensemble. knowledge of the autocorrelation tensor. 1981) in the direction normal to the wall. the proper orthogonal decomposition yields an optimal set of basis functions in the sense that the resulting truncated system of ODEs captures the maximum amount of kinetic energy among all possible truncations of the same order.34 J. 1970. More precisely. it consists of projecting the random field on a candidate structure. 1985) and wall regions of turbulent boundary layers (Moin. Thus. does allow one to uniquely determine the unsteady flow. and Fourier modes will suffice. The method we propose here is limited in application to certain types of flows in which large coherent structures contain a major fraction of the energy. For this one requires three dimensional autocorrelation tensors averaged over many realizations of the flow in question.. 1986) belong to this group. although Moin (1984). we are interested in the structure which is the best correlated with the random. 1986). Herzog. In other words. in which the flow is strongly non-homogeneous. Lumley et al. The method has obvious advantages over a priori decompositions. 1972)). and use of the Navier-Stokes equations. However. It has been demonstrated that axisymmetric turbulent jet mixing layers (Glauser et a/. data only obtainable from lengthy experiments and analyses or from detailed numerical simulations. In our case complete data is only available from experimental work in a glycerine tunnel (Herzog. we want to maximize a statistical measure of the magnitude of . using the proper orthogonal decomposition of Lumley (1967. study requires a very fast convergence of the series. Specifically. energy integrable velocity field. In the stream wise and spanwise directions the flow is essentially homogeneous. Used in conjunction with Galerkin projection. An advantage of the method is its objectivity and lack of bias. in contrast to Cant well's (1981) expectation. energy-integrable field. but it does not appear to have been used before due to the difficulty of computing the proper orthogonal modes.

The mean square of the first coefficient is as large as possible.u) = A(ui)tl>(x} (as suggested by Glauser et a/. etc. The idea is to measure the two velocities at the same time and determine < Ui(xi. Time is a good candidate since we are particularly interested in the temporal dynamics of the structures.. £3. t~)uj(x'i. The calculus of variations reduces this problem of maximization to a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind whose symmetric kernel is the autocorrelation matrix.Fundamental Aspects 35 the projection. Thus. x'2. 1981) for more details. the spectrum of the eigenvalues becomes continuous. and the eigenfunctions become Fourier modes. The most significant point of the decomposition is perhaps the fact that the convergence of the representation is optimally fast since the coefficients of the expansion have been maximized in a mean square sense. square-integrable. 1985) if we do not use any decomposition in time and choose the appropriate autocorrelation tensor. £3. Since the flow is quasista- . which means that the random field can be reconstructed. We want a three dimensional decomposition which can be substituted in the Navier-Stokes equations in order to recover the phase information carried by the coefficients. so that the proper orthogonal decomposition reduces to the harmonic orthogonal decomposition in those directions. The eigenfunctions form a complete orthogonal set. We have described here the simplest case. The properties of this integral equation are given by the Hilbert Schmidt theory. See Lumley (1967. 1970. The coefficients are uncorrelated and their mean square values are the eigenvalues themselves. The flow of interest here is three dimensional. approximately stationary in time (/). which can be given by the mean square of its absolute value. We have to decide which variable we want to keep.2) >= Rij. that of a completely inhomogeneous. The kernel can be expanded in a uniformly and absolutely convergent series of the eigenfunctions and the turbulent kinetic energy is the sum of the eigenvalues. the second is the largest in the remainder of the series once the first term has been subtracted. field. inhomogeneous and of integrable energy in the normal direction (x^). There is a denumerable set of eigenfunctions (structures). If the random field is homogeneous in one or more directions. every structure makes an independent contribution to the kinetic energy and Reynolds stress. Such a decomposition is possible and we do not need a separation of variables in the eigenfunctions of the type <f>(x. £2. approximately homogeneous in the stream wise direction ( x \ ) and span wise direction (23).

Finally.Lz are determined by the first non zero wave numbers chosen. tionary. L. The candidate flow we are investigating is the wall region (which reaches x 2 + = 40) of a pipe flow with almost pure glycerine (98%) as the working fluid (Herzog.2) for each pair of wave numbers (&i. Our second change to the decomposition is a transformation of the Fourier integral into a Fourier series. The Reynolds number based on the centerline mean velocity and the diameter of the pipe is 8750. each component of the velocity field can be expanded as the triple sum In this case. Rij does not depend on time and nor do the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions.36 J. From this data the autocorrelation tensor at zero time lag (t — t' = 0) between the two velocities. Thus the decomposition becomes and we have to solve equation (3. The periods L\. RIJ(X\ — x ' l . Lumley et al. X 2 . The results show that approximately 60% of the total kinetic energy and Reynolds stress is contained in the first eigenmode and that the first three eigenmodes capture essentially the entire flow field as far as these statistics are . x ' 2 . £3). X 3 — x'3)t_ti-0. a "structure" is denned by: and the entire velocity field is recovered by the sum of all the structures (over n). 4>ij now denotes the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation tensor in the #1.3:3 directions.3. The information in time is carried by the coefficients a(") which are still "stochastic. was obtained and the spatial eigenfunctions were extracted by numerical solution of the eigenvalue problem." but now evolve under the constraint of the equations of motion. 1986). assuming that the flow is periodic in the x^ and x3 directions. The corresponding Reynolds number based on the shear velocity UT is 531.

into the mean (defined using a spatial average) and fluctuation in the usual way.or the pressure . From a large eddy simulation data base.Fundamental Aspects 37 concerned. Moin uses the proper orthogonal decomposition successively in one and two dimensions in the wall region (up to :r2+ = 65). This is substituted in the Navier-Stokes equations. Equation (3. giving an equation for the fluctuating velocity.4. thus weakening the source of energy. in the quasi stationary case. 3. by reducing the mean velocity gradient as the rolls intensify. His first structure contains 60% of the total kinetic energy and 120% of the Reynolds stress (this apparent paradox occurs because the contribution of higher order structures to the Reynolds stress is negative). this term controls the intensity of the rolls. This very fast convergence of the decomposition in the near wall region is in good agreement with Moin's results (1984). Ninety percent of the kinetic energy is captured by the first three terms. Taking the spatial average of these equations we obtain. an approximate relation between the divergence of the Reynolds stress and the mean pressure and velocity. defined by is achieved by use of the complete set of eigenfunctions <fi(n> 's in an infinite sum: . We substitute this decomposition into the Navier-Stokes equations.4 Low-Dimensional Models Constructed Using the POD We decompose the velocity . The expansion of the Fourier transform U{ of the fluctuating velocity Ui.1) may be solved to give the mean veloctity U in terms of the Reynolds stress < u\u^ > in a channel flow in a manner which gives some feedback to the system of equations as the fluctuation varies. In other words. We will see that this feedback is necessarily stabilizing for the first structure (according to the experimental results) and increases as the Reynolds stress gets stronger.

We remark that this is not necessarily the case for higher-order eigenfunctions.ks) = (0. L.0) mode just decays by action of viscosity and does not participate in the dynamics of the system. Their signs vary. Since the cubic terms are zero too. they make a positive contribution to the turbulence production and hence provide negative cubic terms which are thus stabilizing. > in the mean velocity equation (the other part of this equation leads to a linear term). The non linear terms are of two sorts: quadratic and cubic. Since we want to truncate this sum.L. They vanish for all wave number pairs except for (ki. we use a Galerkin projection which minimizes the error due to the truncation and yields a set of ordinary differential equations for the coefficients. The quadratic terms come from the non linear fluctuationfluctuation interactions and represent energy transfer between the different eigenmodes and Fourier modes. Since the streamwise and normal components of the first eigenfunction have opposite signs.0) for which they exactly cancel the quadratic term. The role of the Reynolds stresses < U{Uj > on these terms should be mentioned. Lumley et al. Here A is the identity matrix (since the complete set of eigenfunctions is orthogonal) and N. are non linear terms. After taking the Fourier transform of the Navier-Stokes equations Ni = 0 and introducing the truncated expansion.38 J. the (0. By use of the continuity equation and the boundary conditions and . The cubic terms come from the mean velocity-fluctuation interaction corresponding to the Reynolds stress < u\u?. we apply Galerkin projection by taking the inner product Finally we obtain a set of ordinary differential equations of the form: where A and B are matrices. Therefore they prevent this mode from having any kind of quadratic interactions with other Fourier modes.

it is sufficient to conceive of the possibility of such a filter. 1972 for a fuller discussion). there remains the value of the pressure term at the upper edge Xi of the integration domain which represents an external perturbation coming from the outer flow. does not account for the energy transfer between the resolved (included) modes and the unresolved smaller scales. The exact form of the equations obtained from the decomposition. but we feel that its details will have little influence on the behavior of the energy-containing scales. The influence of the missing scales will be parameterized by a simple generalization of the Heisenberg spectral model in homogeneous turbulence. The only important parameter is the amount of energy absorbed.Fundamental Aspects 39 it can be seen by integration by parts that the pressure term would disappear if the domain of integration covered the entire flow volume. This filter is also an averaging operator. We begin by defining a moving spatial filter which removes from the total field the unresolved modes. without ill effect. and is called sub-grid scale modeling. This is a sort of St. Venant's principle. Since this is not the case (rather the domain is limited to X£ — 40). We neglect the Leonard stresses. The way in which we are treating the effect of the unresolved modes on the resolved ones is very much like what is done in large eddy simulation. truncated at some cut-off point (&i c . Let us agree to designate the resolved field as ut-< and the unresolved . but amply demonstrated experimentally by the universal nature of the energy containing scales in turbulence in diverse media having different fine structures and dissipation mechanisms (see Tennekes and Lumley. admittedly unproved here. n c ). our model would probably be called a Smagorinsky model (there are minor differences in the definition of the equivalent transport coefficient). The Reynolds stress of the unresolved field may now be defined as the average using our filter operator. The velocity field may now be divided into the resolved and unresolved field by using this filter. We suppose that the deviator of this Reynolds stress is proportional to the strain rate of the resolved field. k^c. this acts on the resolved field. of the product of the unresolved velocities. Such a model is fairly crude. The details of the definition are not important . which essentially supposes that there is more of a spectral gap than really exists. This is what is done in the Heisenberg model. just as the details of a sub-grid scale model have relatively little influence on the behavior of the resolved scales in a large eddy simulation.

kz. where (k\c.1). over the unresolved modes (the filtering process) can be designated as < d> >^.n) such that k\ < kic. n c ) is the cut-off mode. We will refer to «i as a Heisenberg parameter. We have introduced an explicit dimensionless parameter ai.ks < &3C. This can be expressed in terms of the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the first neglected modes in the three directions (see figure 3. the parameter VT is taken equal to (where u> and /> are characteristic scales of the neglected modes).4. Finally. for example. to the environment just before or just after a bursting event. Thus: with and Here < denotes the sum over all the modes (ki. corresponding to the presence of a greater or smaller intensity of smaller scale turbulence in the neighborhood of the wall. we assume that these relevant scales are given by characteristic scales of the first neglected modes. and will exclude adjustable constants from i>x. while an average of <j>.40 J.k3. ksc. n < nc and > denotes the sum over all the modes (ki. say. L.By observation that the energy decreases rapidly with increasing n and fc. Lumley et aL field as tij>. The characteristic scales of the parameter Vf are those of the higher modes. This might correspond. This is probably a good approximation as far as the eigenmodes are concerned since they are separated by large gaps in the spectrum and it is a reasonable assumption for the Fourier modes since the steps of our Fourier series are also large. which produces a large .n) such that k\ > k\c or ^3 > k%c or n > n c . We will adjust a\ upward and downward to simulate greater and smaller energy loss to the unresolved modes.

like the pressure term.4. it needs to be computed since.We assume that the deviation (on the resolved scale) in the kinetic energy of the unresolved scales is proportional . burst of small scale turbulence. In our case.1.-j(< Uk>Uk> >> — « Ufc>tifc> > > > ) appears in the equation for the resolved field. it leads to a term evaluated at X^.Fundamental Aspects 41 Figure 3. which is then diffused to the outer part of the layer. Inhomogeneous Heisenburg model applied to the specific truncation discussed in the text. Legend: • resolved modes. x first neglected modes which are considered for the computation of the characteristic scales of the Heisenberg model. This term could be combined with the pressure term and would not have any dynamical effect if the integration domain covered the entire flow volume. A term — l/3£.

Lumley et al. On the other hand.5.5 Comparison with the Wall Region This study has two conflicting requirements. Since we retain only a few modes. Because this approximation involves a further assumption. the Fourier transform of the autocorrelation tensor is unchanged and the eigenfunctions are still the same. so that a free parameter appears also in this term. we have set a. especially as far as the Reynolds stress is concerned (an important part of the Reynolds stress is contained in the higher modes). ai. This is already satisfied in the inhomogeneous direction by the proper orthogonal decomposition itself. Q the direct quadratic terms. The equations therefore have the following form: where L and L' represent the linear terms. The choice of wave numbers is now of great importance. This pseudo-pressure term gives some quadratic feed-back. The best selection is probably the one for which the cut-off modes correspond to the experimental measurement cutoff. in the linear term. 0*2. and to give ourselves greater flexibility. provided that the periodic length is larger than a few integral scales. The experimental results show that the ratio between the streamwise and spanwise character- . one. 3. although in all work presented in this paper. we call this parameter a 2 . the other one. We now seek a minimum truncation. Given the energetic gap between the two first eigenfunctions (Figure 3. the steps of our Fourier series are large.42 J. Q' the quadratic pseudo-pressure term and C the cubic terms arising from the Reynolds stress. in the quadratic term.1). keeping only one structure seems quite reasonable. The rate of loss of energy from the resolved scales to the unresolved scales is 2aiVTSi]<Si:j<. On one hand we wish to keep as few modes as possible in order to obtain a lowdimensional system.\ = a 2 Thus the Heisenberg model introduces two parameters in the system of equations. A necessary condition for the second requirement consists of including as much of the energy and Reynolds stress as possible in our system. L. However. to the rate of loss of energy by the resolved scales to the unresolved scales. permitting us to apply the techniques of dynamical system analysis. we would like to retain at least a qualitatively correct dynamical representation of the turbulence production phenomenon. since the first structure is the most energetic.

Thus the minimum truncation consists of one eigenmode.2.1.. although the truncation seems to be the one which contains an optimally large amount of the total . Our first approximation therefore neglects streamwise variations. Even the model having six spanwise Fourier modes is still very crude. two active) spanwise wave numbers (0.. one streamwise wave number (&! = 0) and three (i.5. istic length scales is of order ten (see figure 3. up to six spanwise wavenumbers (0.1. We need at least three terms in the spanwise direction (see below).. k.3) function of: the spanwise wave number (from Herzog. 5&) will be considered.e. Turbulent kinetic energy in the first three eigenmodes. In this paper.. 1986).). 2k). In this case k has the value 3 X 10~3 and the lengths of the periodic box are L\ — Ly.5.Fundamental Aspects 43 Figure 3. Convergence of the proper orthogonal decomposition in the near-wall region (x^~ = 40) of a pipe flow according to experimental data. A( n )(n =1. — 333.

axis (i. 1986) in the (&i. .5k. £3) wavenumber plane. For this reason.. The computation of the nondimensionalized transport coefficient i>x for this particular truncation gives the value I/Rex = 6. the zero streamwise wavenumber fci = 0 and up to six spanwise wavenumbers k$ = 0.k and d k t k ' . Lumley et al.ao < 0). the equations become much simpler..e.The influence of the Heisenberg model appears in the linear and quadratic terms as follows: where a\ and 0*2 are the proportionality (Heisenberg) coefficients already mentioned. When only the zero streamwise wavenumber is considered. d k . k. As a preliminary approach. The coefficients of the quadratic and cubic terms are each the sums of two quantities: c^^-k'i Ck-k'. . .. The zero cut-off mode in the streamwise direction in particular is a very rough approximation. a typical equation takes the form: In these equations the zero Fourier mode a(l)oo = XQ + iyo has been removed since its imaginary part is identically zero and its real part decays to zero under the influence of the viscosity (dxo/dt = aox0... Indeed. we do not expect our velocity field reconstructed without rescaling to have more than qualitative significance. Using these symmetries.5 and writing a^.44 J. because of the symmetries of the eigenfunctions (Herzog.28. energy among those of the same dimension. Letting ^3 take the values jk.j = 0. Such a truncation causes a drop of the spanwise and normal root mean square values of the velocity which is particularly significant in the upper half of the layer.1. for a suitably chosen k. we study the set of equations for a truncation limited to the first eigenfunction (n = p = q = r = 1). the equations for the complex modal coefficients e41=0 ks can be readily derived. for k\ — 0).k ' . '_0 k __-k = Xj+i j/j. the first and second components are purely real and the third component is imaginary on the k<3 . L. .

35 and 1.Fundamental Aspects 45 Numerical integrations of 3.409. In the theory of dynamical systems. Thus.r5 grow exponentially in an oscillatory fashion) increases while the bursts (in which TI. For the present study the intermittent behavior exhibited by the six mode model for a between 1. The existence of the cycles F implies that.3): the /l.61 appears to be of greatest interest. the pressure perturbation will limit the growth of the laminar periods.61. r ~ discussed above are typical members of this family. More significantly. unperturbed system. since it corresponds in a fairly clear way to the physical instability. connecting pairs of saddle points which are TT out of phase with respect to their second (x^^y^) components. almost all solutions enter a tubular neighborhood of F and thereafter follow it more and more closely. We summarize here the behavior of the system. in which it travels far and fast . the magnitude of the r-2 and r 4 components decreases until. The solution spends a long "laminar" phase near the point or orbit until it reaches a critical amplitude and a brief turbulent "burst" ensues. are zero.61 a unique circle of globally attracting stable fixed points exists in the 2/4 subspace (with a window of instability between 2. In an ideal. For a > 1. The points r + .7-5 components. but we shall only report in detail on the 6 mode (5 active mode) simulations here. there is an effective maximum duration of events. sweep and ejection event observed in boundary layer experiments.409 is the unique and globally attracting fixed point for the problem. 1980). 7-3 and r$ collapse) remain short. They are associated with solutions repeatedly passing close to a weakly unstable fixed point or periodic orbit. three types of intermittency have been distinguished (Pomeau and Manneville. this non-trivial circle of fixed points coalesces with the origin. As a increases.61. along with the trivial TQ component. such as truncation errors. which for a > 2. the duration of the "laminar" phase of behavior (in which r 2 and r 4 remain non-zero and almost constant and ri^r3. presumably prevent this occurring in our numerical simulations. after a relatively brief and possibly chaotic transient. an 51-symmetric family of globally attracting double homoclinic cycles F exists. For 1. the laminar duration would grow without bound.0 and 2. 5 and 6 mode models have been carried out. As they approach F. starting with some general remarks. 7*3. at a ~ 2. but small numerical perturbations.37 < a < 1. which is reduced as a is decreased from the critical value aj ~ 1. 4. We now describe this intermittent behavior.

The bursting event leads to variations of positions and amplitudes of the basic streamwise rolls and formation of other vortices. in which event durations are distributed randomly. in agreement with experimental results (Kline et a/. §6.5.-.4 by plotting u? and 113 at the different times indicated on Figure 3. obtained for 1. 1968.41.5. We describe here the reconstructions of the velocity field from the expansion. The oscillation. corresponding to the phase shift A#2 = T. 1970). Silnikov (1965. Before and after the event.4 for a •= 1.5. but the burst and return are associated with a "global reinjection mechanism." usually a homoclinic orbit or heteroclinic cycle (Tresser et al. therefore.46 J. Figure 3. since the intermittent solution is always very close to the real subspace or . (These terms were appropriated by the dynamical systems community and have been used in a predominantly metaphorical fashion thus far). a structure very similar to that previously obtained for 1. pictures 1 and 14 are shifted in the span wise direction by 333+/4. 1967). Nonetheless. Our model displays a "regular" intermittency. A description of the motion of the eddies during the burst is given in Figure 3.4 (cf.3. (1967). We will. death and rebirth of vortices make the streak spacing vary.2). Probably the most interesting sets of solutions are those exhibiting intermittency. (1980). Corino and Brodkey (1969). Tresser (1984). However.and y. 1983) there has been little evidence of type II.3 < a < 1. Lumley et al." We will analyze its effect on the streamwise vortices.3 we show an enlargement of the time histories of the modal coefficients during a burst for a = 1. in contrast to the chaotic intermittency of Pomeau and Manneville (1980).5). the rapid event which follows the slowly growing oscillation and the repetition of the process reminds one of the bursting events experimentally observed (Kline et al.5.). Maurer and Libchaber (1980). Sparrow (1982). two pairs of streamwise vortices are present in the periodic box. Berge et al. etc. using the computed values of xt. In Figure 3. in phase space before returning. which is what we observe in the present model at a = 1.61. A#4 = 2?r. explore the connection between this dynamical phenomenon and its analogue in the turbulent boundary layer in some detail. (1980). L. The laminar phase is governed by the linearized dynamics near the fixed point or periodic orbit. Guckenheimer and Holmes (1983. For that reason we call it a "burst.) While evidence of intermittency has been detected before in fluid systems and models (Pomeau and Manneville (1980).. associated with a subcritical Hopf bifurcation. In the flow field.61.61 < a < 2. Dubois et al.

The behavior is less regular and isolated vortices sometimes emerge. u3 velocity components at specific times. in this case.5. These patterns are also very rich in .-) parts of the coefficients for a value of the Hewisenberg parameter a = 1. Figure 3. Moreover it is possible to adjust the value of the viscosity parameter (a ~ 1. Time histories of the real (x.0 < a < 1.5.5) so that the bursting period is 100 wall units as experimentally observed. the "burst" lasts 10 wall units which is also the right order of magnitude. as before.5.Fundamental Aspects 47 a rotation of it.2. the vortices remain symmetric and paired. This is consistent with the flow visualization experiments of Smith and Schwarz (1983) who observed a significant number of solitary vortices among the predominant vortex pairs.3) is shown in Figure 3.4 The behavior of the eddies corresponding to a chaotic solution (1.) and imaginary (y. It is found that. by plotting the u2.

y. Due to the truncation of our model to a single eigenmode and one streamwise Fourier component. this is equivalent to supposing that the distribution of the first eigenvalue with wavenumber is flat to 333.3. .5). a value determined by the requirement that the area between it and the origin is the same as the true area under . the choice of streamwise length scale affects the absolute values of all the component energies. the absolute and relative energy of the various velocity components is affected. A more reasonable length scale would be between 400 and 500. Time history of the real and imaginary parts of the model coefficients Xj. ( i =1 1. Figure 3.. First.2..48 J. Keeping only the Fourier mode at zero streamwise wavenumber. L.5. but not their relative values. and drops to zero. Comparison with the true distribution of the first eigenvalue with streamwise wavenumber indicates that this should overestimate the energy in this eigenvalue.4. We intend to study the regime further in future work. Lumley et al. We chose a streamwise length scale of 333. dynamics. Intermittent solution corresponding to an Heiseberg parameter a = 1.

Vector representation of U2. examination of the equations indicates that changing the value of LI leaves the equations invariant. (left) Intermittent solution corresponding to an Heisenberg a = 1.3. This would decrease the overestimated streamwise energy contained in our system but would not necessarily improve our model since it would also decrease the energy. Figure 3.2.5. (right) Chaotic solution for Heisenberg parameter a = 1. .5.5. Hence all phenomena reported here would be unchanged.Fundamental Aspects 49 Figure 3. Vector representation of u.4.4. the distribution of the first eigenvalue with streamwise wavenumber. with simply a decrease in energy level of all the velocity components. 113 in an X2-X3 plane at times indicated on figure 3. However.5.2. us in an X2-xs plane at uniformly spaced times (close enough to resolve the motion).

presumably as a result of a secondary instability. we observe that the same symmetries. and we rescaled them. L. this implies that the subspace spanned by basis functions with zero streamwise wavenumber is invariant and that the coefficients of the equations restricted to this subspace remain unchanged as streamwise components are added. the labor is in vain . the model studied in this paper. addition of another streamwise wavenumber helps considerably. Thus. 1. This is particularly true in the upper part of the layer.there is no sequel. The truncation also affects the relative energy in the various velocity components. much as the 2-4 subsystem exists in the present model. as a subsystem in the larger set of differential equations. Thus. In particular. Lumley et al. This raises the interesting possibility that the 2-4 branch may be destabilized by streamwise modes as well as by the 1. A contribution is made only to the low wavenumber part of the streamwise fluctuating velocity and the Reynolds stress.3 components is relatively low (compared to the u\ component) when only one streamwise wavenumber is included. One naturally asks if the addition of streamwise modes will drastically change the behavior of our model. 2 and 7 stream wise wavenumbers. and streamwise translation. addition of streamwise wave numbers does make a difference. already deficient. operate at any order of truncation. As a consequence. that makes little relative contribution to the streamwise velocity component. our predicted rolls are somewhat weak compared to reality. in the normal and cross-stream components. 5 "intersticial" spanwise Fourier modes. inherited from invariance of the NavierStokes equations to spanwise translation and reflection. In this respect. when we will add streamwise wavenumbers. We could easily sim- . 6.50 J. and 17 cross-stream wavenumbers. It is clear that the energy in the u^ and 11. In particular. We must conclude that there is energy in cross-stream and normal motions of higher streamwise wavenumbers. and 1 and 3 eigenmodes. 3. although our eddies are capable of exhibiting the basic bursting and ejection process. together with its dynamics. This rescaling will not be necessary in future work. We have examined the distribution with x 2 + of the energy in the three velocity components for truncations of 3. no production of intense higher wavenumber turbulence. We do not have present in our modal population a mechanism to represent the production of higher wavenumber energy when an intense updraft is formed. exists unchanged. While inclusion of more than 6 cross-stream wavenumbers has no effect.

the perturbation has the effect of throwing the solution away from the fixed point. with a small amplitude. with the pressure term.5. The major effect would simply be to cut off each burst more rapidly than at present. We plan to study the behavior of such a model in the future. The term has the form of a random function of time. The occurrence of the bursts for values of the Heisenberg parameter between 1.4 and 1. The transitions from one solution to the other and back are extremely sensitive to the precise solution trajectory. so that it need not wait long to spiral outward. It represents the interaction of the part of the eddy that we have resolved with the part above the domain of integration. an important effect. Recall that the pressure term appeared due to the finite domain of integration.Fundamental Aspects 51 ulate the production of this high wavermmber turbulence. and a minute change can make a considerable change in the time at which the next transition occurs.6 appears to be pseudo-random. This slightly perturbs the solution trajectory constantly. but when the solution trajectory is very close to these points. However. the mean time stabi- . while not changing the qualitative nature of the solution. while having little effect on the structure of the solution during a burst. whereas its value should rise and fall with the level of this intense higher wavenumber turbulence in the vicinity of the wall. While in the absence of the pressure term (and round-off error). away from the points r+ and r.this has little effect. suppressing the interesting dynamics until the higher levels are either blown downstream or lifted and diffused to the outer edge of the boundary layer. It has. This is essentially due to round-off error in the calculations. however. The production of higher values of the Heisenberg parameter could easily be parameterized by a single time constant first order equation tied to a measure of the amplitude of the coefficients. which is unresolved. the interburst time tends to lengthen as the solution trajectory is attracted closer and closer to the heteroclinic cycle (this effect is visible in figure 3. and for that reason we at first neglected it.2). Initially we did not exercise the pressure term. although we do not expect its inclusion to change the dynamics of our system qualitatively. This results in a thorough randomization of the transition time from one solution to the other. The order of magnitude that we estimated for this term was small. we have held the value of our Heisenberg parameter constant. The transport effectiveness of the intense higher wavenumber turbulence would be expected to damp the system.

L. lizes (see figure 3. and the bursting period.52 J.5. The present work indicates clearly that the wall region is capable of producing bursts autonomously. since it is dependent on the first occurrence of a large enough pressure signal long enough after a previous burst. Lumley et al.6 Generation of Eigenfunctions from Stability Arguments Ideally. the bursts appear to be produced autonomously by the wall region. but the timing is determined by trigger signals from the outer layer. but the pressure signal should scale with outer variables. The POD procedure.7. however. 1984). The turbulent polymer drag reduction literature is particularly instructive. The mean interburst times for various values of the pressure signal are shown in figure 3. one would like to apply the POD approach to a wide range of flows where coherent structures are known to play an important role in the dynamics. so that it is not really possible to distinguish between the two types of scaling. requires the two-point velocity autocorrelation tensor as input. "long enough" is determined by wall variables. 1980. 3. however. for example. the instantaneous flow field is de- . For flows with very high Reynolds numbers or complicated geometries this can be prohibitively expensive given current computational and experimental capablities. Kubo and Lumley. Lumley and Kubo. Probably the most significant finding of this work is the identification of the etiology of the bursting phenomenon. but to be triggered by pressure signals from the outer layer. all change scale with the introduction of the polymer (see. Whether the bursting period scales with inner or outer variables has been a controversy in the turbulence literature for a number of years. Time between bursts will have a more complex scaling.5. since the sizes of the large eddies. The matter has been obscured by the fact that the experimental evidence has been measured in boundary layers with fairly low Reynolds numbers lying in a narrow range.6). That is. The method presented is based on energy stability considerations put forth by Lumley (1971). thus necessitating complete documentation of the flow before the analysis can proceed. In this section we will describe an analytic procedure for extracting basis functions (structures) which approximate those given by the POD but which requires much less a priori statistical information about the flow. This suggests that events during a burst should scale unambiguously with wall variables. First.

Fundamental Aspects 53 Figure 3. composed into three components in order to isolate the large scale structures.6.5. As an example we consider turbulent channel flow assumed statistically homogeneous in both the downstream (zj) and crosstream (x 3 ) directions. the coherent field (i. Pressure perturbations: solutions for a = 1.) and the incoherent back- . Evolution equations can then be written for the coherent velocity field and the coherent kinetic energy. In order to extract spatial structures from the total velocity field. the rationale being that the structures which on average have the largest growth rates will compare well with the structures which contribute the most to the average turbulent kinetic energy (POD eigenfunctions). A procedure can then be formalized to search for the structures which maximize the instantaneous growth rate of coherent energy. we avoid traditional Reynolds averaging and instead decompose the instantaneous velocity field into three components: the spatial mean (U).6 with pressure term.

54 J. which eliminates the small-scale turbulence while leaving the . L.5. Solid curves indicate prediction of Aubry et al. ground turbulence (it'). open squares indicate results of numerical simulations. Mean interburst duration T as a function of eigenvalue A + and pressure signal amplitude £.. Lumley et al Figure 3.. (1988). The spatial mean is an average over the x\ — 23 plane. We introduce a second averaging procedure.7. we will indicate it by [. >. denoted by < .]...

1988. 1980. and v the kinematic viscosity. 1972. Application of the calculus of variations then gives the Euler equations for the maximizing v field in the form of an eigenvalue relation. 1992. < . Integration by parts and continuity are used to eliminate the nonlinear convective and pressure terms. In the limit of a completely random turbulence containing no structure (i. T{J is identically zero. which is unknown and will ultimately require modeling.Fundamental Aspects coherent field intact. Berkooz. and that the cross correlations be negligible..]. the growth rate of the volume averaged coherent energy E is defined as a functional of the coherent velocity field. we can manipulate the NavierStokes equations to arrive at evolution equations for the coherent velocity field. We will refer to this average as a phase average.. Brereton and Kodal. TJJ represents the rectified effects of the small scale fluctuations on the coherent field and is defined by This can be thought of as a perturbed Reynolds stress. Sij the mean rate of strain. Gatski and Liu.. We seek the solenoidal velocity field which maximizes A. 1991). where D/Dt denotes the mean convective derivative.. We now follow classical energy method stability analysis for the coherent field. . In the case when the turbulence is completely structured so that < . For our purposes here it is sufficient that the phase average and space average commute. Given these averaging procedures.. First. >= [. >= 0) this quantity is equal to the usual Reynolds stress. 55 Practically this can be accomplished in several ways (Reynolds and Hussain.. Liu.e.

Figure 3. This linearity is an essential advantage of the method and for this reason we will constrain any stress model to be both linear and homogeneous in the v field insuring that the governing equation . We have investigated two different models for the unknown stress terms appearing in the eigenvalue relation.6. providing an inexpensive means of determining basis functions. Model inputs.6. This allows a decomposition into poloidal and toroidal components which satisfy continuity exactly (Joseph.1. (b) eddy viscosity and Reynolds stress.56 J.7) is linear in the coherent velocities. (a) mean velocity and mean gradient.).1. Lumley et al. 1976) The two scalar functions are then expanded in normal modes in the streamwise and spanwise directions.6. We consider coherent fields which are periodic in the homogeneous directions. L. forming a differential eigenvalue problem. It should be noted that. Substituting the above into equation (3.6.7) and eliminating the pressure TT results in two coupled equations. modulo the modeled terms. equation (3. In order to precede we need to specify a mean velocity field and a model for the unknown stress terms (see figure 3.

Assuming that the background turbulence evolves on much shorter time and length scales then the structures. the modes predicted by the stability method fall off much more rapidly away from the wall than do the POD functions.6. we choose to first examine more closely the closure model. regions of high shear are confined to thin regions near the wall. we examine our equations setting k\ = 0. and the structures predicted may be expected to fall off as quickly as the shear. we specify vt as a function of x?. Figure 3. Since both the POD analysis and the stability method favor modes which are infinitely long in the streamwise direction. We now seek to develop a stress model that allows for some anisotropy in the eddy viscosity. Using the basic stress model and an analytic expression for the fully turbulent mean profile (Reynolds and Tiederman. it seems plausible that a Newtonian stress-strain relationship like that for the molecular stresses will provide the basis for a model. For realistic mean profiles. shows comparisons between the calculated eigenvectors and the POD results of Moin and Moser (1989) obtained from a numerical data base.2. corresponding to experimentally determined values of the traditional eddy viscosity. Although there are qualitative similiarities in the shape of the structures. Although there may be a number of reasons for this discrepancy. The eigenvalue spectrum clearly shows that the stability analysis favors modes which have a much higher wavelength than the maximum energy modes of the POD. and thus couples the component equations through the stress terms. When there is no streamwise variation of the coherent field the only coupling terms in the equations are those multiplying the mean gradient.Fundamental Aspects remains a regular eigenvalue problem. 1967) we have solved the resulting equations numerically. We find that the isotropic eddy viscosity model creates no coupling between the different components of the coherent velocity. Tensorially this requires 57 The nature of the averaging procedure implies that the scales of the coherent field and the background turbulence are different. We set Due to the inhomogenity of the turbulence in the wall normal direction. We begin with the evolution equation . We will refer to this basic model as the isotropic eddy viscosity model.

00. for the Reynolds stresses.6. POD.00. where we are obliged to model a number of terms to obtain a closed system. We assume the stresses are in local equilibrium: D[uiUj]/Dt — 0. . Figure 3. (d) k3 = 15. This reduces the evolution equation for the Reynolds stress to an algebraic expression. (c) fc3 = 12. Now we set up a perturbation expansion in terms of mean field quantities. (b) k3 = 9. (a) k3 = 6. Lumley et al. we argue that the perturbed stress field is due entirely to the presence of the structures and consequently we restrict the model to include only production due directly to coherent velocity gradients.2. This is in agreement with a cascade . 1970).. isotropic model. Isotropic eddy viscosity model: •.00. We use standard second-order turbulence models. taking the coherent field as an order e perturbation to the spatial mean. L. we use an isotropic dissipation. We model the pressure-strain correlation by a return-to-isotropy term and an isotropization-of-production term (Naot et al.58 J. On physical grounds.00.

it is still clear that more needs to be done.3.. Also we have unconstrained the model in an important way since the tensorial form of the eddy viscosity allows the pricipal axes of the stress tensor to be unaligned with the axes of the rate of strain. From Figures 3. and 3. The comparison of the two models indicates significant improvements in the results given by the anisotropic eddy viscosity form.6.). The improvement with decreasing wavenumber is expected given the modeling considerations.6. especially for wavenumbers at or below the peak in the POD spectrum. In the simple model the effects of the mean field have been neglected entirely. We next considered the effect on the spatial mean velocity field of the growing coherent perturbation (see figure 3. Figure 3.6. Here we have allowed for modulation of the perturbation stresses by the mean field through the 0th order stresses appearing in the production terms.4. This is more realistic considering the three-dimensionality of the coherent field. This model leads to the expected cross coupling of the equations through the stress terms. The results compare well with the POD eigenvalues.Fundamental Aspects 59 analogy for the complete flow: the coherent structures are fed energy directly by the mean gradients while the small scale turbulence is in turn fed by gradients of the coherent field.6.2. 1/33 = 1/22Despite the absence of mean production terms. . this model is still a major improvement over the isotropic eddy viscosity formulation. still predicts structures with maximum growth rate that are a factor of 2 smaller than those containing the most energy (as given by the POD). it is evident that the eigen spectrum produced by solution of Equation (3. then the closure model can be written as where the tensor viscosity has the following structure in this specific case: z/13 = 1/33 = 0. shows eigensolutions for several values of k3.1). Despite the general improvement.6.3. The energy method procedure with the more refined closure model appears capable of extracting structures which closely approximate those given by the POD at least at the energy containing scales of motion.while improved by the use of the anisotropic closure model. If we identify the Oth order stresses with an eddy viscosity tensor. The separation of scales between the background turbulence and the coherent structures increases as the wave number decreases adding to the expected accuracy of the stress model.

We see that structures.00. At this point we consider the role of the mean velocity in the two methods. The POD eigenfunctions are given by averages of contributions from different mean profiles. The stability method on the other hand docs not allow for any . Figure 3.. (c) fc3 = 12. The POD structures are derived from solutions to the non-linear Navier-Stokes equations which allow for complicated interaction between the different scales of motion. in the relatively long period before bursting.00. The structures evolve in a mean velocity field that is changing due to the presence of the structures themselves.6.60 J.00.3.3.00. .anisotropic model: (a) k3 = 6. isotropic model. POD.6. Lumley et al.6. L.4). act to erode the shear that they see. Anisotropic eddy viscosity model: •. Conditionally averaged mean profiles clearly show the evolution of the local shear in the presence of coherent structures (see Figures 3. (b) £3 = 9. 3.. (d) k3 = 15.

Fundamental Aspects 61 Figure 3. we follow Liu (1988) and write time evolution equations for the energy density of the coherent field. Since the structures have an aspect ratio of about 1. Comparison of the POD spectrum with the eigenspectrum of the stability problems. As such the stability analysis predicts that the highest growth modes are those which can best extract energy from the time averaged mean shear which is concentrated in the small near-wall region. interaction between the mean and the coherent field.6. The mean profiles we have used are time averages which mask any contribution from the coherent field. To allow the mean field to evolve under the influence of the coherent field.4. We assume that the coherent field is given by the eigenvalues of . the narrow region of high imposed shear leads to a peak in the eigen spectrum at a large wave number. We expect that equilibrium solutions for the energy density as a function of cross stream wave number will approximate the average energy content as given by the POD spectrum. We allow the mean profile to depend on the coherent velocity as it does in reality. The mean flow is imposed and the resulting structures are calculated.

ur and the channel half height. The coherent structures are found by energy stability analysis. . coupled ODEs for the temporal evolution of the energies and dissipation. By examining the evolution equation for r.t' where z/n = 1/22 = ^33 = ^r. -03 = —Difjex. as described above. For this simple model we have assumed that while the intensity of the turbulence varies its spatial dependence remains unchanged. the scaled equation for the mean gradient is: The rate of dissipation of turbulent energy is given by a simple model adopted from second order closures schemes. Substituting these various models into the energy equations results in a set of three. (1988). In order to evaluate the integrals appearing in these equations. a. Using the friction velocity. we need to assume the spatial form of the averaged turbulence quantities Bij and the dissipation D(x-i). i/>2 = ikil}exp{ikx3}. Consequently.UJ > — [t^Wj].Vipr assume tlia.^i2 = ^21 = Ar^is = "23 = 0.p{ikx3}. the stability problem.-j =< M. This allows the mean to respond to growing structures providing the necessary feedback to the evolving modes. we assume the perturbation stresses also to be a product: Since we have used an eddy viscosity in obtaining the coherent forms WP fnrt. L. For this we adopt the quasisteady model used in Aubry et al. We use experimental data for fully developed turbulent channel flow to determine both B and D. but we now allow them to vary in time where V>i = vexp{ikx3}.62 J. Lumley et al. All that remains is to model the mean profile. the forcing terms are of the form < UiUj > v^j.

6.• is the initial time and tt is the final time.5. the temporal evolution of the coherent energy density for parameter values corresponding to different wavenumbers.Fundamental Aspects 63 Figure 3. The discrepancy at high wavenumbers is not surprising when we consider the simplifications involved in the model. The effects of interactions between modes may be negligible for the . Comparison between {Ai}(k^} and the spectrum of the POD is shown in figure 3. and T = tj — £. we define an average of the lifetime of an individual structure. In order to quantify comparisons of the single mode evolution model and the POD eigenspectrum.5. while not capturing the shape of the POD spectrum exactly. We show in figure 3.6. Our equations describe only the interactions of a single mode with the local mean and the background turbulence.-. The single mode model. we designate where the integral is over t{ to fy. Taking A2(ti) = A 2 ( t f ) . where /.6.6. Temporal evolution of coherent energy density for parameter values corresponding to different wavenumbers. gives a good indication of which wavenumbers are the most energetic.

large scale structures.64 J. but must become important for the smaller scales. The coherent field is then made up of two components. In order to estimate the effects of larger scale motions on the evolution of the smaller scales. where the fundamental u" is periodic in x$ with a wavelength A/2 and the subharmonic v[ has a wavelength A. L. Comparison of ensemble averaged energy content with POD spectrum. Figure 3.6. vi = v'j + vi'i. Since the periods of the disturbances have been artificially prescribed. we examine the interaction between a fundamental wave disturbance (small scale) and its subharmonic (large scale). two phase averages can be denned to decompose the velocity field analytically: In this way the coherent contribution from the instantaneous velocity is given by . We will consider such interactions below.6. Lumley et a].

we have calculated the interaction integrals using the mode £3 = 20 as the fundamental.28) for these coefficient values are shown in figure 3. The mode-mode dynamics are dominated by terms due to the mean velocity feedback model. The direct interaction term J4 is much .Fundamental Aspects 65 and the fundamental can be separated from the subharmonic using the « .6. /4 is a measure of the direct energy transfer between the two modes due to the working of the sunharmonic stresses against the fundamental rate of strain. » average: The volume averaged kinetic energy equations for the two components of the coherent field are: As before. The results of integrating equations (3. As an example.6. the coherent velocities are taken as the eigenfunctions of the stability problem: and the mean velocity model now contains contributions from both the fundamental and the subharmonic: New coupling terms appear in the evolution equations for the coherent energy densities due to the interaction between the different size modes: /|2 and /I1 represent the effect on the mean shear production of fundamental (subharmonic) coherent energy due to the presence of the subharmonic (fundamental). This quantity appears with opposite sign in each equation.7.

smaller. Temporal evolution of coherent energy densities showing the effect of mode-mode interaction. The spurious slow fall-off in the spectrum of {^42}. This agrees with our intuitive picture of the physics.66 J. would be eliminated. but the strain rate due to all larger scales. L. Although J^1 is twice as large as I^. there is no reason not to expect a qualitatively similar effect on the smaller scale motions in the real flow. The effect of the large scale subharmonic on the behavior of the small scale fundamental is dramatic. The small scale motions see not only the mean shear.7. however. Figure 3. While the situation analyzed here is admittedly artificial. Lumley et al. is quickly damped by the larger scale motion.6. however. the slowly growing subharmonic mode is practically unaffected by the presence of the fundamental. . the arguments presented earlier and the small wavenumber results shown in the figures will carry over to the case of manyn interacting eddies. Since the larger eddies are relatively unaffected by the smaller scales. since a real turbulent flow will contain structures of all sizes at any given instant. The fundamental.

which is the homogeneous equivalent of the POD. In physical space. 2 . j = 1 .o(x — k2j~). an orthonormal wavelet basis is constructed by starting with a function. homogeneous stochastic .Fundamental Aspects 3. There is therefore considerable motivation to find another representation that is more appropriate. say from K/O. In Tennekes and Lumley (1972) it was suggested that a more appropriate quantity would be the energy surrounding a wavenumber K. the Fourier transform is not nearly so appropriate in the homogeneous case as is the POD in the inhomogeneous case. say t^(x]. However. To set our minds at rest on this point. and coherent structures in particular. essentially dropping to zero in about lit/'K from the origin..7 Wavelet Representations 67 All the flows of interest to us have one or more homogeneous directions. to UK. (1992) consider a periodic. would convergence be much slower. similar to the eddy suggested by Tennekes and Lumley (1972). .2. it would also be nice to have reassurance from calculations that physical behavior would be preserved in a wavelet representation. we might worry because we would be discarding the optimality of the Fourier representation. 1992) is that very little energy is lost when using a wavelet basis instead of a Fourier basis. construct a set •0j. but extend to infinity without attenuation. Without getting involved with mathematical details.r) = V'( a. Although wavelets are physically appealing. Each of these is shrunk affinely." but they are an example of what are now called wavelets.. We are accustomed to use in these directions the Fourier transform. this packet with appropriate phase relations is confined to a region. (1992) also display a relatively low-dimensional wavelet model of the Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation that shows dynamical behavior similar to the full equation.k = 1. While wavelets appear to make more physical sense. Tennekes and Lumley called these "eddies. but is geometrically similar to the original function. Berkooz et al.62. . Now consider the translates of V^o : ^j. From this. . or would we lose considerable energy if we used the same number of terms? A main result of a recent paper (Berkooz et al. are localized. All disturbances in a fluid.o(. Berkooz et al. This is because the Fourier modes are not confined to a neighborhood. . 2j).. so that we would need many more terms. where a = 1.k(x} — ^j.

7. for a given £. such as quasi-planar fronts.2). for L —> 30. etc . three component Navier-Stokes equations are too complicated for a first effort.. many open questions remain concerning the limit L —» oo (Zaleski. (1992) wished to apply these ideas to a simple situation. UT> to some rescaling.} are the coefficients in a wavelet basis. but is much easier to deal with. 0 < t < 100). 1984). 3. Although the dynamical behavior for small values of L is fairly well understood (see Hyman et a/. L]. scalar Kuramoto-Sivashinsky (K-S) equation appears in a variety of contexts. a chaotic regime involving both space and time disorder occurs (see Figure 3. the length of the spatial domain. 1992). Now if.68 J. process. 1989. depending only on the process (and not on e): for some -V(e) > N(e) slightly bigger than -/V(e) (the precise statement is given in Berkooz et al. In order to check the estimate (3. if the {&. 1986 for an overview). The three-dimensional. It is then obvious that the POD decomposition becomes identical to the Fourier decomposition. Lumley et si. L = 400. we get for some constant C. Pomeau et al. where we plot a space-time representation of a typical solution. L. chemical turbulence. this equation can be written as: u periodic on [0. we need N ( e ) POD modes in order to satisfy then. where L. The one-dimensional.8.8 Dynamics with the Wavelet Representation in a Simple Equation Berkooz et al. It shares some properties with Burgers' equation and the Navier-Stokes equations. is the only free parameter in the problem.1. we compare the energy resolved by a given number of modes using either a Fourier (POD) . As can be seen from the numerical simulations.

0 < t < 100.1% 99.2% 83. Here are some results (see Fig.Fundamental Aspects 69 Figure 3. or wavelet basis. to compare the Fourier and wavelet bases. 8.9% 99. of modes 64(j = 6) 96(j = 6.9% Fourier 72. .1% 84.7% 99. all the translates in the wavelet basis must be considered.1. Note that.5) 127(0 < j < 6) 255(0 < j < 7) wavelets (m — 6) 70. Space-time representation of a solution to the K-S equation for L = 400.8.9% The scale j = 6 which captures most of the energy on the average.9% wavelets (m = 8) 71. 3.3% 89.84% 79.5% 79.43% 84. 2): No.

Figure 3. Lumley et al. These results prompted us to conclude that from an average energy point of view wavelets are a reasonable candidate for a modal decomposition of the K-S equation. Energy resolved by a given number of modes using a Fourier or wavelet basis. which is also the length scale associated with the most unstable wavelength qm. In agreement with the general shape of the energy spectrum. The localized nature of the wavelets may give us a unique view of the spatial attributes of the coherent . the scales 0 < j < 5 are shown to capture more energy than the scales in the dissipative range (j > 7).2. L. The above figures show that (for sufficiently smooth splines) the wavelet projection captures almost the same amount of energy as the Fourier (= POD) decomposition (within 5%).8.70 J. corresponds to a characteristic length 2~6i = Q"1.

e. We opted for the second approach. It might also be avoided by a stochastic boundary condition. after a long initial transient. Office of Naval Research. S. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Supported in part by Contract No. There are two plausible approaches to remove this effect. One approach uses a stochastic boundary condition (which is hard to implement numerically and treat analytically). We use this conjecture to remove terms in a wavelet-Galerkin projection that correspond to interactions between regions of distance greater than LC. modes located outside the box of size LB}. which is in excellent qualitative agreement with the dynamics of the full system.It is obvious that the Dirichlet type of boundary condition imposed will create a boundary layer which will affect the dynamics. the system eventually settles down to a periodic oscillatory state. We resolved a box of size LB = 50 (this is 1/8 of the original box). in which no interaction between the localized structures is observed.8. F49620-92-J-0287 jointly funded by the U. Figure 3.4 shows the spatiotemporal evolution of a (rescaled) model with LC — 50 X 3/8. Venant principle). Figure 3. and the U.3 shows the spatio-temporal evolution of the full system. We present some preliminary results of the integration of one such model. We need to address the role of unresolved physical space (i.To study whether the dynamics of coherent structures are indeed locally determined we construct truncations corresponding to a small box size LB in the larger box of size L. S. The other approach appeals to the conjecture on the existence of LC. We conjecture the existence of a dynamically relevant length scale LC such that interactions between physical regions of distance greater than LC are dynamically insignificant (a dynamical St. Determining the validity of this conjecture is part of our study. with a Fourier basis. This can be avoided by an increase in LC.Fundamental Aspects 71 structures. in . which adds significant non-linear interactions between relatively distant physical space locations. We outline our approach. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Control and Aerospace Programs).One takes a box of size LB greater that 2Lc so that one can periodize the small model using resolved relatively distant modes instead of unresolved ones. If LC is too small. especially in small boxes which are of interest to us.8.

. funded by the U. pp. J..3. Fluid Mech.8. F49620-92-J-0038. and Lumley. 1988.. J.L. H. A. and Poje. Lumley et al. Washington. P. 1-30. Dordrecht etc. f990.L. S . J." J. G. part by Grant No. Lumley. The Physics of Fluids. and in part by the Physical Oceanography Programs of the U . Office of Naval Research (Grant No. In Eddy Structure Identification in Free Turbulent Shear Flows. OCE-901 7882) and the U. 672-691. and Stone. N. Figure 3. P. N. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Aerospace Program).. Holmes. In NearWall Turbulence eds. Some comments on turbulence.J. N00014-92-J-1547).. J. E. 4 REFERENCES Aubry. (left) Spatio-temporal evolution of the full system using a Fourier basis. Afgan. (right) Spatio-temporal evolution of a (rescaled) model with Lc = 50 x 3/8. Holmes.. Lumley. P. National Science Foundation (Contract No. J. and Stone. Glauser. Figure 3. E. Holmes. Lumley.. ed. S. Berkooz. 295-310. 1992.72 J. L. Bonnet and M.: Kluwer. L. Parts of these Notes previously appeared in: Aubrey.8.. wavelets and modal approaches to the dynamics of coherent structures. 192: pp. Elezgaray. N. Kline and N. . The behavior of coherent structures in the wall region by dynamical systems theory. DC: Hemisphere. pp. 1993 The proper orthogonal decomposition. J.. S.4.J. S. A 4(2): 203-211. "The dynamics of coherent structures in the wall region of a turbulent boundary layer. P.

S. 657-682. Manneville.. "Interscale energy transfer in numerically simulated homogeneous turbulence. 1992. Y. Thesis. A. 1966 "The use of a contraction to improve the isotropy of grid-generated turbulence. 51.. Elezgaray. 1446-1449.. Rev. "Experimental evidence of intermittencies associated with a subharmonic bifurcation. "Coherent structures in random media and wavelets. M. G. Corino. 457-515. coherent structures and low dimensional models. Fluid Mech... and Corrsin. and Pomeau. R. 1975. 61 (1-4): pp. and Liu J. 1-30. 473-509. 37 (1): pp. "A frequency domain filtering technique for triple decomposition of unsteady turbulent flow. and Brodkey. Fluid Mech. M. 1990. 293 (1403): pp." J. S.. G. Fluids Engineering 114 (1): pp. Soc.B. 41 L341. 1991." Phys. 1969. 1992. Private communication. Gatski.. Cantwell. P. and Kodal. "On the interactions between large-scale structure and fine-grained turbulence in a free-shear flow III.D. A. 45-51. and Berge. J. "Organized motion in turbulent flow. Lett. G." Proceedings CTR Summer Program.. Dubois. Comte-Bellot.. "Intermittency in Rayleigh-Benard convection.S.. pp. Brereton. "A visual investigation of the wall region in turbulent flow. 1980. 1980." Ann. P. "Turbulence. Lett." Ph.T.. T.." Physica D. 47-58. Berkooz.R. J.Fundamental Aspects 73 Berge.. G. B.A.A." J. Corrsin." Phil. 1983." J. and Wray. Phys. 1981.. Roy. Cornell University. E. A numerical solution. 25: pp. P. 13: pp. Palo Alto: Stanford. R. M. Fluid Mech. Berkooz. Rogallo. Rubio. Rev.C. Dubois.S.J. .A. Domaradzki. and Holmes. Trans.J.." J.

.74 J. "Coherent structure in the axisymmetric jet mixing layer.. 299-303. S. Cambridge. 1967. 1980. NY: Cornell. pp. Nicolaenko. Glauser. 1956. 1986. P.J.. 1962. J.D. Kolmogorov. Leib." in Surveys in Mechanics. 1986. 741-773.J. and Holmes. B. pp. M. Ithaca." J. UK: The University Press. Fluid Mech. J. "A study to assess the potential for using long chain polymers dissolved in water to study turbulence..M.J. Hyman. Batchelor and R.pp.N. 30 (4): pp.A. Kolmogorov.C. NSG-2382. S.N. J. W.D. S. A.." Annual Report. Reynolds. D. Kline. 1941. Schraub. 1985. 113. Berlin. eds. dynamical systems and bifurcations of vector fields. M. 1976." Doklady AN SSSR 30. Lumley et aJ. "Order and complexity in the Kuramoto Sivashinsky model of weakly turbulent interfaces. G." Ph. Cornell University. Guckenheimer. M.N.W. and Lumley. A. 82-85. Corrected second printing. 18: p. New York.. F." Springer -Verlag. "The large scale structure in the near-wall region of turbulent pipe flow.. "Nonlinear oscillations. and George W.L. (Springer selected papers from TSF). and Rundstadler. NASA-Ames Grant No. "Local structure of turbulence in an incompressible fluid at very high Reynolds numbers. 1983... J." Physica D.. K." J." Proc." Springer Tracts in Natural Philosophy. Lighthill. . "The structure of turbulent boundary layers. "A refinement of previous hypotheses concerning the local structure of turbulence in viscous incompressible fluid at high Reynolds number. L.. Fluid Mech.K. 1986.. thesis. P. Joseph. of the 5th Symp.. of the Turbulent Shear Flow Con/. Kubo. Davies. "Viscosity effects in sound waves of finite amplitude. 250-351. I.. Cornell University. 13 (l). and Zaleski. Herzog.. S. "Stability of Fluid Motion.

" Advances in Applied Mechanics 18." Advances in Applied Mechanics." Van Nostrand. T. "Effects of the Prandtl number on the onset of turbulence in liquid helium. 215-242." Developments in Mechanics 6.. A. eds. C. Yaglom and V." Transition and turbulence. edited by R. "The structure of inhomogeneous turbulent flows.N. B.. 1992.. J. Loeve. M. p. Tatarski. New York: pp. Lumley.. "Turbulent drag reduction by polymer additives: a survey. Academic Press.E. Meyer. L. M." Academic Press. New York. 1988. J. L-515. Fluids A 4 (2): pp." Atmospheric Turbulence and Radio Wave Propagation." J. 1992. 3-21. eds. 41." The Influence of Polymer Additives on Velocity and Temperature Fields. "Probability Theory. J. 1971. Ed. and Chasnov." Proceedings of the Summer Program.C. edited by C. 26: pp. Yih. Paris Lett. . 203-211. p. Meneveau.L. J.H. 1981.. IUTAM Symposium Essen 1984. and Libchaber. 1978. 123. Lumley. 1955.. Lumley. Lund.. J. Stanford/NASA Ames: CTR. Gampert. J.T. J. D. "Some comments on the energy method. Lumley. IN: N. New York.S. I.L. Szewczyk. A.L. and Kubo. pp. Center for Turbulence Research.L.. J. "Some comments on turbulence. I. Lumley. 1967. "Computational modeling of turbulent flows. J.L. Maurer. Press. Notre Dame. "Contributions to the understanding of large scale coherent structures in developing free turbulent shear flows. "On the local nature of the energy cascade. 1984. "Coherent structures in turbulence. Lumley. J. Phys.L. Springer Berlin/Heidelberg. Moscow: Nauka.Fundamental Aspects 75 Liu.. 166..L.S. 1970.H. Lee and A... Lumley. 183-309. New York: Academic Press." Phys. 1980. "Stochastic tools in turbulence.

Tech. Shavit. & Lakshmanan. 1967.. Part 3. S.R. 743-749.. "Intrinsic stochasticity with many degrees of freedom. "Turbulence measurements in axisymmetric jets of air and helium. "Application of a Reynoldsstress turbulence model to the compressible shear layer. Panchapakesan. "The mechanics of an organized wave in turbulent shear flow. 1. A. "Intermittent transition to turbulence. 1989.. M. S. Reynolds. .. Part I: Air Jet and Part II: Helium Jet. G. 2674-2682.Y. B. 253-272...S. Fluid Mech. "Interaction between components of the turbulent velocity correlation tensor. 1971." edited by J. N. 1980.. Pomeau. Monin. P.. S. Sarkar.C. Lumley. and Moser.M." Journal of Fluid Mechanics 200: pp.A 4 (12): pp.. R. 246: pp. Sarkar. "The pressure-dilatation correlation in compressible flows. Y. 1984. and Lumley. and Hussain. A. Phys. 27: pp. 1970. Phys 37: pp. Cambridge.L. 1984. 39-49. Math. P. Moin. 8. "Characteristic-eddy decomposition of turbulence in a channel. Mom.. M. 189-197. and Pelce. Fluids .. and Wolfshtein. and Yaglom. L. 1991. 1991. 54: pp. Pumir.." AIAA J. 319-328." Phys. "Statistical fluid mechanics: mechanics of turbulence. & Hussaini.. Fluid Dynamics 2: pp." /. Y. 225-247." Theoretical models and comparisons with experiment." Theoret. 263-287. Fluid Mech.L.76 J. "Direct simulation of compressible turbulence in a shear flow. pp.." . Comput. MA: MIT Press.M. Sarkar. Lumley et al. D.F. Fluid Mech. 1993.K. J. P. A. "Stability of turbulent channel flow with application to Malkus' theory.. "Probing turbulence via large eddy simulation. 29 (5): pp. W. Reynolds. 259. and Tiederman. W.C. pp. and Manneville. 197-223. A. J. W." Comm.. Pomeau. Stat." J. 1972.. 1992." Israel J. Naot.7. P. A." AIAA 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting. 471-509.G.D. 74. Erlebacher..

"The analysis and modeling of dilatational terms in compressible turbulence. pp. "On the existence of hysteresis in a transition to chaos after a single bifurcation. "A low-density wind tunnel study of shockwave structure and relaxation phenomena in gases.." J. J. C. and Schwarz. Erlebacher. F.R Sbornik 10 (1)." Physica D 34: p.Y." Ann de L'Inst. Physics (Paris) Lett. H.P.... Fluids 26 (3): pp. and Arneodo. J." Math. 41. Dokl 6: pp. 1965. 1989. 427-438. "Observation of streamwise rotation in the near-wall region of a turbulent boundary layer. G. Fluid Mech. "A contribution to the problem of the structure of an extended neighborhood of a rough equilibrium state of saddle-focus type. P. T. Fluid Mech. A.T." Springer-Verlag. 441-461. L.S.. MA: MIT Press. L2 43-246.P.P. "A first course in turbulence. L.S. Tresser.. Shih. S. 227: pp. "A case of the existence of a denumerable set of periodic motions.. 1984." Soviet Math. 1970. 641-652. 1980. C. & Kreiss. Silnikov.P. C. 1955. Tresser. Sherman.. Lumley. Sparrow. L. 180: pp. "The Lorenz equations: bifurcations.S. "Second order modeling of a variable density mixing layer. M. Heidelberg.S. 1991.-H. 93-116.O. "About some theorems by L. C. 40: pp.S..Fundamental Aspects 77 Sarkar. 1982. 1987.L. chaos and strange attractors. U.. 1972. Silnikov. Berlin. "On the generation of a periodic motion from trajectories doubly asymptotic to an equilibrium State of Saddle type. H. 163-166. Zaleski. Silnikov. 91-102. Tennekes.R." Cambridge." Phys. SbornikG. 427 . 1968. New York.. Smith. Silnikov.P. S. Coullet. Hussaini." J." J." Math U. H. and Janicka.R. J.L... S." NACA TN 3298. pp. 1983.. 473-493. "Stochastic model for the large scale dynamics of some fluctuating interfaces. Poincare. and Lumley..

1991." Phys. . Lumley et al. "On the decay of compressible isotropic turbulence. Zeman. L. Sarkar. . 2: pp. and Wickerhauser.. pp. Wygnanski. 489-513." In The Lumley Symposium: Recent Developments in Turbulence. edited by T. "Dilatation dissipation: the concept and application in modelling compressible mixing layers. 178-188. and Kaplan. 1992. Fluids A. "Characterization and compression of turbulent signals and images using wavelet-packets. R. Berlin: Springer. 951-955. Zeman. L. Zubair. Fluids A 3: pp. R. C. 20 (10): S258-S271. 0.78 J. K. Speziale. V.. S. Zilberman. I. O. M. 1977. G.. Gatski.E. 1990. Fluids Supp. "Transitional boundary layer spot in a fully turbulent environment..." Phys." Phys. Sreenivasan.

In 79 .. For example. faster computers with more memory continue to become available and now. Since that time. In addition. 1993). About 45 years ago von Neumann (1949) and Emmons (1949) proposed an attack on the turbulence problem by numerical simulation. 2563 simulations of homogeneous turbulence are relatively common with occasional 5123 simulations being achieved on parallel supercomputers (Chen et al. Perhaps the arrival of the CDC 6600 triggered these initial efforts.Chapter 2 DIRECT NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF TURBULENT FLOWS Anthony Leonard 1 INTRODUCTION The numerical simulation of turbulent flows has a short history. isotropic turbulence was accomplished on a 323 mesh by Orszag and Patterson (1972). spectral methods for the simulation of arbitrary homogeneous flows and the efficient simulation of wall-bounded flows have been available for some time for incompressible flows and have recently been extended to compressible flows. new algorithms have been developed which extend or improve capabilities in turbulence simulation. a number of developments have occurred along several fronts. But one could point to a beginning 20 years later when Deardorff (1970) reported on a large-eddy simulation of turbulent channel flow on a 24x20x14 mesh and a direct simulation of homogeneous.. in 1994. Of course. 1993) (Jimenez et a/.

t). Using the volume-aver aged s given by . we present examples of these new developments and discuss prospects for future developments. chaotic. It is assumed that the density = 1. where U and L are a characteristic velocity and a characteristic length of the large scales and v is the kinematic viscosity. As a result of all these developments. Hussaini et a/. 1967). The character of the solution depends on the Reynolds number of the flow. or Kolmogorov. While limitations exist (Reynolds. we estimate. It is the combination of all these attributes that makes the numerical simulation of such flows extremely challenging.80 A. for example. For small Reynolds numbers. 1990. rj = (i/ 3 /e) 1//4 . one obtains a laminar flow that is smoothly varying in space and time. suitable for incompressible flow with complex geometries. and the largest important scale to be some multiple of the pipe diameter. and unsteady. viscous vortex methods and spectral element methods are now becoming available. the potential of the method will lead to the simulation of a wide variety of turbulent flows. vortical. In this chapter. the number of turbulence simulations has been increasing rapidly in the past few years and will continue to do so. u (x. and the pressure. 2 PROBLEM OF NUMERICAL SIMULATION We consider an incompressible flow whose time evolution is given by the Navier-Stokes equations for the velocity. t) as along with appropriate initial and boundary conditions. Turbulent flows have been described as random.g. the smallest important scale of turbulence to be proportional to the dissipation. one obtains a turbulent flow. Batchelor. where e is the energy dissipation rate per unit mass. Leonard addition fast. according to universal equilibrium theory (see. and they are known to contain a wide range of scales. In turbulent pipe flow.. length. e. three-dimensional. Re = UL/V. p (x. for large Reynolds numbers. 1990).

the dissipation spectrum is proportional to kfEi(kj). Figure 2 shows energy spectra in a high speed boundary layer measured by Saddoughi and Veeravalli (1994). The pipe diameter is 25.04. away from the wall. where Re = UD/z/ and f is the friction factor. the grid spacing must be somewhat smaller than the length scale corresponding to the peak in the dissipation spectrum. Thus we expect that a resolution of the fine scales such that kmax7j = 1 should be sufficient and this. 1994). Note again that the peak in the energy spectrum occurs at k?y well below 2?r. 1975). corresponds to a length of 150 77 or 0. is seen to be well beyond the measured data. and UT is the wall shear velocity given by The friction factor. as an estimate of the mean spacing between grid points A. indeed. we take A = 3r/. Therefore. required in the direct. If isotropy of the small scales is assumed. this time near kij K 0.000) pipe flow. we find that. given implicitly by the formula (Hinze.03D or k?7 = 0. The wave number corresponding to the Kolmogorov length. seems to be the case (Huang and Leonard. Figure 1 shows the energy spectrum measurements of Laufer (1954) for high-Reynolds-number (Re = 500.4 cm.06. is only weakly dependent on Reynolds number so that the required number of mesh points on a three-dimensional grid would be proportional to (D/??)3 oc Re 3 ' 4 . k^ = 27r/?y. simulation of turbulent pipe flow.Direct Numerical Simulation 81 where U is the mean velocity and D is the pipe diameter. To simulate reliably the dissipation of turbulence energy. assuming that . In Laufer's experiment this peak. Table I gives corresponding estimates of the number of mesh points required for several Reynolds numbers.

The pipe diameter. others correlation lengths of 2D. the computational domain extends 10 diameters in the streamwise direction. using 4 X 106 grid points. 1954). (1987) previously performed a direct simulation of plane channel flow at Re = 3300. r' is the distance from the pipe wall. is 25. Kim et al. see Coles(1981). Leonard Figure 1. In addition it should be verified that the spacing A = 377 is .82 A. 109 words storage).) It appears that the two lowest Reynolds number cases would be accessible to present day supercomputers (1010 floating point operations per second. roughly corresponding to the Re = 5000 case for the pipe as given in Table I.000.4 cm (Laufer. Longitudinal energy spectra measured in pipe flow at Re = 500. Some measurements and their interpretation suggest correlation lengths of 20D. (This estimate could be off by a factor of 3 either way. In fact. based on channel half width. D.

1994). Re<? of 370. Longitudinal and transverse energy spectra measured in a turbulent boundary layer at a momentum thickness Reynolds number.000 or a Taylor scale Reynolds number.000.Direct Numerical Simulation 83 Figure 2. RA of 1400. . Measurements taken at y + w 16. Solid lines are fits to the data (Saddoughi.

000.4 2. N s .00058 0. This spacing would be marginally sufficient resolution to reproduce all important wall-layer structures (such as streamwise streaks).8 3.6 1.0045 0.00093 0.4 (see Table I).8 to 11. .5 x 109 4.8 N = 10^(ff 3.3 X 107 3. The grid spacing measured in wall units is given by For Re from 5.0028 0.84 A. which have characteristic lengths of 50-100 wall units with some structures down to 20 units in size.000 to 500.2 x 1010 sufficiently small to allow resolution of all important turbulence phenomena near the wall. The time-step At is roughly limited to Using the above estimate for A and (2/f) 1 ' 4 = 3 we find that . A + ranges from 4.00019 1.1 X 106 5 x 105 0. Leonard Table I. The number of time-steps. required to follow one realization for a time T and obtain reasonable statistics also depends on Reynolds number.8 2.Mesh-Point Requirements Kolmogorov length Reynolds Number 5 1 5 1 X 103 X 104 X 104 X 105 7?/D Number of mesh points (A = 37?) 3 n+ ^ wall units 1.6 x 108 1.

Then assuming that the turbulent component of the homogeneous flow is periodic in x-space.000. 3 SIMULATION OF HOMOGENEOUS INCOMPRESSIBLE TURBULENCE A variety of homogeneous turbulent flows can be treated by writing the velocity field u as the sum of a mean component and a turbulent romnonfiTit.Direct Numerical Simulation 85 And if T = 100 D/U. The Navier-Stokes equations become a 3(N — I) 3 system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). u'(x. x. and assuming that the components of U have the form where repeated indices are summed (see Rogallo. and . and spatial derivatives can be computed accurately by Fourier interpolation. no further boundary conditions are required. t) is represented by Here the mth component of k is and I ranges over -N/2 + 1 < I < N/2 . By transforming to coordinates. /here k 2 = k n k n . 1981).1. moving with the mean flow we obtain momentum and continuity equations for u' that contain no explicit dependence on x. Thus. with period Lm in direction m. then or 6.500 steps for Re = 5.

somewhat more in the streamwise direction. but 17. shear. and rotation. One can no longer use Fourier series for the spectral expansion in inhomogeneous directions. The thin shear layer next to the wall is continually breaking up via three-dimensional (3-D) inertial instabilities resulting in a violent 3-D wrinkling of the vortex layer. Another part of the problem is algorithmic and is due either to the no-slip boundary condition at the wall or the presence of semiinfinite domains of fluctuating potential flow in the case of free shear flows or turbulent boundary layers. part of the problem is due to the small-scale physical processes taking place near the wall.86 A. 1980). In the spanwise direction. related to the vorticity. four examples are: plain strain. Rather. axisymmetric strain. one should employ global polynomials related to the eigenfunctions of a singular Sturm-Liouville problem (Orszag. Umn = 0. Uia = const.) To avoid explicit evaluation of the convolution sums u^un requiring 0(N 6 ) operations per step. 1)22 — Uss = —(l/2)Un = const. must satisfy the evolution equation Besides zero mean flow. zero mean flow. Suppose the tensor U^m is decomposed into a symmetric (R) and an antisymmetric (ft)tensor. Leonard (In the above. See Rogallo (1981) and Rogallo and Moin (1984) for more discussion and application. Consequently. perhaps. only 0(N 3 logN) operations per step are required. the scale of the breakup is of the order of the thickness of the layer or tens of wall units and. For wall-bounded flows. to obtain rapid convergence independent of boundary constraints. 4 WALL-BOUNDED AND INHOMOGENEOUS FLOWS The direct simulation of wall-bounded and other inhomogeneous flows presents a new set of difficulties. Chebyshev . has been assumed in order to simplify the presentation. then the only constraint on R is that it be traceless Rnn = 0. TJis = -Uai = const. TJ22 = —Uss = const. fast Fourier transforms (FFTs) are used to return to physical space where the required products are formed and then transformed (by FFTs) back to Fourier space.

Direct Numerical Simulation 87 and Legendre polynomials are popular choices for channel flow but. First we write the Navier-Stokes equations in rotational form: Here o> — V x u '1S the vorticity. Other boundary conditions. The boundary condition at a wall is u|waii = 0. are imposed as appropriate. These two conditions become global constraints on the expansion which are generally difficult or costly to impose simultaneously. other choices may be preferable because of special conditions of the problem at hand. The technique consists of expanding the velocity field in terms of a set of divergence-free vector functions satisfying the appropriate boundary conditions. the boundary conditions are built into the expansion and the divergence-free constraint is satisfied by a simple projection which is local in wavenumber space. that is. in the case of pipe flow. This may be expressed formally be recalling that an arbitrary vector field f may be uniquely decomposed into a sum of a divergence-free field satisfying tangency at the boundary and the gradient of a potential. In the following. applying the projection operator p to equation (18a) we obtain . for example. such as periodicity or freestream conditions at infinity. The role of the pressure in incompressible flows is to enforce the continuity condition. for example. the no-slip condition and the satisfaction of the continuity constraint. we will describe a technique for overcoming the algorithmic difficulties described above. Let <p be the projection operator that accomplishes this decomposition. this change in basis functions complicates the imposition of. at least for flows in simple geometries. in the simulation of homogeneous flows using Fourier expansions in all three directions. Whatever the choice may be. By contrast.

2.88 A. 1979). Thus. The above equation is the starting point for the numerical scheme described below. . each evaluation of the a n 's requires the solution of a linear system and the computation of the nonlinear term. The choice of the . . N) satisfying and If the £m form a complete set and N -> oo. . Vector expansion method: We write u as the exoansion where each if>n satisfies and the homogeneous boundary condition on u. . . We do so by substituting the expansion (22) into (18a) and taking the inner product of the result with a set of weight vectors £m (m = 1. this operation is equivalent to applying the projection operator because for an arbitrary scalar field (f>. The result is the following system of ODEs: where and gm is quadratic in the an s. . Leonard eliminating the dynamic pressure (Chorin and Marsden. 2. . N). . We need to derive a system of ODEs for the coefficients an(t) (n = 1.

In addition. (for example. banded structure for A and B). y.. respectively. 1983). Equation (27) is a complete statement of the dynamics. The condition that each expansion function be divergence free requires that Boundary conditions and completeness of the expansion with rapid convergence are satisfied if we choose for k ^ 0. Mathematically. and y is the coordinate perpendicular to the channel walls located at y = ±1. A and B are banded with the same number of bands. allowing considerable savings in memory requirement. implicit treatment of the viscous term is possible at no extra cost. ±2?r/L. No extra equations are required to enforce boundary conditions or continuity. of course. ±4?r/L. in the application to pipe flow (Leonard and Wray. consider two-dimensional channel flow with the velocity field assumed to be periodic in the streamwise direction x with period L. In practice. and (iv) efficient computation of the nonlinear term g.. the number of equivalent grid points in the computation is N/2.t) is expanded as follows: where k = 0. Thus. For example. the sets {ifin} and {Cm} must be complete in appropriate spaces of functions satisfying (23) plus boundary conditions and (24) and (25). (iii) efficient construction of the matrices A and B. only two unknowns per mesh point are required because of the constraint (23) on expansion vectors. Thus. where I n (y) 1S the Lhebychev polynominal. (ii) minimum (and ordered) coupling of the modes through the time-dependent and viscous operators.. and no fractional time-steps are needed. The velocity u(x. the index n ranges from one to three representing each spatial direction. . As a relatively simple example.Direct Numerical Simulation 89 vector functions -0n and £m is crucial to the success of the method. From a computation standpoint we would like (i) rapid convergence of our expansions of u. The matrices A and B are diagonal in the homogeneous directions where Fourier series may be used but nondiagonal in the direction normal to the wall.

0037396706216 .003739670616. .. Leonard If k = 0 we choose Table II shows the exponential convergence of the method when applied to the eigenvalue problem for the Orr-Sommerfeld equation. kz) one adds an extra vector to the expansion . . . Thus.0037396706223 .00372 . 1991).y 2 ) 2 T 2 n -2(y)?n = 1. in the direction normal to the layer. bounded by a semi-infinite domain of unsteady potential flow.. for each (k x . . . This is so because potential flow contributions.2. . . Channel Flow Eigenvalues R e = 10 4 . terms that represent the potential flow explicitly. it is desirable to include.0037398 . .N. than the vortical contributions (Spalart et ai.90 The divergence condition (30) demands that A.003739669 .0037396706222 In treating vorticity-containing layers of finite thickness. The Table gives the real part of the time eigenvalue A using the expansion functions for even v(y) : (1 . in the expansion.k z = 0 N 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Real (A) . . . decay much more slowly.k x = l.0037396706227 . in general. .. . for boundary layer flows. . Table II.

curved channel flow (Moser et al. vortex methods have been used to model unsteady. Other efforts that have used the general strategy of divergence-free vector expansions include studies of transitional pipe flow (Leonard and Wray. we start with the three-dimensional vorticity equation for the vorticity field w in a constant density. 1988). with the advent of fast vortex algorithms. (3) rigorous treatment of the boundary conditions at infinity is a natural byproduct. vortex rings (Stanaway et al. Their classical advantages still hold — (1) computational elements are needed only where the vorticity is nonzero. . and (4) physical insights gained by dealing directly with the vorticity field . incompressible flow. Now. 1994). 5 FAST. and recent developments for the accurate treatment of viscous effects. The vortical expansion functions behave as 91 for large y. (2) the flow domain is grid-free. bringing the operating count per timestep down to 0(N) from 0(N 2 ) for N computational elements. one can use vortex methods for highresolution simulations of the Navier-Stokes equations. where y0 is on the order of the boundary layer thickness. high Reynolds number incompressible flow by representing the fluctuating vorticity field with a few tens to a few thousand Langrangian elements of vorticity. To describe vortex methods. Two applications that incorporate the above technique for finitethickness vorticity layers are Spalart's (1989) simulations of turbulent boundary layers and Moser and Rogers' (1991) study of plane mixing layers. 1988) and spherical couette flow (Dumas and Leonard.so that vortex methods have become an interesting alternative to finite difference and spectral methods for incompressible turbulence simulation. 1982) (Leonard and Reynolds. VISCOUS VORTEX METHODS Traditionally.Direct Numerical Simulation given by such that as y —> oo. 1983).

Let -0. and free-stream conditions at infinity To simplify the description of the method. V u = 0. That (41) and (42) imply (39) may be shown as follows. the stream function for the imaginary fluid within the body. be given by Thus. it is important to recognize that the no-slip boundary condition is maintained by a continual flux of vorticity from the body surface into the fluid. Mathematically. within the body B. Leonard Combining the incompressibility condition for the velocity field u.. and . we restrict the discussion to non-rotating bodies. we find that We will consider vortex methods in the context of bluff-body flows and so we are interested in solutions to (37) and (38) corresponding to no-slip at the surface of a rigid body moving with velocity Ub. this flux is such that co is nonzero only in the fluid (i.e.92 A. The solution to (38) satisfying (39) and (40) is given in terms of the infinite-medium Green's function In our numerical approach described below. and the definition of vorticity. external to the body) and that (41) gives the result that where t is any tangent vector at the body surface. y x u — u>.

the distribution for the gaussian particle is given by To satisfy the inviscid components of motion of the fluid. Here n is in the outward normal direction. From (42) and (44). at every point on the surface <9B for any tangent vector t.Direct Numerical Simulation 93 because all vorticity is external to B. See Leonard (1985) and Winckelmans and Leonard (1993) for further discussion including choices for the function £. vector-valued computational elements or particles. Now we use Green's identity with u = v = ib[. so that (46) reduces to Hence. the vorticity field is represented by a dense collection of N moving. Thus. each particle moves with the local velocity . where the particle vector amplitudes. For example. and £ has unit volume integral. 0:^ . -0' = const and In the present method. have units of circulation times length and each particle has a radially symmetric spatial distribution defined by where a is the effective core radius of the particle. ~y~ — 0.

a discussed by Chorin (1973). h. More recently. This method has good convergence properties but requires an occasional remeshing of the particles as discussed below. the technique of particle strength exchange (see Degond and Mas-Gallic (1989)) has been proposed. Leonard The velocity field u is obtained by substituting (50) into (41) to obtain The function q is given by For a variety of simple choices of the distribution function £ (e. Although equation (54) for the inviscid evolution of the x^ seems most natural. Thus. For viscous diffusion we need to update the vorticity field following the equation with the boundary condition implied by (39). The random walk method. has been applied widely for a number of years but has the disadvantage of being slowly convergent.94 and its vector a^ is stretched and rotated according to A. Higher order schemes are possible.g. gaussian) the truncation error is O(cr 2 ) if the typical interparticle distance. See Leonard (1980) and Beale and Majda (1982) for more details. accurate schemes as discussed by Winckelmans and Leonard (1993). satisfies h < <r. In this algorithm we approximate y 2 as an integral operator and discretize the integration over the particles. based on the fact that also yield convergent. other possibilities. we use ..

with gaussian particle distributions. it is found that if (63) is integrated in time with Euler timestepping and the results are superaccurate (Pepin 1990. we find that (58) can be written Note now that by approximating the integral on the right hand side of (62) over the particles and using (60) we obtain the evolution equation for the problem (58) in an infinite domain. that is we do not enforce du/dn — 0 at the wall during this substep (Koumoutsakos et a/. 1994). 95 Consider first the application to an infinite domain. Furthermore. In addition. for example. for a substep of the diffusion step we use (63). This phenomenon may be explained by noting that the exact solution to (58) in an infinite domain at time t + At is given by For wall-bounded flows we enforce the no-slip condition in the form (42). as we can see by taking the Fourier transform of both sides.. that is. however. E-^dctj/dt = 0. The approximation (59) is good to second order in cr. Using (59) and the particle representation. where v is the particle volume. Leonard and Koumoutsakos 1993). This leads to an additional .Direct Numerical Simulation where. The above algorithm conserves total vorticity exactly.

Specifically.96 A. Rerneshing: In order for the numerical simulation to be accurate. and interpolate the old vorticity onto the new particle locations.yj. This effect along with the pressure gradient produces a wall slip (Usijp) at time t + At. Thus the total flux to be emitted into the flow for the other substep of the diffusion process is given by This flux is then distributed to the particles by discretizing the Greens' integral for the inhomogeneous Neumann problem for the diffusion equation. away from a wall. using the fast algorithm. the ith old vortex with circulation I\ and location (xi.Zj) contributes AFj ( i circulation to new mesh point (xj. We compute this slip as an average over computational panels on the wall directly from the Green's function integral for the velocity potential. (1994) and Winckelmans et al. This is required for accuracy in the convection step as well as the diffusion step. keeping the average particle density constant. we overlay a regular grid (the new particles) over the old particles.Zj). similar to the situation at a hyperbolic stagnation point in steady flow. When remeshing is deemed necessary. the particles must.yi. On the other hand the local strain rate following a particle may generate a substantial contraction or crowding of particles in one or two directions accompanied by an expansion in the other directions. Leonard spatially varying flux of vorticity from the surface. See Koumoutsakos et al. according to where the interpolation kernel A is given by If the old particle is less then a distance h from a wall the interpolation is modified to maintain the same conservation properties. We use a 27-point scheme to distribute the old vorticity to the new mesh. to a certain degree. be uniformly distributed. with a form analogous to (41). See . (1995).

requiring 0(N log N) operations. Figure 3 shows an example of particle clustering in two dimensions.000 elements.smaller neighboring clusters combine to form a cluster of the next size up in the hierarchy and so on. and maintaining a certain degree of accuracy. Greengard and Rohkin (1987). linear and angular momentum. One then tries to minimize the work required by maximizing the size of the cluster used. (1994)) have been developed that have operation counts of 0(N log N) or 0(N) depending on the details of the algorithm. Then those expansions are used to determine the velocities of the particles in the second cluster. using (55) for every particle. This precludes high resolution studies of bluff body flows with more than say 50. we show in Figure 4 the vorticity distribution in accelerating flow past a flat plate at 90° angle-of-attack. requires O(N 2 ) operations for N vortex elements. while keeping the number of terms in the expansion within a reasonable limit. Koumoutsakos. This has as an effect the minimization of the tree traversals for the individual particles. and Salmon et al.. Applications: To illustrate the use of the viscous vortex method in two dimension. This scheme conserves the circulation. This is the essence of the particle/box (PB) method. Barnes and Hut (1986). . The contribution of a cluster of particles to the velocity of a given vortex can then be computed to desired accuracy if the particle is sufficiently far from the cluster in proportion to the size of the cluster and a sufficiently large number of terms in the expansion is taken.g. Fast Vortex Methods: The straightforward method of computing the right-hand sides of (53) and (54). These interactions are in the form of shifting the expansions of a certain cluster with the desired accuracy to the center of another cluster.Direct Numerical Simulation 97 Koumoutsakos (1993) and Hockney and Eastwood (1981) for further discussion. The box-box (BB) scheme goes one step further as it accounts for box-box interactions as well. Recently. private communication 1994). The basic idea of these methods is to decompose the element population spatially into clusters of particles and build a hierarchy of clusters (tree) . For similar applications to cylinder flow. (P. fast methods (see e. requiring only 0(N) operations.

Spectral Element Method: A powerful alternative approach for complex geometries is the spectral element method (Patera. Shown is the deformation of an initially spherical vortex sheet corresponding to potential flow past a sphere. Example of particle clustering for an elliptical spiral distribution of 1000 particles see Koumoutsakos and Leonard (1995). Leonard Figure 3. 1984) (Karniadakis. A three-dimensional example is shown in Figure 5. See Chu and Karniadakis (1992) for the application to turbulent flow over streamwise grooves or riblets.98 A. Henderson and Karniadakis (1994) extended the method to a nonconforming . 1989) in which local spectral (polynomial) expansions are used over quadrilateral subdomains in two dimensions or hexahedral subdomains in three dimensions. Recently.

(b) time = 3. number of vortex particles ~ 210.Direct Numerical Simulation 99 Figure 4. (a) Nondimensional time = t<i/a/L — 2.5. a. Reynolds number based on acceleration. = VaL 3 /z/ = 1. Koumoutsakos. Viscous vortex method.296.000.0.000 (P. number of vortex particles « 290. private communication 1994). Vorticity contours for accelerating freestrearn flow past a flat plate at 90° incidence. .

Leonard Figure 5. In addition. 6 SIMULATION OF COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENCE The previous sections have considered the direct simulation of incompressible turbulence for constant density flows. Evolution of a spherical sheet of vorticity corresponding to potential flow past a sphere.100 A.. 1994). To set the mesh spacing in this case for a fixed-grid computation. Sherwin and Karniadakis (1994) have extended the technique to triangular (2D) and tetrahedral (3D) subdomains. Three-dimensional. grid structure so that local mesh refinement is possible. inviscid vortex particle method with 81920 particles (Salmon et a/. one need .

.and Ta. In addition. Mesh requirements are dictated by the smallest of these scales that survive viscous diffusion. In addition. and the timestep scales with the mesh width divided by a convection velocity. L. the density. in turn. the pressure is just a Lagrange multiplier whose purpose is to keep the velocity field divergence-free (recall Eq. For a perfect gas. and length. are determined from the mass conservation equation.Direct Numerical Simulation 101 only take into account the generation of small-scale vorticity structures brought about by the straining of the vorticity field. the resulting pressure equation is These two equations now join the momentum equation and the equation of state to give a complete system of equations for the dynamics. L is the identity tensor.(21) above for a succinct. In the above. and temperature T have been made nondimensional by their respective reference values p a . time and velocity are nondimensionalized using a reference velocity. and the total energy equation. knowing the density and the internal energy. The absolute viscosity fj.p a . is the viscous stress tensor (with the bulk viscosity assumed zero). pressure-free description of incompressible fluid mechanics). We can convert the energy equation to an evolution equation for the pressure. in principle. computed from the equation of state. the pressure is a thermodynamic variable and has dynamical significance. These variables. respectively. while distance. In compressible turbulence. pressure p. U. It is. and the thermal conductivity K are also normalized by reference values fia and Ka respectively.

at high amplitudes in the case of an eddy shocklet discussed below. where Similarly the pressure may be expressed as where p1 is the incompressible pressure given by . Entropy modes can arise even in the incompressible limit. and Pr = MaCp/K a is the Prandtl number (Cp is the specific heat at constant pressure). isotropic. homogeneous turbulence are. for example. Kovasznay (1953) identified acoustic modes and entropy modes that evolve independent of the vorticity modes and independent of each other in linearized flow. The initial conditions for.102 A. In particular. of course.e. fluctuations travel with the local fluid velocity and interact with the vorticity field through the nonlinear baroclinic source term for vorticity. Acoustic modes can. M = U/V^RTa is the reference Mach number (R is the universal gas constant). i. Leonard is the viscous dissipation function. say. more varied for compressible flows. u c . there are other modes besides vorticity modes that can become active. Re = paUL/Ma is the Reynolds number. u1 and a dilatational or "compressible" component. in which the thermodynamic pressure is constant and no acoustic modes are present. In this limit. density. and hence entropy. 7 is the ratio of specific heats.. With the additional thermodynamic degrees of freedom. of course. which arises when one takes the curl of the momentum equation to obtain the vorticity transport equation. be in the form of sound waves and are present. The initial velocity field may be decomposed (Helmholtz decomposition) into a solenoidal or "incompressible" component.

one can have a varying initial fraction of compressible kinetic energy and an arbitrary initial compressible potential energy. the level of compressible dissipation. and GI and C2 are the corresponding speeds of sound. Lee et al. 1991) indicates that the compressible potential energy and the compressible kinetic energy come into equilibrium rapidly. Sarkar et al. 1991. local regions in the flow that have all the proper jump conditions of a shock wave.Direct Numerical Simulation 103 Thus. 1990. When the turbulence Mach number is sufficiently large and when the Reynolds number is reasonably large. In such flows. where <> denotes volume average. Direct simulations of isotropic turbulence (Sarkar et al. | < p c2 > /7 2 . for initial conditions and in addition to considerations of initial spectra. linearized analysis of low-Mach number flows (Erlebacher et al. 1991) have substantiated this equilibrium process as well as showing the importance of the turbulent Mach number. for example. i. Simulations of homogeneous shear turbulence (Sarkar 1994) have shown the importance of gradient Mach number Mg = S l/c. the convective Mach number is given by where Ui and U2 are the freestream speeds on either side of the layer. Also.e. Lee et al. It is known from experiment that compressible layers have growth rates significantly . However. defined by (where c = speed of sound = \/7pa//>a) in determining. (1991) have observed the formation of eddy shocklets. on an acoustic timescale that is 0(M) times the turbulence timescale. initial density fluctuations may be imposed independently. (where S is the mean dimensional shear rate and £ is a representative integral length scale of the turbulence) as well as turbulent Mach number. Studies of inhomogeneous turbulence include the efforts of Sandham and Reynolds(1991) to study variations in the structure of three-dimensional large-scale eddies in compressible plane mixing layers as the convective Mach number is changed.

A. Sci. and Majda." Math. 1994. 1970. Chorin. 1981.." Springer-Verlag. ." J. and Hut. pp. J. "Prospects for useful research on coherent structure in turbulent shear flow.. G." J. pp. S. 1973. Fluid Mech. 453-480. 111-127. Chorin. W. Comp. 25. P. 485-526.. 1992. Comp... 1982. and Marsden. Fluid Mech. Sci.. "A hierarchical 0(N log N) force calculations algorithm." /.. D. 4. C. and Karniadakis. 39. Leonard lower than their incompressible counterparts." J. Comput. T." Math. (Engg.. "Vortex methods II: High order accuracy in two and three dimensions... Coles. J. G. 57. J. Phys. apparently depending on the convective Mach number. 446-449. Part II: the anisotropic case. pp. Dumas. New York. 1979. pp.. Fluid Mech. Cambridge. Degond. Beale. G. P. 41. "A numerical study of three-dimensional turbulent channel flow at large Reynolds numbers. A. Chu. E. Ill. 1989. 205-219. 1967.. pp. pp. "Numerical study of slightly viscous flow.104 A.).."The theory of homogeneous turbulence. "A direction numerical simulation of laminar and turbulent flow over streamwise aligned riblets. pp. pp." Nature. "A mathematical introduction to fluid mechanics. A. J. 324. Batchelor. 53.." Cambridge University Press. 380-392.. and Mas-Gallic. Part I: the case of isotropic viscosity. 29-52. A. 1-42.. Indian Acad. and Leonard. 7 REFERENCES Barnes. E. E.. D. "The weighted particle method for convection-diffusion equations... J.." Proc. Deardorff. "A divergence-free spectral expansions methods for three-dimensional flows in sphericalgap geometries. K. 1986.

1949... Y. and Rohklin. "Computer simulations using particles... "Turbulence". 354-368. A. G. 0. "The potential and limitations of direct and large eddy simulations.. Hinze.. J. R. 85.. J. 2nd ed.. P. "High resolution simulations of the flow around an impulsively started cylinder using vortex methods.. pp. pp. Comput. 1994. and Roggalo. Moin. "The analysis and simulation of compressible turbulence. 1975. H.. P. 1990. and Moser R. "Power-law decay of homogeneous turbulence at low Reynolds numbers." J.. pp.. W." Whither Turbulence? Turbulence at the Crossroads. Comput. Henderson. W. G. "The numerical solution of the turbulence problem. Y.. 325-348. Kim. McGraw-Hill. Fluid Mech. Fluid Mech. A. and Sarkar." in Proceedings of Symposia in Applied Mathematics. M. Fluids.. H. E. Greengard. McGraw-Hill Inc. Saffman.. P. R. "Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low Reynolds number. Fluid Mech. 133-166. New York. G. and Leonard. L. Kreiss. M.. Koumoutsakos. of Comput. C. J. S. 1994.. Hockney. 6. Erlebacher. 1989. Jimenez. and Zang. (to appear). A. and Karniadakis.. 73-95. Fluid Dyn. J. pp.. 1995.. Math. Berlin. submitted.." J. 2. J. "Spectral element simulations of laminar and turbulent flows in complex geometries. New York.. 1981. and Leonard. T. Huang. Hussaini... 1993. 3765-3775... 177. "The structure of intense vorticity in isotropic turbulence".. SpringerVerlag..". M. 65-90.. 73. 6. E. 255. Num. .. 1987. S. pp." Theoret. McGraw. 1. 1990. "A fast algorithm for particle simulations..Hill New York. Phys. pp. "Unstructured spectral element methods for turbulent flows. 67-71.-J. Speziale. R. A. W.. Karniadakis. 1987. p." App. Hussaini. J. G." J. Wray. pp.Direct Numerical Simulation 105 Emmons.. D. V.".. G." Phys.. 722. 0. p. arid Eastwood. A. Phys.

W. R.D. Leonard Koumoutsakos.... Comput... Leonard. 335-342. "Computing three-dimensional incompressible flows with vortex elements. W. 1953. S. 1128-1134.. Laufer. P. Leonard. Vol. pp. 37.. and Reynolds. A. A. and Moin. A. Fluids A. "The structure of turbulence in fully developed pipe flow. Springer-Verlag. L. 320.. "High resolution vortex simulation of bluff body flows.. D. 3. Leonard. 1993. P. thesis. 20. and Indust. 657-682. and Rogers. 37.. Aachen. "Boundary conditions for viscous vortex methods." Physica D. Phys. Lee. 1985. Leonard. "Eddy shocklets in decaying compressible turbulence. P. 17. "Vortex methods for flow simulation. Leonard.. Phys.106 A. J." Phys. "Turbulence in supersonic flow. P. A." J. Rev. pp." Ph. Fluids A." Perspectives of Fluids Mechanics.. Leonard. A. 1991. 657-664. New York. Germany. and Koumoutsakos.. Wind Eng. Caltech." J. 4G&47. 1980. 1988. pp. 523-529. A... " A new numerical method for the simulation of three. Aero.. 289-335. Lele. Moser. Comput. 315-325. and Chua... 1989. M. "Mixed transition and the cascade to small scales in a plane mixing layer. G.. Journal of Aeronautical Sciences." NACA 1174." Ann. 1982." Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluids Dynamics. "Three-dimensional interactions of vortex tubes.. 490-496. 1954. 1982. 5. C. Koumoutsakos.. pp. S. "Large scale direct numerical simulations using vortex methods. June 28-July 2... K. pp. Kovasznay. Leonard." Phys. 52-61. S.. and Pepin. F. 1994. Fluid Mech. "Turbulence research by numerical simulation. 1993. 1990. pp.dimensional flow in a pipe.". K. M. pp." J. . pp. 113. A. Lecture Notes in Physics. Springer-Verlag. and Wray. A. pp..

D. "Three-dimensional simulations of large eddies in the compressible mixing layer." Int. 524. 76-79. pp. R. 468-488. p.." Ann. W. 1994. F. Supercomputer Applications. 313-343.. "The stabilizing effect of compressibility in turbulent shear flow.. and Veeravalli.Direct Numerical Simulation 107 Moser. T. Lett. pp. 1981. 70." Ph. 1983. G. Comput.. 28. "The potential and limitations of direct and large eddy simulations.. Salmon. Springer-Verlag. A. Saddoughi. 1984. Fluid Mech.. 1984. and Moin. P. 1991. Sandham." Phys.. 52. Berlin. A.. 16. pp. W. "Fast parallel tree codes for gravitational and fluid dynamical N-body problems. Rev. A. and Patterson. V. Comput. 99-137.." NASA Contractor Report 194932. Fluid Mech. A. Patera. Sarkar.. M. and Reynolds.. S." Whither Turbulence? Turbulence at the Crossroads. 1990." J. Caltech. Phys. 1972. S." J. "Numerical experiments in homogeneous turbulence. P. pp. C." J.." J. Jr. R. 1990. Pepin. pp. Phys. Rogallo. pp.. 54." NASA TM-81315. Reynolds.... Phys.. 37. 129-142. and Leonard. Rogallo. S. ICASE Report No.. 133-158. 333-372.. C. 224. S. S.. G. D. Moin. 1994. S. Rev. pp. laminar flow in a channel expansion. "Numerical simulation of three-dimensional homogeneous isotropic turbulence. Comput. Orszag. J. and Winckelmans. Fluid Mech. . 1980. 1-36. pp.. 268. G.. S. "Local isotropy in turbulent boundary-layers at high Reynolds-number. 8. N.. S. S.. Warren.." J. "A spectral element method for fluid dynamics. thesis. 94-46. 1994. R. "Spectral methods for problems in complex geometries. S. J. "A spectral numerical method for the Navier-Stokes equations with applications to Taylor-Couette flow. D. "Numerical simulation of turbulent flows. "Simulation of the flow past an impulsively started cylinder using a discrete vortex method. Orszag. K... p.

and Orszag.-Y.. H. pp. S. ed. 11-15 July. 1987.. and Leonard. CantweU. H. R. S. S.. She.. P. San Francisco. Letters. H. S. Winckelmans. B.. R. 437-472. Rev. G. S. 1993.. "Direct simulation of a turbulent boundary layer up to R<? = 1410. J. pp. Bangalore. S. 1963. AIAA Paper 88-0318. 227. Macmillan Co." J.. Kraichnan. A. and Kreiss. S. New York. A. G. J. 3251-3254." Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Numerical Methods in Fluids Dynamics. and Leonard. Comput... 1995.. 247-273. K.-S. 473-493. Feb." J. reprinted in John von Neumann.. "A triangular spectral element method: algorithms and flow simulations. Fluid Mech... "Reynolds-number dependence of isotropic Navier-Stokes turbulence. Erlebacher." 1949 report to the Office of Naval Research. Phys. pp. A. Hussaini. "Contributions to vortex particle methods for the computation of three-dimensional incompressible unsteady flows." Phys.. Warren. Z. G. Winckelmans. Spalart.108 A.. Collected Works. G.. pp... Fluid Mech. pp." J. Y. 1988. M. J. S. 1993. Stanaway. R. J. E.. 1994. M.." Seventh SIAM Conf. 109. Leonard Sarkar. K. Sherwin. D. 70. .. A.. Salmon.. Chen. 6. 187. 0.. G. "The fast solution of three-dimensional fluid dynamical N-body problems using parallel tree codes: vortex element method and boundary element method. "The analysis and modelling of diltational terms in compressible turbulence. 61-98. P. and Karniadakis. on Parallel Processing for Scientific Comp. "Recent theories of turbulence. Taub. Doolen.... 1995. von Neumann. 1989. and Spalart..

Chapter 3

**LARGE EDDY SIMULATION
**

Joel H. Ferziger

1 INTRODUCTION

Over a decade ago, the author (Ferziger, 1983) wrote a review of the then state-of-the-art in direct numerical simulation (DNS) and large eddy simulation (LES). Shortly thereafter, a second review was written by Rogallo and Moin (1984). In those relatively early days of turbulent flow simulation, it was possible to write comprehensive reviews of what had been accomplished. Since then, the widespread availability of supercomputers has led to an explosion in this field so, although the subject is undoubtedly overdue for another review, it is not clear that the task can be accomplished in anything less than a monograph. The author therefore apologizes in advance for omissions (there must be many) and for any bias toward the accomplishments of people on the west coast of North America. In the earlier review, the author listed six approaches to the prediction of turbulent flow behavior. The list included: correlations, integral methods, single-point Reynolds-averaged closures, two-point closures, large eddy simulation and direct numerical simulation. Even then the distinction between these methods was not always clear; if anything, it is less clear today. It was possible in the earlier review to give a relatively complete overview of what had been accomplished with simulation methods. Since then, simulation techniques have been applied to an ever expanding range of flows so a thorough review of simulation results is

109

110

J. H. Ferziger

no longer possible in the space available here. Simulation techniques have become well established as a means of studying turbulent flows and the results of simulations are best presented in combination with experimental data for the same flow. There is also a danger that the success of simulation methods will lead to attempts to apply them too soon to flows which the models and techniques are not ready to handle. To some extent, this is already happening. Direct numerical simulation (DNS) is a method in which all of the scales of motion of a turbulent flow are computed. A DNS must include everything from the large energy-containing or integral scales to the dissipative scales; the latter is usually taken to be the viscous or Kolmogoroff scales. For any reasonable Reynolds number, this requires a large number of grid points or modes and is very costly. Despite the cost, the ability of the DNS to yield all of the flow variables at a large number of spatial locations for many instants of time has made it a valuable tool for investigating the physics of turbulence. Indeed, for a number of simple flows, it is now the method of choice. This subject is covered in greater detail in Chapter 2 by Leonard and will be dealt with only briefly here. By large eddy simulation (LES), we mean an approach in which the largest scales of motion are represented explicitly while the small scales are treated by some approximate parameterization or model. Large eddy simulations are three dimensional and time dependent, and thus, expensive although, but as we shall see, they may be much less costly than a DNS of the same flow. As a result, LES has come to occupy a kind of middle ground. Whenever DNS is feasible for a given flow, it should be the method of choice, especially when a study of the detailed physics of the flow is the goal. However, cost often makes DNS infeasible. Use of LES is a good choice for investigating flows that are too complex to be computed economically by DNS; in practice, with today's computers, this means any flow which is inhomogeneous in more than one direction. LES is now becoming powerful enough to be worthy of consideration as a method to be employed selectively by the working (as opposed to the research) engineer; we shall comment on this below. In this article, we describe the methods employed in LES; in this area, there is a great deal of overlap with DNS. We shall concentrate on the differences, principally the models that need to be employed to represent the small scales and numerical methods that can be

Large Eddy Simulation

111

used in more complex geometries. First, brief overviews of Reynolds averaged methods and direct numerical simulation will be given to set the stage for the discussion of LES. We shall then explore the boundaries of what is feasible with LES today. We begin with some remarks on turbulence and prediction methods for practical flows.

2 2.1

TURBULENCE AND ITS PREDICTION The Nature of Turbulence

It is difficult even for expert researchers to agree on a definition of turbulence. Required elements that are generally agreed upon include three dimensionality, unsteadiness, strong vorticity, and a broad-banded spectrum. Beyond that, the issue becomes difficult. Most would agree that turbulent flows are highly random and/or noisy; the term chaotic could be used but it has been given a stricter meaning in recent years. However, there is more to turbulence than randomness. It is generally agreed that so-called coherent structures exist in nearly all turbulent flows; we say 'so-called' because, despite considerable discussion, an agreed definition of this term does not yet exist. Moreover, although the coherent structures account for only a small fraction of the turbulent energy, they are apparently responsible for more than their fair share of the transport of properties such as species, mass, momentum and energy. The coherent structures of a particular flow are not identical and do not appear regularly in either time or space. The remainder of the turbulent energy is apparently due to truly random motion (which may be the remains of old coherent structures) and probably causes the irregularity of the coherent structures. This picture helps explain why turbulence is such a difficult problem. If it were random, statistical methods would probably have solved the problem by now. If it were purely deterministic, computer simulation might have solved the problem. In fact, turbulence is sufficiently incoherent that the signal-to-noise ratio of the coherent structures is very low; at the same time, the lack of a clear definition of a structure makes eduction of a pattern from noisy data nearly impossible. When we add to this picture the probability that the coherent structures are different in each flow, we see that the likelihood of

112

J. H. Ferziger

finding a simple method for predicting all flows is exceedingly small. The search for a single universal method capable of predicting all turbulent flows has gone on for along time and, while it has produced many useful results, the goal remains a long way off. 2.2 RANS Models

In Reynolds averaged approaches to turbulence, all of the unsteadiness is averaged out; this means that all unsteadiness is regarded as part of the turbulence. The non-linear terms in the NavierStokes equations give rise to the Reynolds stress term in the Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations. This term must be modeled if the equations are to be closed. The complexity of turbulence makes it unlikely that any single model will be able to represent all turbulent flows. Thus, turbulence models should be regarded as engineering correlations or approximations rather than scientific laws; this interpretation allows one to 'tune' models, hopefully in sensible ways, for particular features that may arise in individual turbulent flows. Experience with RANS-based turbulence models has yielded both successes and failures. It is the lack of consistency that has led to interest in new approaches, such as large eddy simulation. Although the subject of this work is large eddy simulation it is helpful to note a few things about RANS models. The mean velocity field may be defined by ensemble, time, or spatial averaging; in any case, the RANS equations are:

where [/,- =< ul >, the brackets denoting one of the averages listed above, and T;J is the Reynolds stress tensor,

(actually, a stress divided by the density) and needs to be modeled. In this paper, we shall assume that the flow is incompressible except where noted otherwise (see Section 4F). We also use the convention that any repeated index is summed over. In laminar flows, energy dissipation and transport of mass, momentum, and energy normal to the streamlines are all mediated by the viscosity, so it is natural to assume that the effect of turbulence

Large Eddy Simulation

113

can be represented as an increased viscosity. This leads to the eddy viscosity model:

where VT is the eddy viscosity. In the simplest description, turbulence can be characterized by its kinetic energy, k, or equivalently, a velocity q = \/2&, and a length scale, L. The eddy viscosity, which carries dimensions Iength 2 time~ 1 , must be:

In mixing length models, k is determined from the mean velocity field using q = LdU/dy and L, which should be the integral scale of the turbulence, is prescribed in terms of a physical length scale or a shear layer thickness. Accurate prescription of L is possible for simple flows but not for separated or highly three dimensional boundary layers. The simplicity of mixing length models allows them to be easily modified to account for pressure gradients, curvature, transpiration, etc. Two-equation models retain the Boussinesq eddy viscosity concept but use a partial differential equation for the turbulent kinetic energy k to determine the velocity scale. To obtain the dissipation and the length scale L, we note that in so-called equilibrium turbulent flows i.e. ones in which the rates of production and destruction of turbulence are in near-balance, the following relation among" the dissipation, e, and k and L:

may be used. Eq. (2.5) allows one to use an equation for the dissipation as a means of obtaining both e and L. No constant is used in Eq (2.5) because this constant combines with others in the complete model. An exact equation for the dissipation can be derived from the Navier-Stokes equations and has a form similar to the energy equation. The modeling applied to the dissipation equation is so severe that it is probably best to regard the entire equation as a model in itself. Difficulties associated with the dissipation equation (or any

114

J. If. Ferziger

other equation used to determine the length scale) are the most difficult ones in two-equation modeling. Some of the significant deficiencies of models based on Eq. (2.3) are direct consequences of the eddy viscosity relationship itself. In three dimensional flows, the eddy viscosity may no longer be a scalar; measurements and numerical simulations show that it becomes highly anisotropic, i.e. it is actually a tensor quantity. The effect of an eddy viscosity can be interpreted in another way. Enough viscosity is added to the equations to assure that the computed flow is stable i.e., the solution of the RANS equations is an effective laminar flow with a velocity field that is the mean (in the Reynolds sense) of the turbulent velocity field. In two dimensions, it is always possible to define a spatially dependent eddy viscosity that produces the correct mean flow. In general, it is not possible to find this eddy viscosity without knowledge of the solution but it is useful to know that it exists in principle. In three dimensional flows, the eddy viscosity may be a tensor of either second or fourth rank. Anisotropic or tensor models have been proposed. If a model is to be applicable to a wide range of flows, it should possess invariance properties, i.e. it must give the same results independent of the coordinate system is used in the calculation. Many early anisotropic models were not properly invariant. Recently, invariant tensor and/or non-linear models have been proposed, for example, see Speziale (1987) and Horiuti (1990). These models take the form:

where Sij is

Although these models contain more constants than the scalar eddy viscosity model, some of them are fixed by requiring invariance. A detailed discussion of these types of closures can be found in Chapters 5 and 6. The most complex models in common use today are Reynolds stress models which are based on dynamic equations for the Reynolds stress tensor itself. As these are complicated, and because their application as subgrid scale models in large eddy simulation

the number of grid points in each direction must be at least L/r). Having described the methods that bracket it. have been developed and work quite well for attached boundary layers. It is important to recognize that the considered domain must be at least as large as the largest turbulent eddy.Large Eddy Simulation 115 has been limited. the Reynolds number of interest must be based on the turbulent velocity and length scales. 1976) that this ratio is proportional to . which occurs on the small scales on which viscosity is active. the ability to compute flows with turbulent Reynolds numbers of 100 actually allows DNS to reach the low end of the range of Reynolds numbers of engineering interest. A detailed discussion of these types of closures can be found in Chapter 5 and 6. Since this number of points must be employed in each of the three coordinate directions. the cost of a simulation scales as Re3. The result is a single realization of a flow and is equivalent to a shortduration laboratory experiment. the grid must be no larger than the viscously determined Kolmogoroff scale. it is easily shown (Tennekes and Lumley. especially the k — c model. we shall not describe or discuss them here. One of the most recent of these models was proposed by Rodi and Mansour (1992). we now turn to . from a practical point of view this means that the linear dimension of the domain must be at least a few times the integral scale L. and the time step is related to the grid size. this approach is called direct numerical simulation (DNS). For homogeneous turbulence. For further details of DNS see Chapter 2.Re3/4. For homogeneous turbulent flows. As these scales are typically an order of magnitude or more smaller than the corresponding macroscopic scale. the simplest type of turbulence. 77. who include references to other models. for a simulation to capture all of the dissipation. 2. RANS models cannot be applied to flow near a surface without modification. This means that direct numerical simulation can be carried out only at relatively low Reynolds numbers. Special near-wall versions of the models. On the other hand. With few exceptions.3 Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) The most exact approach to turbulence simulation is to solve the Navier-Stokes equations without averaging or approximation. In this case. there is no reason to use anything other than a uniform grid.

the large or resolved scale field is essentially a local average of the complete field. The filtered velocity is defined by: where G(x. The justification for such a treatment is that the larger eddies contain most of the energy. One can think of it as applying DNS to the large scales and RANS to the small scales. the generalization to three dimensions is straight-forward. and vary most from flow to flow. • Box. 3 FILTERING We now begin the description of large eddy simulation (LES). . 1974).116 J. do most of the transporting of conserved properties. the average is taken over a region of space surrounding any chosen point. one which is large only when x and x' are not far apart. H. Two versions of this filter have been used and ought to be distinguished: In the moving box filter. Ferziger the principal subject of this paper. The idea is to simulate the larger scales of motion of the turbulence while approximating the smaller ones. the filter kernel. The Gaussian has the advantage of being smooth and infinitely differentiable in both physical and Fourier space.e. large eddy simulation. is a localized function or a function with compact support i. This is best done by filtering (Leonard. This is simply an average over a rectangular region. Filter kernels which have been applied in LES include: • Gaussian. To do this it is essential to define a velocity field that contains only the large scale components of the total field. According to this definition. It is hoped that universality is more readily achieved at this level than in RANS modeling but this assertion remains to be proven. its Fourier transform is Gaussian in wavenumber space. It is a natural choice when finite difference or finite volume methods are used. the smaller eddies are believed to be more universal and less important and should be easier to model. In fact. it is essential to define the quantities to be computed precisely. As in the RANS case. a concept that we shall explore in more detail later. it is a compromise between the two approaches. We shall use one dimensional notation for convenience. x')..

A filter which is an average over a grid volume of a finite difference or finite volume mesh is tied more closely to the numerical method. r. Of course.-j is called the subgrid scale (SGS) Reynolds stress. • Cutoff. u is a piecewise constant function of x (Schumann. This filter is defined in Fourier space and eliminates all of the Fourier coefficients belonging to wavenumbers above a particular cutoff. In the context of large eddy simulation. the longest one in this work. the definitions of the velocities appearing in Eqs (2. . It plays a role in LES similar to the role played by the Reynolds stress in RANS models but the physics that it models is different. Since a modeling approximation for the difference between the two sides of this inequality.1) and (3. must be introduced. The SGS energy is a much smaller part of the total flow than the RANS turbulent energy so model accuracy may be less crucial in an LES than in RANS computations. However. it is difficult to apply to inhomogeneous flows. 1973). It is natural to use this filter in conjunction with spectral methods as it leaves more energy in the large scale field than the filters defined above. This filter is similar in many ways to the Gaussian.Large Eddy Simulation 117 Ui(x) is a continuous function of x. When the Navier-Stokes equations are filtered one obtains a set of equations very similar in form to the RANS equations.2) differ but the closure issues are very similar. According to this definition. Subgrid scale modeling is the most distinctive feature of large eddy simulation and is the subject of the next section.

• The second term represents the interaction between resolved scale eddies and small scale eddies. This term. In particular. More generally. the outscatter term. these terms represent the following physics: • The first term. represents the interaction of two resolved scale eddies to produce small scale turbulence. there need not be a connection between the filter and the grid used in the solution method so this nomenclature is more restrictive than necessary but it is too late to change it. filtering a field a second time does not reproduce the original filtered field: The exception is the cutoff filter for which equality does hold. One important difference between filtering and Reynolds averaging is that. sometimes. writing the complete velocity field as a combination of the filtered field and a subgrid scale field. which can be computed explicitly from the filtered velocity field.e. u.1) means that the both the physics and modeling of the subgrid scale Reynolds stresses (SGSRS) may be more complicated than for the RANS Reynolds stresses. we note that the difference represented by Eq (4. For now. we can decompose the SGSRS into three sets of terms: which can be ascribed physical significance.1 SUBGRID SCALE MODELING Physics of the Subgrid Scale Terms J. also called the cross . the filter is then closely connected to the grid used to discretize the equations. If. in general.4) are called subgrid scale (SGS) models. By using the kind of decomposition of the velocity field used in RANS modeling i. This nomenclature is derived from the kind of LES in which one applies a finite volume approximation directly to the Navier-Stokes equations.118 4 4. The difference between the two sides of this inequality will be exploited for modeling purposes later. It has been called the Leonard term and. Ferziger The models used to approximate the SGS Reynolds stress (3. This technique was used in the earliest large eddy simulations and the nomenclature has stuck.

The form of the subgrid scale eddy viscosity can be derived by dimensional arguments. transfers energy from the large scales to the small ones. We shall present a heuristic argument but . Consequently. It is: This model can also be derived in a number of other ways.2 Smagorinsky Model By far the most commonly used subgrid scale model is the one proposed by Smagorinsky (1963). as each term represents a different physical phenomenon. However.Large Eddy Simulation 119 term. can transfer energy in either direction but. We next look at subgrid scale models in some detail. it was thought that. on the past history of the local fluid. it has become common to model the entire subgrid scale Reynolds stress as a single unit. and renormalization group theory (RNG) (Yakhot and Orszag. it is also called the backscatter term. perhaps. It should also be noted that the subgrid scale Reynolds stress is a local average of the small scale field. 1992). This means that models for it should be based on the local velocity field or. It is an eddy viscosity model that can be thought of as an adaptation of the Boussinesq concept of Eq (2. In the past. as it produces energy transfer from the small to the large scales. 4. The latter can be accomplished by using a model that solves partial differential equations to obtain the parameters needed to determine the SGSRS.3) to the subgrid scale. equating production and dissipation of subgrid scale turbulent kinetic energy. • The third term represents the interaction between two small scale eddies to produce a large scale eddy and is called the true subgrid scale term. as noted above. modeling (either SGS or RANS) is far from exact and the uncertainty in the modeling defeats any attempt at precision. the cross term may produce backscatter as well. 1973). in the recent past. and via turbulence theories such as the direct interaction approximation (DIA) (Leslie. it ought to be modeled separately. the eddy damped quasi-normal Markovian (EDQNM) approximation (Lesieur. These include heuristic methods. on the average. 1986).

Since the model most affects the smallest resolved scales (which are of size A).6) shows that the eddy viscosity must take the form: ..e. the magnitude scales as: where Q is a velocity scale for the energetic eddies and L is the integral scale of the turbulence. Since it is the non-linear (advective) term in the Navier-Stokes equations that is responsible for the energy transfer. only inviscid mechanisms are active and energy is transferred from large to small scales. Let us further assume that the largest subgrid scales are far removed from the viscous scales. the inertial subrange. H. At high Reynolds numbers. the dissipation in a turbulent flow takes place at very small scales while energy is introduced at the largest scales. 1965) and the theories mentioned above. this appears to be dissipation i. it is energy lost never to be recovered. In this range. From the point of view of the large scale eddies.120 J. A repeat to the above argument then shows that: where q is a velocity typical of the subgrid scale field (most of which resides in the largest subgrid scales) and A is the size of the largest subgrid eddies. the large or resolved scales lose energy by transferring it to the subgrid scales. the rate of transfer to the small scales may be estimated as the magnitude of the contribution of this term to the kinetic energy equation. As the large energetic scales supply the largest contribution to this term. A model of the eddy viscosity type represents this energy transfer as effective viscous dissipation. Ferziger it can also be derived from theories including Kolmogoroff-like arguments (Lilly. the magnitude of the effective dissipation may be estimated as: Equating (4. which is (!/2}d(uiUiUj}/dxj. Between these is a regime in which there is neither significant production nor dissipation of turbulent energy. In a large eddy simulation.5) and (4. the length scale associated with the filter. The following argument contains some elements of these approaches.

(4. For this reason. The presence of the integral scale L in the formulation for the eddy viscosity makes the model difficult to use.7) to obtain: Finally.Large Eddy Simulation 121 which could have been derived via dimensional arguments. Indeed the substitution (4. LES of isotropic turbulence also shows that this value of the parameter is optimum. especially in inhomogeneous flows. varying it by about ten or fifteen percent produces acceptable results. Cs. this result can be derived in a number of other ways. we have: As noted above. It should be noted. Computing the integral scale. estimating Q as: and inserting a model parameter to produce equality.4) and (4.5) and substitute it into Eq. The theories provide estimates of the constant as well as the form of the model. Most of these derivations are truly valid only for isotropic turbulence but they all agree that Cs ~ 0.11) used to produce the standard version of the Smagorinsky model may mean that the parameter. that the range of Reynolds numbers studied is relatively narrow so this may not be a very severe test of the model. As noted. however. a function . leading to the usual form of the Smagorinsky model: Other derivations lead directly to this form of the model. but rather a function of A/Z< which is.2. We now find q by using Eqs. is not a true constant. the substitution: is often used. which is more appropriately called a parameter than a constant. in turn. the theories also predict the value of Cs. (4. could require a great deal of effort.

the structure of the flow is very anisotropic. it has been found that. Application to transitional flows present further problems and modifications which have been addressed initially by Piomelli et al. Although this modification produces the desired results. the value has to be reduced even further. A recipe that has been found to be successful is the van Driest damping that has long been used to reduce the near-wall eddy viscosity in RANS models: where y+ is the distance from the wall in viscous wall units (y+ = yur/v. although relatively successful. near a wall. Regions of low speed fluid (streaks) are created. where ur is the shear velocity (r//?) 1 ' 2 and T is the shear stress at the wall) and A+ is a constant usually taken to be approximately 25. Secondly. They have dimensions of approximately 1000 viscous units in the strearriwise direction and perhaps 100 viscous units in the spanwise . Ferziger of Reynolds number. it is generally believed that VT ~ y3 in this region and models ought to respect this property. The purpose of the van Driest damping is to reduce the subgrid scale eddy viscosity near the wall. For example. to simulate channel flow. H.065 which amounts to reducing the eddy viscosity by almost an order of magnitude. We should not be surprised if we find that the parameter Cs needs to be a function of Reynolds number or other non-dimensional parameters or is different in different flows. The Smagorinsky model. It is necessary to point out that these issues focus on the fully turbulent flow. It follows that an alternative to van Driest damping is a subgrid scale model which reduces the magnitude of the viscosity in the proper manner when a subgrid scale Reynolds number (the obvious one is |5|A2/!/) becomes small. in the region close to the surface. A further problem is that. is not without problems. The first is that the value of the parameter Cs in the bulk of the flow has to be reduced from 0. Models of this kind were suggested by McMillan and Ferziger (1980) and by Yakhot and Orszag (1986): the latter used renormalization group theory to derive their model. several modifications are required. The SGS model should depend solely on the local properties of the flow and it is difficult to see how the distance from the wall qualifies as an appropriate parameter in this regard.122 J.2 to approximately 0. it is difficult to justify in the context of LES.

(1989). possibly. it may be important that the model be more accurate in detail. where the practice is to make the parameter a function of the Richardson number. This is an obvious and practical way of testing models which we shall call the a posteriori approach. + A^) 1 / 2 and still others are easily constructed. In such flows. Then the model may not need to reproduce the actual subgrid scale Reynolds stress very accurately to produce acceptable results. The availability of direct numerical simulations (and. it may suffice to simply dissipate energy at the proper overall rate. it is again necessary to reduce the value of the parameter in the Smagorinsky model. However. It is possible that. if we wish to simulate more complex and/or higher Reynolds number flows. Thus. an exception is buoyancy-driven flows for which good results have been obtained with the Smagorinsky model even at relatively high nondimensional parameter values. with a proper choice of length scale. the damping (4.13) would become unnecessary. there are many difficulties with the Smagorinsky model. Stratification commonly occurs in geophysical flows. Resolving these streaks requires a highly anisotropic grid and the question arises: what is the appropriate length scale to use in the SGS model in this region? The usual choice is (A1A2A3) 1 / 3 but another possibility is (Af + A?. It has been found that.3 A Priori Testing The traditional test of a model consists of applying it to the solution of a problem and comparing the prediction with experimental results for the same flow. a non-dimensional parameter that represents the relative importance of stratification and shear. It may be that the principal reason why this model has been relatively successful is that most of the flows for which accurate results have been obtained are relatively simple low Reynolds number cases. in . 4. An alternative model for the near-wall region was proposed by Schumann (1973). Similar effects occur in flows in which rotation and/or curvature play significant roles. These issues were discussed in some detail by Moin and Kim (1982) and Piomelli et al. the energy in the subgrid scales and the rate of energy transfer to these scales are both relatively small. in a stably stratified fluid. this model employs the horizontally averaged velocity and thus does not satisfy the condition that a model should be based only on the local velocity field.Large Eddy Simulation 123 and normal directions.

The values obtained in this way are in good agreement with those obtained by other means (cf. In particular. the corresponding model values. one can obtain a value of the model parameter. 1. one can compute the model estimate of the Reynolds stress. Having DNS results.. Ferziger the future. one need merely compare the two.-.124 J. it becomes possible to evaluate exactly those terms which must be modeled in the LES and. as the square of the correlation coefficient represents the fraction of the data predicted by the model. for simplicity. at the same time. H. We thus have data on the exact Reynolds stress (R) and its model representation (M) at essentially every point in the flow. In this way. It is clear that the model is far from perfect. It is thus clear that.e. this means that the model only represents about ten percent of the data! In a similar way.. we assume that the flow under consideration is homogeneous. (1979) used the a priori test to show that the problem does not arise from the value of the parameter but rather from the fact that the SGS Reynolds stress tensor and the strain rate of the resolved field. The correlation coefficient of the data shown in this figure is approximately 0. . u^Uj — U{Uj. Ui. it presents the Reynolds stress and the Smagorinsky estimate of it at approximately 4000 points. If the model was exact. an unambiguous test of a model can be produced. Examples of such scatter plots are given in Fig. the model estimates of them. It is then not difficult to compute the subgrid scale Reynolds stress tensor. Clark et a/. one can ask how LES would fare for the same realization. u. it is straightforward to filter it to obtain the large eddy component of that field. Let us accept that the results of a DNS represent an exact realization of a turbulent flow. Finally. 1979). the Smagorinsky model is not very accurate. detailed experimental data) makes another kind of testing possible. a plot of the exact values of a quantity vs. Two popular methods of doing so are by computing a correlation coefficient: and by producing a scatter plot i. Clark et al. Given the exact velocity field at an instant.35. To test the accuracy of the model. Let us see how this might work. all of the points would fall on a single straight line. by comparing the magnitudes of the model and exact values. in the precise sense that a priori testing provides.

1980. 1980). From Bardina et al. One leads to an alternative model for the subgrid scales. Indeed. the scale similarity model (Bardina et al.. the principal axes of the two tensors (which need to be identical for proportionality to hold) are not well correlated. A more important extension will be presented in the following section.4 Scale Similarity Model The concept that the small scales of a simulation can be used to study modeling has a number of interesting extensions. great differences may be found when in vivo testing is performed. actually have little relation to each other. In particular. eddies that are a little larger or a little smaller than the length . despite the poor rating the Smagorinsky model receives in a priori tests. Similarly. it seems to perform reasonably well in LES. 4.Large Eddy Simulation 125 Figure 1. The velocity field computed will differ from the large scale part of the DNS field used in the test. A problem with the a priori method is that it is in some ways akin to an in vitro biological test. Scatter plot of the Smagorinsky model prediction of the subgrid scale Reynolds stress and the exact value obtained from a direct numerical simulation.. which the Smagorinsky model assumes to be proportional..e. using a model in an actual LES may give results that differ from what the a priori test finds. The idea behind the scale similarity model is that the important interactions between the resolved and unresolved scales involve the smallest eddies of the former and the largest eddies of the latter i.

it is found that this model hardly dissipates any energy and thus cannot serve as a 'stand alone' SGS model.126 J. in essence. associated with the filter. From these we can construct a further subdivision. This leads to the following possibility as a subgrid scale model: No constant is used because it can be shown (Reynolds. 2.• by filtering and the small or subgrid scale field u\ — U{ — U{ by subtraction. It does transfer energy from the smallest resolved scales to the larger resolved scales. H. 1980. When applied in a large eddy simulation. The argument of the preceding suggests that. see Fig. it is an identity. v. which is useful. private communication. From its construction. A simple calculation shows that these are identical.Smagorinsky model prediction of the subgrid scale Reynolds stress and the exact value obtained from a direct numerical simulation. Ferziger scale. 1983) that Galilean invariance demands that the constant be unity. Figure 2. A. From Bardina at aL. The largest unresolved scales are defined by u\. so the smallest resolved scales are defined by Uj — u. From the complete velocity field. The very largest resolved scales may be defined by filtering a second time to obtain ¥.j. it is not surprising that this model correlates very well with the actual SGS Reynolds stress in a priori tests. Scatter plot of the mixed scale similarity .-. we can compute the resolved or large scale field ¥. . and Speziale. These can be extracted from the velocity field in the following manner.

4. and the scale similarity model produces nothing i. This model does indeed improve the quality of the simulations as one can see from Fig.Smagorinsky model. When the large scales are defined by the cutoff filter. = ¥.. the correlation is not as good as it is when the Gaussian filter is used. (1980).Large Eddy Simulation 127 To correct for the lack of dissipation. From Bardina et a/. Bardina et al. however. Eq. This difficulty can be removed by noting that. ¥. (4. Comparison of the spectra obtained from a large eddy simulation of decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence with and without the mixed scale similarity . 3. it is necessary to combine the Smagorinsky and scale similarity models to produce the 'mixed' model. 1980. filtering twice is equivalent to a single filtering with A replaced by \/2A. This is easily mimicked for the cutoff filter by defining the double overline filter as a cutoff filter corresponding to this width.15) evaluates to zero. leading to the concept of a dynamic model.5 Dynamic Procedure The concepts of the preceding sections can be taken one step further. Figure 3.-. an idea originally . for the Gaussian filter. cf..e.

The scales used in such a test are. that the behavior of these scales is very similar to that of the subgrid scales. Now it follows directly from these definitions that: This is a mathematical identity that is a consequence of the definitions given above. as we did in constructing the scale similarity model. of course. the smallest resolved scales of the LES. it has come to be known as Germano's identity and provides the basis of the dynamic model. a kind of self-consistent subgrid scale model is produced. In this way. We could regard it as a DNS and use its velocity field as the basis for a priori estimation of the subgrid scale model parameter. Perhaps the simplest way to explain the concept is the following. . the parameter so obtained can be applied in the subgrid scale model of the large eddy simulation itself. Suppose we are doing a large eddy simulation on a relatively fine grid.128 J. This is the portion that is directly computable from the LES field by filtering: and is essentially the Leonard stress associated with the test filter. is a bit more formal than what we have just suggested. (1990). The actual procedure of Germano et al. The subgrid scale Reynolds stress that must be modeled in the actual LES is: The second or test filter (the one used to determine the parameter) is similar to the second filter used in the scale similarity model but is denoted by a tilde (~) to make explicit the idea that the original and test filters need not be identical. We now present this formal procedure. It might better be called a procedure than a model as it takes one of the models described above as its basis. This can be done at every spatial point and time step. If we assume. Ferziger proposed by Germane et al. H. The subgrid scale stress that must be modeled in the test-filter level LES is: Now let us define the large scale component of the SGS Reynolds stress at the test filter level.

violating an assumption made in the derivation. the mixed model has been used as a base model (Zang et al. ¥. it was assumed in deriving Eq (4. 1993).22) that the model parameter is a constant. in actual simulations. this allowed it to be removed from the test filter and evaluated. If we call the right hand side of Eq (4. at every spatial grid point and at every time step. suggested that the scalar product of Eq (4. In other words. The resulting expression for C. one can show that this is equivalent to taking the scalar product of Eq (4.22) with M. This means that it can be used to compute the constant. C is overdetermined.^ and yields: Thus. we have a kind of self-consistent or.22) CM. Although this concept is very appealing. the model parameter can be computed.22) with Sij be taken. On the original LES level. directly from results produced by the LES itself. as it is more commonly known. who suggested computing the optimum in the least squares sense.Large Eddy Simulation 129 The basic assumption that leads to the dynamic model is that particular model applies on both filter levels with the same value of the parameter(s). is a function of the spatial coordinates and time. First of all. dynamic model.22) represents five independent equations.. the Smagorinsky model is: On the test filter level the Smagorinsky model is: Now we substitute the last two equations into Eq (4. However. C is found to be a very rapidly varying function which takes on large values of both signs. We shall use the Smagorinsky model as an example but there is no reason why other models cannot be used.j. leading to eddy viscosities ..23). C. Furthermore. indeed. as (4. there are significant problems with the resulting model. Germane et al.18) to obtain: Everything on both sides of this equation is computable from the velocity field computed in the LES. (4. An improvement was made by Lilly (1992).

One cure for the problem is thus to simply set any eddy viscosity wj < —z/. the molecular viscosity. In turn. if the eddy viscosity remains negative over too large a spatial region or for too long a time. . for example by using van Driest damping (4. the value of the model parameter has to be reduced even further. Although negative eddy viscosity is not prohibited (it may be considered a way of representing backscatter). This version of the dynamic model removes many of the difficulties described earlier: • It was noticed that. the required value of the Smagorinsky model parameter is much smaller than in isotropic turbulence. and transitional channel flow. it has been used to compute a variety of homogeneous turbulent flows. this occurs in actual simulations. fully developed channel flow. Ferziger of both signs. This has been used successfully but is not very satisfying so other methods have been developed. numerical instability may result and the simulation must be stopped. the model automatically decreases the parameter near the wall. Clearly. in shear flows.13). One useful alternative is to employ averaging.23) may become negative. • Near walls. A more satisfactory derivation of this result is to apply the least squares method to L±j over a finite spatial region. When this is done. large values are a generally a consequence of the denominator being small. This further implies that there is not much energy in the subgrid scales and therefore that the eddy viscosity should be small.-j over the entire domain prior to computing C. H. This technique produces excellent results. a small value of the denominator means there is relatively little energy in the highest wavenumbers resolved in the LES. The negative eddy viscosities occur because the numerator or denominator of Eq (4. In channel flow.24) is usually averaging over planes parallel to the wall. all with excellent results. Similarly. This leads to the replacement of Eq (4. some of these are discussed below.130 J.23) with where the brackets (<>) represent an average over the spatial region to which the least square method was applied. The dynamic model produces this modification automatically. equal to —v. the averaging in Eq (4. we may average the scalar product of Eq (4.22) with M. a cure for this problem needs to be found. For a homogeneous flow.

This issue becomes moot with the dynamic model because. These are successful but the former is available only in flows with some degree of homogeneity and the latter is not satisfying from an esthetic point of view.. Instead. of the variation of the parameter and thus does not completely cure the problem and increases the computational effort somewhat.Large Eddy Simulation 131 • The definition of the length scale is unclear when the filter is not isotropic. (4. invalidating the assumption. To overcome the problem created by the large negative eddy viscosities generated by the simpler forms of the dynamic model several cures have been suggested. A further improvement is obtained by subjecting the integral equation referred to in the last paragraph to a constraint that the total viscosity (eddy plus molecular) be everywhere non-negative. if the length scale is incorrect. 1992). One such approach is to use a combination of local spatial and temporal averaging which are available in any flow (cf. This can produce excellent results at a cost of some increase in computer time and has been called the dynamic localization model (Moin et a/. not the model parameter. use the mixed Smagorinskyscale similarity model or one of the models presented below. These have proven successful so long as one can find a spatial region large enough to smooth out the parameter variation but small enough that it does not contain significant inhomogeneity. This has led to a search for other methods of dealing with the problem. One could. The resulting problem can then be solved only in a least squares sense. instead. Finally. (1993) with .22) (with the parameter inside the filtering operation) as an integral equation for the parameter. but not all. the model compensates by changing the value of the parameter. the model actually computes the eddy viscosity. In order to do so. This integral equation is then solved for the parameter. Piomelli. Essentially. it was assumed that the parameter is constant but the resulting values are far from constant. Another approach is based on the recognition that part of the problem arises from the removal of the model parameter from the filter. one can regard Eq. we mention that the arguments on which the dynamic model is based are not restricted to using the Smagorinsky model as the base model. 1994). leading to a constrained optimization problem. Two were already presented above— averaging over homogeneous directions and limiting the magnitude of negative eddy viscosities. It turns out that this removes some. The mixed model was used in this regard by Zang et al.

Use of a spectral representation of the velocity field implies that these theories are applicable only to homogeneous turbulence and. Ghosal et al. Despite these limitations. the flow to which this method was applied is a transitional flow and it is not known whether the findings extend to fully developed flows. Ferziger considerable success. The viscous term is responsible for the dissipation: . In order to deal with the distribution of turbulent energy over a range of length scales. The pressure terms disappear entirely. However. their function is to transfer energy from one component of the turbulence (say wf(fc)) to another (say u\(k)} and so play no role in the energy equation. its squared amplitude. one can turn to turbulence theories. H. obtaining good results. one can derive a dynamic equation for the energy spectrum. Let us begin with an observation. transfer energy from one wavenumber to another but neither produce nor destroy total energy. more frequently. usually. they can provide considerable insight into the issues and extensions to more complex flows are possible. the energy spectrum: where the integral is over all wavevectors A. A number of turbulence theories exist. For guidance as to how improved models might be constructed.132 J. In this equation. From the Fourier transform of the Navier-Stokes equations. the only non-linear terms in the equations. a sum over the index i is implied. on a sphere of radius k and. in most turbulence theories the principal variables are the Fourier transforms of the velocity components: or. (1994) applied the dynamic procedure to a one equation (or turbulent kinetic energy) subgrid scale model. as usual. 4. most produce similar results. the advective terms. only to isotropic turbulence.6 Spectral Models The Smagorinsky and scale similarity models are not the only ones that have been used to represent subgrid scale turbulence.

If we call this energy transfer rate T>(k) and think of it as a dissipation at wavenumber k. if spectral computational methods are used. 4. is given in Fig. Two possibilities for the added terms. simulations have shown that incorporating the rise in the viscosity into the subgrid scale model is capable of producing simulations in which the spectrum maintains an inertial subrange shape up to the cutoff wavenumber. taken from Lesieur (1992). For further details of these theories and the roles of the various terms. only the cutoff filter is normally used) and ask how much energy is transferred from a given wavenumber k to wavenumbers above the cutoff. Although the rise in the eddy viscosity at high wavenumber does not follow any simple law. The simplest choice to implement is a so-called fourth order viscosity which introduces a term proportional to the fourth derivative into the NavierStokes equations. which we shall call r^4 . One can imagine doing a large eddy simulation (because spectral theories are formulated in terms of spectra. Alternatively. The rise at the high wavenurnbers is due to the local nature of the interactions in turbulence. are: . As just noted. a fit to the results can be constucted and used. we can define an effective spectral eddy viscosity by: An example of such an eddy viscosity. The decrease in the effective viscosity at low wavenumbers is of little consequence because little energy is transferred from these wavenumbers to the small scales.Large Eddy Simulation 133 which acts as an energy drain on the turbulence. the nonlinear term transfers energy from one wavenumber to another. Results derived from turbulence theories make it possible to define an effective or spectral eddy viscosity. it is recommended that the reader consult the book by Lesieur (1992). This suggests that using the Smagorinsky model (which roughly approximates the constant component of the eddy viscosity) together with a hyperviscosity (a dissipative termcontaining even-order velocity derivatives of order higher than second) might be a good choice for a subgrid scale model. the curve can be approximated by a constant plus a term proportional to some power of k.

dimensional analysis suggests that an appropriate expression for the fourth order viscosity might be: The introduction of such a term into the model increases the order of the partial differential equation and raises the possibility that additional boundary conditions might be needed. and These become identical if the eddy viscosity is constant. Ferziger Figure 4. Spectral eddy viscosity computed from eddy damped quasinormal Markovian theory (EDQNM). This unpleasant . H.134 J. From Lesieur. If we wish to model these terms in the spirit of the Smagorinsky model. 1992.

A method that used EDQNM for the subgrid scales was developed by Aupoix (1987). despite this. One attempt in this direction was made by Metais and Lesieur (1992) who devised what they called a structure function model. So these simulations can be re-interpreted as large eddy simulations with a fourth order subgrid scale model. see Kawamura and Kuwahara (1985). in practice. we have seen that the dynamic model can handle some of these . and at an order of magnitude increase in cost relative to the Smagorinsky model. The absence of such a conversion possibility renders a model almost impossible to use with finite difference or finite volume discretizations. g . He obtained good simulations of high Reynolds number flows. Although. this has not been attempted. The danger in this approach is that the eddy viscosity is determined by the grid and the solution may therefore depend on the grid used. . it seems an interesting possibility. to the author's knowledge. 4. These simulations use third order upwind approximations to the spatial derivatives which produce fourth order error terms similar to the fourth order viscosities presented above. for one of many examples. A brief analysis will quickly convince one that these cannot possibly be DNSs in the sense defined earlier. this model is very similar to the Smagorinsky model. but only for isotropic turbulence.Large Eddy Simulation 135 possibility can be avoided if the new viscosity 2/4 vanishes rapidly enough in the vicinity of the wall. rotation. if this method is to be practical. it will need to be simplified to make the cost more reasonable. Another means of using turbulence theories is to simulate the large scales in the usual LES manner and use a theory to describe the subgrid scale motions statistically. restricting their usefulness. Clearly.7 Effects of Other Strains The models described above have been designed for flows without 'extra strains' ( e . A number of simulations have been made which claimed to be direct numerical simulations of complex flows. We note that it is possible to use spectral eddy viscosity models in the dynamic context. We shall not cover most of these here because they were constructed for use in Fourier space and cannot be easily converted to physical space models. Other suggestions for models have been made. compressibility and curvature). We end with a brief note on another approach to turbulence simulation.

.. . Lee et a/. A systematic approach is needed to build a firm foundation for modeling in these areas. it may be possible to develop methods that allow phenomena on all scales to be predicted. such as rotation. 1992. In the absence of shocks. 1989) and field data. affect the large scales more strongly than the small scales. SGS models designed for incompressible flows without extra strains can probably be used without major modification. The first approach is similar to standard SGS modeling.. and the flow behavior can be quite different (Blaisdell et a/. and allowing twoway interaction between simulations at different scales. 1991. 1993). A possible approach is the following.136 J. For example. In these cases. perhaps the regional scale. If one is to do large eddy simulations of such flows. Meteorologists and oceanographers who predict global circulation deal with flows that are nearly two-dimensional. an eddy viscosity is used to represent the unresolved motions. one can simulate the small-scales e. To assure that all possibilities are included. three-dimensional equations may be used. 1990) agree very well with both direct simulations (Colernan et a/. SGS models applicable to the Favre-filtered equations can be developed in a manner analogous to the incompressible case (Erlebacher et a/. At higher Mach numbers.g. there are two possibilities. curvature.. simulations are routinely done on several levels. By bootstrapping in this way. the situation is less clear. for 'strains' whose action is principally in the small scales. Some. It should be obvious that there are difficulties in this scenario for which solutions are yet not available. Compressible turbulence at low Mach numbers can be treated with incompressible models. Speziale et a/.. On the other hand. Extra strains can be roughly divided into two classes. At the lowest level. H. small shock waves ('eddy shocklets') develop.. and stratification. At the smallest scales. a range of cases containing all physically possible phenomena must be simulated to ensure that the full range of parameters are included in the database. A single model (with a single parameter) that can account for phenomena at all the various scales probably does not exist. The task is difficult and progress may come slowly. the planetary boundary layer or the ocean mixed layer and use the data produced to construct parameterizations that to be used represent motions that belong to the subgrid scale on the next larger scale. large eddy simulations of a stable planetary boundary layer performed with the Smagorinsky model (Mason and Derbyshire. Ferziger without problems.

Such a suggestion has been made by Ashurst et al. In this case. In particular. the viscosity and thermal conductivity need to be increased so that the simulated shock becomes thick enough to be resolved. this approach has been used in many 'shock capturing' methods in aerodynamics. In RANS. 4.8 Other Models It is possible to use more complex models for the subgrid scale. using a subgrid scale model to account for the larger dissipation of the curved shock. the flame is idealized as an infinitely thin sheet. (1988). this is akin to the 'shock fitting' approach to aerodynamics. The second approach is to replace the actual curved shock by a straight one. so two equation models see little service in LES. Schumann (1978) found that it provided no significant improvement over the Smagorinsky . one can modify the reaction rate and diffusivity so as to increase the thickness of the flame while maintaining the flame speed constant. flames are normally thin with respect to even the smallest scales of the turbulence and LES is again very difficult. In the second approach. The model length scale is not normally an issue in SGS modeling because a natural length scale.Large Eddy Simulation 137 1988). In combusting flows. the next step beyond a mixing length model (which corresponds to the Smagorinsky model in LES) is a two-equation model which requires equations that determine the turbulence velocity and length scales. one can imagine two types of LES that are similar to the ones described for shocks above. Any model used in RANS calculations can be modified and adapted as an SGS model. We note that. The function of the SGS model is then to account for the 'wrinkles' that occur on scales that are not resolved by increasing the local reaction rate. The first is applicable only when the chemistry is simple enough to be characterized by one or two constants. as a real shock is too thin to be resolved by the grid. is available. In such a model. a partial differential equation for the subgrid scale kinetic energy is constructed and solved. Again. One equation models can fill this role. the filter width. models based on solving partial differential equations may be used but this has been done only a few times. There is only a little experience with such models. A different approach based on the use of probability density functions (which are commonly used in computing reacting flows) was suggested by Gao and O'Brien (1993).

138

J. H. Ferziger

model for fully developed channel flow. This is no surprise because, as we noted earlier, the major deficiency of the Srnagorinsky model is that the principal axes of SGS Reynolds stress and rate of strain tensors are not aligned and this is not addressed by the model. On the other hand, some benefit was obtained in transitional flow; however, the dynamic model performs as well in transitional flows so the need for the more complex model has not been demonstrated. It is worth mentioning that Ghosal et al. (1994) have constructed a dynamic model that includes a differential equation for the turbulent kinetic energy equation that appears promising. The most complex RANS models in use today are Reynolds stress models in which a set of equations is derived for the Reynolds stress and the various terms are modeled. It is, of course, possible to derive equations for the SGS Reynolds stress components as well; they are a bit more complicated that the corresponding RANS equations due to the properties of the filtering operator. LES with an SGS Reynolds stress model has been tried only once, and that in a relatively early simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer by Deardorff (1974). He found a huge increase in the cost but almost no improvement in the results. In both the turbulent kinetic energy and Reynolds stress subgrid scale models, the constants were taken from RANS models. This is probably inappropriate as the physics of subgrid scale turbulence is different from that for all the turbulence; the relative importance of the various terms is probably different in the two cases. Unfortunately, at present, there is little guidance for improving the models. DNS data could probably be used to guide the development of models but this has not yet been attempted.

5

WALL MODELS

Another issue of great importance is modeling of the flow in the vicinity of a wall. This question receives less attention than SGS modeling because it is not as amenable to theoretical treatment, but it is at least as important. Before discussing the wall models, we shall review some results of experiments and direct and large eddy simulations with no-slip wall boundary conditions. Shear flows near solid boundaries contain alternating thin streaks of high- and low-speed fluid. If they are not adequately resolved, the

Large Eddy Simulation

139

turbulence energy production near the wall (which is a large fraction of the total energy production) is underpredicted (Kim and Moin, 1986), resulting in reduction of the Reynolds stress and the skin friction. Simulations suggest that wall-region turbulence and the region far from the wall are relatively loosely coupled. Chapman and Kuhn's (1986) simulation with an artificial boundary condition imposed at the top of the buffer layer (y+ = 100) displayed most of the characteristics of the wall layer. Thus, accurate prediction of the flow near the wall does not require accurate simulation of the outer flow. On the other hand, Schumann (1973) and Piomelli et al. (1987) among others have shown that, relatively crude lower boundary conditions can represent the effect of the wall region in a simulation of the central part of a channel flow. Thus, details of the flow in the wall region need not be known in order to simulate the outer region, i.e. either region can be well-simulated if given a reasonable approximation of the conditions at the interface between it and the other zone. These results suggest that useful simulations can be done without resolving the entire flow. This is important because a fine grid is required to resolve the wall region. If it can be represented via a model, huge savings are possible. For rough walls, one has little choice but to use a model to represent the wall region. DeardorfPs (1970) original model contained weaknesses that were remedied by Schumann (1973). The latter's model, with modifications, is still widely used. It assumes that the instantaneous velocity at the grid point nearest a wall is exactly correlated with the shear stress at the wall point directly below it:

where y\ is the height of the first grid point, < TW > is the mean wall shear stress, and Ui(yi) is the mean velocity at y\. Mason and Callen (1986) assumed that the logarithmic profile for the mean velocity in the buffer region, holds locally and instantaneously. This assumption is incorrect but their boundary condition is often used by meteorologists. Piomelli et al. (1987) found it to be inadequate for engineering applications. This is an example of how the differing needs of two disciplines can lead to opposite conclusions about the effectiveness of a model.

140

J. R. Ferziger

Piomelli et al. (1987) used direct simulation results to test wall layer models including Schumann's model and two new models. The first of these is based on the idea that Reynolds-stress producing events do not move vertically away from the wall but, rather, at a small angle to it. This leads to the so-called shifted model,

where A s — 3/1/cos8° is a spatial shift, 8° being the observed mean angle of event trajectories. The second model notes that significant Reynolds-stress containing events involve vertical motion, so the vertical component of the velocity rather than the horizontal should be correlated with the wall shear stress:

Both of these models give improved agreement with experiments and direct simulations for channel flow, including cases with transpiration and high Reynolds number flows. In fully developed channel flow at Reynolds number 15,000, use of these conditions reduced the time of a simulation from 100 hours to 10 hours (Piomelli et a/., 1989) so their value is unquestionable. Finally, we mention and interesting proposal by Bagwell et al. (1993). They used a linear estimation method developed by Adrian to determine the best estimate of the skin friction given the velocity distribution at some distance from the wall. They found that the skin friction estimate could be improved (relative to those given above) by using a weighted average of the velocity on the computational plane closest to the wall. A disadvantage of this method is that the two point correlation, which becomes a complicated function of the coordinates in complex flows, and especially near separation and reattachment, is required. All of the models of this section have been applied only to flows on flat walls with mild pressure gradients. They are almost certainly inadequate for separated flows (with or without reattachment), or flows over complex-shaped walls. They may work in three-dimensional boundary layers because the direction of the horizontal component of the velocity changes slowly with distance from the wall in the lower part of the flow. Because experimental data are scarce and

Large Eddy Simulation

141

lack detail, the development of trustworthy methods for simulating these flows will probably require simulations with no-slip conditions.

6

NUMERICAL METHODS

A wide variety of numerical methods have been employed in large eddy simulation. Almost any method of computational fluid dynamics can be used. Because these methods are adequately described elsewhere (see, for example, Ferziger and Peric, 1993), we shall not describe particular methods here. Instead, a few generalities about issues peculiar to LES will be discussed. The most important requirements on numerical methods for LES arise from the goal of producing an accurate realization of a flow that contains a wide range of length scales. The need to produce a time history means that techniques used for steady flows must be rejected. Time accuracy requires a small time step and it is important to know whether the time-advance method is stable for the time step demanded by accuracy. This is generally the case so most simulations use explicit time advance methods. An exception occurs close to walls where fine grids must be used in the normal direction and instability may arise from the viscous terms; in this case, only the viscous terms involving derivatives normal to the wall are treated implicitly. The numerical methods most commonly used in LES are of second to fourth order; Runge-Kutta methods have been used most commonly but others, such as Adams-Bashforth and leapfrog have found application. The need to handle a wide range of length scales means renders some concepts of computational fluid dynamics relatively unimportant. The most common means of describing the accuracy of a spatial discretization method is its order, a number that describes the rate at which the discretization error decreases as the grid size goes to zero. To see why this is not applicable in LES, it is useful to think in terms of the Fourier decomposition of the velocity field. A discrete version of Eq (4.25) is

The highest wavenurnber k that can be resolved on a grid of size Ax is 7T/A:r, so it is sufficient to restrict the range of k to {0, TT/Ao:}.

142

J. H. Ferziger

The derivative of (6.1) may be taken term by term and, if we ignore the effect of boundary conditions, it is sufficient to consider the effect of the discretization on a single Fourier mode, elkx'. The exact derivative is, of course, ikelkx. All discrete approximations replace this by ikejjelkx where kejf is called the effective wavenumber. For example, the central difference approximation:

when applied to e

, gives:

so

for this method. For small &, the Taylor series approximation:

shows the second order nature of the approximation. A plot of keff is given in Fig. 5 which shows that the Taylor series approximation is useful only for k < 7r/2Ax, the first half of the wavenumber range of interest. Other discretizations give different expressions for the effective wavenumber. Upwind approximations give effective wavenumbers that are complex, reflecting the dissipative nature of the discretization error for these schemes. A similar treatment of the errors in approximations for the second derivative is easily constructed but will not be described here. The problem in LES is that the spectrum of the solution (its distribution over wavenumber) covers a significant part of the wavenumber range {0,?r/Aa;}. The order of the method is no longer sufficient to define the accuracy of a scheme. A better measure of the error is:

Again, similar expressions can be given for the second derivative. Using the measure (6.6), Cain e.t al. (1981) found, for a spectrum

Large Eddy Simulation

143

Figure 5. Effective wavenumber of the central difference approximation to the first derivative. typical of isotropic turbulence, that a fourth order method had half the error of a second order method, much more than most people would have anticipated. The final point is that the methods and step sizes in time and space need to be chosen together. The errors made in the spatial and temporal discretizations ought to be as nearly equal as possible i.e. they should be balanced. This is not possible in detail but, if this is not done, one is using too fine a step in one of the independent variables and the simulation could be made with little loss of accuracy at lower cost. 7 ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROSPECTS

Large eddy simulation has been applied to a range of flows too large to be covered in a single paper; there no need to do so. The purpose of many simulations was to study the physics and modeling of flows and the results produced by DNS and LES are often treated as experimental data. For that reason, it makes more sense to consider the results together with experimental data on a flow-by-flow basis. We shall, therefore, give only a short overview of the kinds of flows

Shah and Ferziger. for investigating simple flows in order to understand the physics of turbulence and the accuracy of RANS models. care to pay for a simulation. a sensible role for LES to play is as a check on the validity of RANS turbulence models and predictions for complex flows. interest was rekindled (Hussaini et al. at present. however. LES is now being applied to flows that remain beyond the reach of DNS. 1100 hours were required on a single processor Cray-YMP. For the near future. LES was used. The former introduces a flow-determined separation not found in the backward facing step flow. and free shear flows that are inhomogeneous in one direction (2D mixing layers. outside the reach of DNS. are not well predicted by RANS methods. 1993) and flow over a cube (Mauch. 1994). Since DNS does not have any uncertainty arising from subgrid scale modeling. DNS of this flow was performed by Le and Moin (1993) and although good results were obtained. A very important engineering issue is that of flow separation and reattachment. at least in engineering.. The latter figure. 1990). phenomena that occur in many technological flows and. An LES of this flow by Akselvoll and Moin (1993) using the same computer required only about 30 hours. Other flows of this kind which have been simulated recently include the two dimensional obstacle (Yang and Ferziger.144 J. brings the cost to a point at which it may be sensible to do a simulation occasionally to check the validity of RANS results and/or the models used in RANS calculations. 1990. H. wakes. The latter introduces three dimensional separation. Reynolds. Computers have now become sufficiently large and fast that these flows can be dealt with by direct numerical simulation. plane channel flow. it is the preferred technique for this kind of investigation and should be used whenever possible. with few exceptions. while much more than a working engineer would. Ferziger that have been treated with LES. In the early days (in the 1970's). Flows that were treated in this way included all the homogeneous flows. and at the outset of the 1990's application of the method was on the rise. and a discussion of what may be possible in the next few years. The simplest separating flow is the backward facing step in which a plane channel flow encounters a sudden expansion on one wall of the channel. a snapshot of the state-of-the-art. They are also. and jets). In the early and mid-1980's LES almost fell into disuse. It will be possible to perform large eddy simulations of some flows of engineering interest but the method will remain too costly . 1991.

An occasional LES can be compared to RANS predictions to test the adequacy of a design and/or the methods used to develop it. LES can and will be used as a complement and partial substitute for experimental testing. it should be possible to obtain most of the benefits of LES at a small fraction of the cost. It is known in advance that it can be done and. It will also continue to be used to directly test the accuracy of RANS models. The value is in learning about the physical nature of the flow. perhaps. These are both relatively low Reynolds number flows and of obvious technological importance. In these flows. Further. Doing a simulation merely to show that it can be done is of limited value. or. they have been premature and their value is questionable. making the possibility of using LES directly in the design process and interesting one. Boundary conditions of this kind exist for attached flows and were discussed above. in the author's opinion. The leap is simply too great to allow expectation of success in this kind of endeavor. Doing so for RANS models has proved exceedingly difficult and there is no reason not to expect the task to be at least . placing one's trust in them may be risky. its effect on the results may not be too important. LES and its subgrid scale models have been validated only for relatively simple flows at fairly low Reynolds numbers. It would be very valuable to have models that eliminate the need to specify no-slip conditions at a wall. a role that it has played with distinction throughout its history. Both of these flows also contain many extra strains that renders the development of RANS models for them exceedingly difficult. Flows that may be good candidates for LES in the near future include the turbine blade passage and the internal combustion engine cylinder. how it may be modeled.Large Eddy Simulation 145 for routine engineering use for a long time to come. By using LES to tune RANS models. It is also important that the goal of a simulation be defined in advance. If one uses the success of these simulations as a justification for applying LES to much more complex flows. most of the energy is in the resolved scales and. in making a contribution to the improvement of a design. if enough resources are deployed. even if the subgrid scale model is not very accurate. Simulations of this kind have been made but. What is not known is whether conditions of this kind can be constructed for separated flows. although reasonable looking results may be obtained. good results will be obtained. A word of caution is necessary.

Ferziger as difficult for LES. LES and DNS are best not used as everyday tools. most researchers have taken care to simulate only flows in which a large fraction of the energy of the turbulence can be resolved. To date. one simply cannot know in advance where the maximum resolution is required. this might be the case if sufficient computer resources were available but. methods which modify the grid as the solution procedure converges have been developed. Furthermore. It also combines well with the multigrid solution procedure. . The author's favorite such method is one developed by Berger and Oliger (1984). The numbers will depend on whether techniques of the kinds described in the last two paragraphs can be developed. All that is certain is that they will need to be larger than those now in use.1 COHERENT STRUCTURE CAPTURING The Concept Up to the present. for most flows of technological interest. The idea is to start with simple flows (preferably ones that can be treated with DNS). To compensate for the absence of this information.146 J. it is impossible to construct optimum grids prior to the calculation. 1989). even for steady flows. The large parallel machines now coming onto the scene will allow simulations to be done on grids containing 512 X 512 X 512 points (or other grids containing roughly the same number of points). H. This method has been adapted for elliptic flows by Caruso et al. 8 8. (1985). It is difficult to specify the grid requirements for the flows mentioned above at this time. The importance of the model is thereby minimized and good results have been achieved. the objective is usually to obtain just a few selected properties of the flow at minimum cost. This success does not assure equal success for LES of complex flows. one of the best methods for solving elliptic problems (Thompson and Ferziger. That being the case. there is little possibility this will happen in the foreseeable future. In flows in complex geometries. researchers have attempted to build LES from the ground up. use them to learn about SGS modeling. and then go on to increasingly more complex flows. It is conceivable that simulations of turbine blade passages and engine cylinders can be done with these grids.

The latter include buildings (wind engineering) and ocean platforms. the large structures are vortices. LES need be performed only when there are significant changes in the design or as an occasional check on the validity of the RANS results. particularly good candidates are flows in which there are a small number of important. Let us consider two such cases. the subgrid scale model was uncontrolled and the results are of uncertain value. flows that are structurally similar to the ones of actual interest. The vortices produce strong fluctuating forces on the body in both the streainwise and spanwise directions whose prediction is very important in many applications. If the vortices are sufficiently larger than the bulk of the motions that constitute the 'turbulence' it should be possible to construct a filter that allows the vortices to be retained in the resolved field while removing all of the smaller scale motions. Methods of this kind were suggested a long time ago (Ferziger. RANS computations can then be used as the everyday tool. there have been attempts at large-eddy and direct numerical simulation of complex flows. This appears to be a case of reaching too far too fast. in most of these. In all the cases that have been suggested. i. Since answers to questions involving technologically significant flows are required. the following questions arise. Flows over bluff bodies usually produce strong vortices in their wakes.e. RANS models that can be applied to the more complex flows can be validated and improved. Other than the flows mentioned earlier. An exception to this might be the recent work of Orszag . 1983) but deliberate simulations of this type do not appear to have been attempted other than a few cases which apparently gave unsteady results when a steady flow was expected. 1993). From the results of such simulations. energetic. a term we now find less descriptive. Unfortunately. As noted earlier. and easily identified coherent structures. The author and others earlier called it very large eddy simulation or VLES. we shall not present examples here.Large Eddy Simulation 147 A better choice for the near term is to perform LES and/or DNS on 'building block' flows. Is there a method that will enable more complex flows to be simulated on available machines? Are there flows of importance that are good candidates for simulation via LES in the relatively near future? The answer to these questions appear to be a qualified yes. We have called a method that accomplishes this 'coherent structure capturing' or CHC (Ferziger. among others.

the vortex should be smaller. the length scale to be used in LES is the filter width. 8. A. this vortex is important to engine behavior. In LES. so there is no possibility of modeling it as a steady flow. L. it may indeed become larger than the length scale used in RANS models. size. can such a simulation provide sufficient information about the flow? A partial answer to the first question is that the RANS mean velocity should probably be defined as an average over many cycles and the turbulence as the deviation from the multi-cycle average. This flow is inherently unsteady. it should be possible to construct a filter that can separate the vortex from the rest of the turbulence field. it may become necessary to introduce an equation for the length scale to be used in the subgrid scale model and LES may then inherit many of the difficulties that RANS models have with length scale modeling. in violation of the concept that the RANS viscosity should be large enough to remove all of the unsteadiness (at least all of it that is considered turbulence) from the flow.2 Modeling Issues The models to be used in CHC should be different from those used in both RANS and LES. the LES viscosity could exceed the RANS viscosity. the flow contains a strong vortex whose location. According to the Smagorinsky model. In a RANS calculation. Indeed one needs to be very careful and considerable experience is probably required before this kind of simulation can be trusted.148 J. The only thing that is clear is that considerable effort will be needed to . To see what the differences are consider the following. LES can only produce a single realization. of similar circulation. Ferziger discussed in Chapter 4. If this is the case. LES should simulate a single cycle. H. and strength varies from cycle to cycle. But. but its location should vary from realization to realization. one that is relatively large and of average circulation. What does RANS mean in such a flow and how should RANS results be compared with experimental results? Since the flow is unsteady. After the intake stroke. Several interesting issues arise which lead to the following questions. This situation should not be allowed to arise. To prevent it from occurring. which is an approximation to the integral scale. the filter width may become quite large. The cylinders of internal combustion engines provide another example. in CHC. the result should contain an average vortex.

For the near future. if any. appear to be relatively easy to incorporate into large eddy simulations. The dynamic model offers promise of removing many of the difficulties that have plagued LES and to give it an important advantage with respect to RANS modeling. it is probably best to use LES to understand the physical nature of the flow and to tune RANS turbulence models in a way that will allow them to produce more accurate predictions. compressibility. therefore. Jeffrey Koseff. The principal reasons are dissatisfaction with the performance of RANS turbulence models on the one hand and the inherent limitations and cost of direct simulation on the other. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author has been active in this field for over twenty years and the list of people who have helped him is too long to be covered in a short acknowledgment. Parviz Moin. However. 149 9 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS After years of being regarded as a method of second choice relative to direct simulation. LES is receiving increased attention. may require significant changes in the SGS model. Stephen Monismith and William Reynolds. and my students Matthew Bohnert and Kishan Shah. limit myself to mentioning a few people who have influenced my thinking in this area in the past few years. The support received from a number of agencies over the year has also been very . are needed just as badly and are an important subject for future research. I will. Some 'extra strains. a great deal more work may be needed. Improved models for the wall region.Large Eddy Simulation make this approach work. which act on scales smaller than the Kolmogoroff scale. Peter Bradshaw. if LES is to prove useful in truly complex high Reynolds number flows. These include my colleagues: Profs. Improved models for both the small-scale turbulence and the wall layer are also needed if LES is to become a useful engineering tool. little. Others. especially for separating and reattaching flows. modification of the SGS models is required.' namely those that mainly affect the large scales. for example.

Elsevier....J. Launder eds. 1993. "Flame front propagation in nonsteady hydrodynamic fields. Bagwell."Large eddy simulation of a backward facing step flow. N. 1984." in Engineering Turbulence Modeling and Experiments 2. Aupoix. J. Comp. 10 REFERENCES Akselvoll." in Near Wall Turbulent Flows (R. of Mechanical Engineering.. P. R. "Application de modeles dans 1'espace spectral a d'autres niveaux de fermature en turbulence homogene.H. Tech..C. and Yakhot. 1991.T." dissertation. M. "The dynamic subgrid scale model in large eddy simulation of the turbulent Ekman layer. W.. Conf.N. Ferziger important. Speziale and B. 1993. "Adaptive mesh refinement for hyperbolic partial differential equations.C. Adrian. "Improved subgrid models for large eddy simulation. So. G.. June. W. Sci. Moser. and Reynolds. Martelli eds. 53. K. Washington.C.A..G. DC. 1988. Sivashinsky. and Ferziger.).. J.. " Improved approximation of wall shear stress boundary condition for large eddy simulation. Ferziger. and Kim. W. G. Bardina. and Oliger.I.. Dept. 62. Rodi and F. Phys. 1987.. 1993. Stanford University. J. 484. J.G. p..E.." Report TF-50. C." ASME Fluids Engr. W. "Numerical simulations of compressible homogeneous turbulence..M. these include NASA.D. Ashurst. R.150 J.J. J." J. Blaisdell.." Comb. the Office of Naval Research and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. B. Elsevier. Berger.. V. 273. Universite Claude Bernard-Lyon I. M. H. p.H. Mansour... and Reynolds. . 1980." AIAA paper 801357.J.. Bohnert. and Moin. T.

and Kuhn. Fluid Mech." J.). Hussaini.W. "An adaptive grid method for incompressible flows." J. Ferziger. Fluid Mech. Murakami ed.... J." in Computational Methods for Turbulent. 1990..A.H." in Computational Fluid Dynamics.. Elsevier." Boundary Layer Meteorology. Coleman. Reynolds. . "A numerical study of the stratified turbulent Ekman layer. M. Dept.." Report TF-23. p. "Toward the large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows. of Mech. Erlebacher. J. Engr.. Hemisphere. p... "Evaluation of subgrid scale turbulence models using a fully simulated turbulent flow." in Computational Wind Engineering 1.. Ferziger. Thermosciences Div. and Reynolds. C. T. and Spalart. Deardorff. TF-48. G.. W. 1992.C. 70. Clark. Chapman. Lesieur and J. Dept.. J. 155. Caruso. 452..D.H. J. 1985. J. Speziale. (M. 265-92..R." Rept." Report TF-14. Stanford Univ.C..." J.C. p.Large Eddy Simulation 151 Cain.H. 41...A.B. Dept.Y. Engr. S. A. 238. "Computational methods for incompressible flow.. and Oliger. "The limiting behavior of turbulence near a wall. J...G. 1981. Engr. Ferziger. Ferziger. Transonic. Deardorff. and Ferziger. Stanford Univ.H. "Simulation of complex turbulent flows: recent advances and prospects in wind engineering.-A. p. ed. D. S. J. 92. Fluid Mech. W. of Mech. J. "A numerical study of three-dimensional turbulent channel flow at large Reynolds number. P.. and Peric. 1979. J. R. Zinn-Justin eds..H.H.R.N. 1986. "A three dimensional simulation of transition and early turbulence in a time developing mixing layer. Fluid Mech. "Three dimensional numerical modeling of the planetary boundary layer. G." J. "Higher level simulations of turbulent flow. G.. 1993. Ferziger..W. 1. 91. M.H.. 1974.. 1994. Elsevier. Essers. 1983. 191. J.. and Viscous Flows. Stanford Univ. J. 1970. pp.. Ferziger... and Zang. Mech.

Hussaini." Dissertation. E." Oxford U. 1992. Press. G. D." submitted to /. Wea. and Cabot.K. and Moin. and Kuwahara. Piomelli. Dept. 1994. D. ISA. Lilly. T. p. "Higher order terms in anisotropic representation of the Reynolds stress.." Second ed. "A large eddy simulation scheme for turbulent reacting flows.. U. "Direct numerical solution of turbulent flow over a backward facing step. M. Leonard. geophysical fluid dynamic problems.. P. 633. "On the computational stability of numerical solutions of time-dependent. Lund. "Theories of turbulence. "A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid scale closure method...." Whither Turbulence? Turbulence at the Crossroads. Dordrecht.." Phys.K... Berlin. Fluid Mech. 1974... "Energy cascade in large eddy simulations of turbulent fluid flows. D." Adv.. W. S.. Kawamura.. . "Simulation of spatially evolving turbulence and the applicability of Taylor's hypothesis to compressible flow. 1985. Leslie. 11. A. K. 237." AIAA paper 85-0376.. Moin. 1993. and Akselvoll. Stanford Univ. Stanford CA. M." Proc. S. 1282.. "Direct simulation of a turbulent inner flow by a finite difference method. pp. 93. P. C. Kluwer.K. nonlinear. Lesieur. Ferziger Gao. and Zang. Rev... P. Ghosal. "Turbulence in fluids. 1990." Mon. S.152 J.. K..H. A. 1965. Germane. H.. T. 1521-1530. pp. Center for Turbulence Research." Phys... 354-368. Horiuti." Phys. Y. 1973. Fluids A 4.S. of Mech. K. Engr. in Geophys. Lee. Speziale. Moin. Summer Workshop. Fluids A 5. T. 1993. p. and O'Brien. M. "A dynamic localization model for large eddy simulation of turbulent flows.. Le. "A dynamic subgrid scale eddy viscosity model. 1993.." Phys. p. 1708.. 1991. Fluids A 5. SpringerVerlag. p.C. 1990. p. 1990. Lele.. Fluids A 2. "The potential and limitations of direct and large eddy simulations. Lilly.. F.

162. p. D.. Greece." Bound. U." 74th AGARD Fluid Dynamics Panel. P. Chania.H. J. "On the large-eddy simulation of transitional wall-bounded flows.H. 35.J. and Derbyshire. p. Fluids A. 117. 118.. and Lesieur. 157. 1980. "Large eddy simulation of turbulent channel flow. "Developments and applications of dynamic models for large eddy simulation of complex flows. 1986. 2(2)." AIAA paper 80-1339." J. Atmos." J. Karlsruhe.. Sci.. Ghosal S. 313-343. H. "On the magnitude of the subgrid scale eddy-coefficient in large eddy simulation of turbulent channel flow.. April.. P.J. 1991.H. 1990. 239. Springer-Verlag. and Calien. 1061.. Reynolds. N.. C. Piomelli.. 1492. Fluids A.Y. O. "Large eddy simulation of the convective atmospheric boundary layer. p. Fluid Mech. "Berechnung der 3-D umstroemung eines quadrerfoermigen koerpers in kanal..." Phys. U. Berlin. K." Dissertation.. P. Moin. 53. Mauch. W.Large Eddy Simulation 153 Mason P. p. Phys. Carati." J. 1992. Speziale. Piomelli. Amer. "The potential and limitations of direct and large eddy simulations. and Akselvoll.. U.J. M. S.. Vol. J. M..G.Layer MeteoroL. "Spectral large eddy simulations of isotropic and stably stratified turbulence.. "Local space-time averaging in the dynamic subgrid scale model.S. J. 1994. and Ferziger. Mason. p. p." Bull. pp.. "Tests of new subgrid scale models in strained turbulence. 1990. 1989. Ferziger. Mason. Piomelli. and Kim.. Fluid Mech.." /. 1990.. O. . p... Moin.A. 1.. and Hussaini. 1989. 1991. P. "New approximate boundary conditions for large eddy simulations of wall-bounded flows. Soc. 10.. P. Fluid Mech. Metais. 341." Phys. T. J. and Kim. McMillan. Lund. T." Whither Turbulence? Turbulence at the Crossroads. Moin.. 46. C. 439. 1982.. Zang. 257. No.. Univ. "Large eddy simulation of the stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer.J.

" Ann. eds. 82. S.S." Dissertation. Erlebacher. U. Revs.H. Gatski et al. Smagorinsky. 91. P. Annual Reviews. "Em untersuchung ueber der berechnung der turbulent stroemungen im platten. Yang. "The subgrid-scale modeling of compressible turbulence. p. Shah.S.. Thompson.. 1973. and Hussaini. "Modeling the dissipation rate with the aid of direct simulation data. Fluid Mech.). "A dynamic mixed subgrid scale model and its application to turbulent recirculating flows." Studies in Turbulence. R. 31. and Koseff. Korea.H.N." in preparation.. Y. Comp. C. Zang. V. Comp. and Ferziger.R. Dae Jon.. 99. N.. "Large eddy simulation of turbulent flow with a surface-mounted obstacle.. Yakhot. and Orszag. M. "On nonlinear k — I and k — e models of turbulence. 3....L. Zang. 3186.A. 1. Rogallo.H. J.. C. "Renormalization group methods in turbulence. Wea.. Speziale. (T.. Rev." J.. Fluid Mech. G. K. W.. 1986. K. 178. and Lumley. p. p. and Ferziger.. J.. Tennekes. J. Fluids. 1976." /." Phys.." J.Y. J. Sci." MIT Press. Phys. "Numerical simulation of turbulent flows. 1993. J."Simulation of flow over a wallmounted cube. and Moin. 940.. 1989. M. Fluids. 1994. 1992." Fifth Asian Cong.. p. H. part I: The basic experiment." Phys. H. Speziale. 94. Schumann. p. 1988..C. University Karlsruhe. and Ferziger. 1992." Mon. p.154 J. 1984. R. "A multigrid adaptive method for incompressible flows. "General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. Street.O. 1987.und ringspalt-kanalen. 459. Fluid Mech.. Springer. "A first course in turbulence. and Mansour. .L. 5. 1963.G. Ferziger Rodi.G.. J. T.

S. W. the derivation of sophisticated turbulence models based on the fundamental underlying physics. Zhang 1 INTRODUCTION The renormalization group (RNG) and related e-expansion methods are a powerful technique that allow the systematic derivation of coarse-grained equations of motion for turbulent flows and. Flannery. so their utility must be based on the quality and quantity of results to which they lead. in particular. Y. The RNG method provides a convenient calculus for the analysis of complex physical effects in complex flows. At the present time. In this paper we discuss the basis for the RNG method and then illustrate its application to a variety of turbulent flow problems. 155 . Staroselsky. Orszag I. The details of the RNG method applied to fluid mechanics differ in some crucial respects from how renormalization group techniques are applied to field theories in other branches of physics. emphasizing those points where further analysis is needed. the RNG methods for fluid dynamics are by no means rigorously justified.Chapter 4 INTRODUCTION TO RENORMALIZATION GROUP MODELING OF TURBULENCE Steven A.

where V is the rms velocity of the turbulence and L is an appropriate large scale) and therefore 6 = O(l) as R —>• oo.. Orszag et al. the rate of energy dissipation £ per unit mass and the kinematic viscosity v. In this so-called inertial range the energy spectrum is independent of viscosity. 1993). Kolmogorov predicted that the energy spectral density of turbulence has the universal form where k is the wavenumber and is called the dissipation wavenumber and defines a scale below which turbulent eddies are directly affected by viscosity.F(O). Experimental data demonstrating that £ — O(l) is still very limited. It is implicit in the Kolmogorov theory that the rate of energy dissipation £ is essentially independent of the viscosity v] this first fundamental law of turbulence implies that £ is independent of Reynolds number (R = VL/v. so the energy spectrum is a power-law with the universal exponent —5/3. Kolmogorov who argued that the small-scale spectrum of incompressible turbulence is universal and characterized by two numbers.156 S. so the energy spectrum decays exponentially fast with increasing k in this so-called far dissipation range (Chen et al. If this first fundamental law of turbulence is true. The wavenumber k^ separates inertialrange scales for which viscosity is not important and dissipation range scales. Kolmogorov argued that this form of the energy spectrum would apply at scales small compared to those characterizing the inhomogeneities of the average flow. The application of a field-theoretic method like the RNG technique to turbulence is based on the fundamental assumption of universality of small scales in turbulent flows. where CK = . In fact. The situation is somewhat better for the Kolmogorov spectrum (1) where a variety of experimental measurements have shown that . then (2) shows that kd = 0(#3/4). N. The Kolmogorov universal spectrum has two interesting special cases. Such universal behavior was first suggested over 50 years ago in the seminal work of A. if k >• kd it can be argued that F(x) must be of the form Cixae~C2X. E(k] = CK£2/3k~5/3. if k < kd. First. A. Second.

it is difficult to develop an efficient workable formalism to perform statistical averages on them that allows the development of predictive equations for the statistical properties of turbulence. In addition to the formal problem of developing efficient and effective averaging techniques. Measurements of the energy spectrum in the inertial range demonstrate that deviations from Kolmogorov's 5/3 power law are small.Renormalization Group 157 (1) is at least approximately satisfied. but rather to calculate amplitudes (like C/<). whereas the NSE are an explicit. If corrections to perfect Kolmogorov scaling are established at some future time. t) governed by the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (NSE): supplemented by the boundary conditions that the velocity v at a boundary or interface matches the velocity of the boundary or interface. two-point correlation functions. which is equivalent to knowledge of all correlation functions of the system. In contrast to the fluctuation theory of phase transitions. A more limited goal would be to obtain only certain velocity correlation functions. it will be possible to redo the RNG theory account for these effects in a systematic way. which include information on the energy spectrum as well as enough information for nearly all turbulence modeling requirements. say. rather. Ideally. it is necessary to build a formalism that reflects the universality of the small scales of the flow. although these deviations have dominated turbulence research for over two decades now through the search for so-called intermittency corrections to Kolmogorov's theory. the RNG theory of turbulence is not used to calculate scaling exponents (like -5/3). well-defined system of partial differential equations. it is necessary to find some . the RNG theory provides quantitative predictions of the behavior of turbulent flows assuming that Kolmogorov's theory holds. Unfortunately. The goal of a statistical theory of incompressible turbulence is to give a probabilistic description of a solenoidal velocity field v(x. such a statistical description of turbulence would yield the multi-point probability distribution function. The RNG technique discussed in this paper is based on the universality of the Kolmogorov spectrum. The RNG theory of turbulence does not prove the validity of the Kolmogorov theory.

The goal of the RNG theory is. turbulence models for the prediction of large-scale flow properties. in effect. it is possible to "remove" the small scales from the turbulence dynamics. This range is limited because the boundary conditions are imposed at a finite scale of order L and the Reynolds number is finite. in particular. With such a quantitative theory of small scales available. As part of the RNG analysis.158 S. the RNG method is based on the assumption that the inertial range dynamics is invariant under rescaling transformations. While the rigorous basis of these steps is individually still open to question. way to de-emphasize the non-universal aspects of turbulence at large scales imposed by boundary and initial conditions. This is not a trivial matter because it is intuitively clear that boundary and initial conditions are directly responsible for turbulent energy production. the 5/3 law holds in the limited wavenumber range 1/L <C k <C k^. thereby deriving effective equations of motion for large scales and. an assumption justified by the infinite extent of this range and its independence of viscous dissipation effects. the RNG theory proceeds to describe the resulting infinitely long inertial range. In particular. At finite Reynolds numbers. taking the limit L —>• oo. We do this by mimicking the effect of initial and boundary conditions by imposing an artificial random force f in the NSE: Once an appropriate force that represents random forcing at infinitely large scales is imposed. as mentioned above. A. Orszag et al. To pursue the RNG analysis we first attempt to remove the constraint due to boundary and initial conditions at the finite scale L by. it is assumed that the turbulent dynamics in the inertial range can be described by a finite number of effective transport coefficients. like eddy viscosity for momentum and eddy diffusivity for heat and mass transport. the development of a quantitative description of small scales in turbulent flows. the results to which they lead appear to have a remarkably close agreement with reality. .

*)[f(x. It is convenient to adopt a symbolic notation that absorbs both the wavenumber and vectorial components into a single numerical symbol.-j represents the pressure gradient Vp. In (5). u(fc) [f(A. we can equivalently view this flow as being confined to a cube having side £ on which periodic boundary conditions are imposed and then the implicit limit £ —> oo being taken at the conclusion of all calculations.)j is the space-time Fourier transform of v(x.. AQ = 1 is a parameter that allows us to conveniently determine the order of perturbation theory to which we are working.i)]. Then (5) becomes where the coupling operator g is defined as The formal solution of the nonlinear stochastic partial differential equation (7) is given by the Neumann series obtained by iterating (7): . The Fourier transform of the Navier-Stokes equations (3') is where k = (k. the term kikj/k2 in P. for analytical convenience. The projection operator P.g. We do this in the context of an unbounded flow in d dimensions but. •u(l) = Uj1(ki) and where summation over repeated indices and integration over wavevectors is implied.Renorm&lization Group 2 PERTURBATION THEORY FOR THE NAVIER-STOKES EQUATIONS 159 In this Section we introduce statistical perturbation methods to organize the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations as an expansion in powers of effective Reynolds number.j(k) ensures the incompressibility of the flow.w). and dq denotes the (d+ 1)-dimensional integral over the wavevector and frequency components of q. e.

The properties of the random noise / are chosen to facilitate the evaluation of the terms in the expansions of U and G. The goal of statistical perturbation theory is to obtain correlation functions of the random field u by averaging the series (9) over fluctuations of the random noise /.1)t . A. divergence-free. Of particular interest is the twopoint correlation function (7(12) =< u(l)w(2) > which is directly related to the energy spectrum and the nonlinear Green's (impulse response) function C?(12) =< <!m(l)/<5/(2) > which characterizes the full nonlinear system response to small perturbations. the solution to the linearized Navier-Stokes equations leads to the two-point velocity correlation function By applying these rules for averaging over the gaussian random noise / to the velocity field and the nonlinear Green's function G. The symbol <> indicates an ensemble average over all realizations of the random field /.160 S. In this case. Indeed. Equation (9) expresses the fluctuating velocity u in terms of a functional power series in the random force /. we obtain the full perturbation series for U and. G. The terms in these . white-in-time. multi-point averages reduce to sums over products of pair correlations (10). Orszag et al. it is convenient to choose the force / to be zero-mean..2 p(2) where p is a random noise with the multi-point probability distribution function The two-point correlation function of the random noise / is then where and the ^-function accounts for translational invariance in time and space: With this choice of gaussian random noise. and gaussian of the form /(I) = P.

This would immediately yield a formally infinite result ~ / 6(q)dq/q^.e. which is also twice the number of integrations over spacetime wavenumbers. This motivates us not to deal with the delta-functions directly but rather to introduce an auxiliary power-law stirring force D(k] — Dok~y (see Orszag et al. if summed properly. or any "closed cycle" of Green's functions of the type G(12)G(23). . 1993a for more details). 1961].l i 2 i 3 (fci)tf(l) = 0. Certain terms may be identified as vanishing or non-existent. However. for example. i. These integrations may or may not be independent. it is immediatedly found. Then (14) becomes Equation (15) hints at the importance of the parameter e = 4 + y — d which controls the infrared divergence of the perturbation series. The lowest order nonvanishing terms appearing in the series for U and G are those of second order It should be emphasized that these elementary terms already provide basic information about large-scale properties of the system.. the full series can be conveniently represented using diagram methods [Wyld. such as those containing 0(123)^(23) oc Pili2ia(ki)6(l + 2 + 3)A'(23)<S(2 + 3) oc P t . D(q) a £ d (q). an infinite series of formally infinite terms may well give finite and meaningful results. Kraichnan. the forcing would have been chosen at the largest spatial scales. 1961. Analyzing the divergence of the associated integrals in wavenumber space. that the lowest order nonlinear correction to the Green's function is (omitting tensorial indices) In order to describe fully developed turbulence. depending upon the detailed structure of the term. or 0(123)G(23)..G(nl).. Most generally.Renormaliz&tion Group 161 series are usually classified based on the number of vertex operators g.

A. It will be shown that. we consider all expansions as performed in a true small coupling parameter g. the resummed perturbation series self-similarly approaches a limiting form. The technical approach involved in RNG is that. In other words. Orsza. that is based on ideas of scaling and universality. On an intuitive level. as R —> oo. The logic of the RNG weak coupling approach is checked by assuming it to hold. The case of (. approaches infinity as the scale L —*• oo. Suppose that at very large scales the effective coupling becomes weak so that we can solve the problem perturbatively.g et al. It will be shown below that Reff oc A/£ where e = 4 + y — d was introduced above. based on i/0. and then checking the selfconsistency of the results. the main physical assumption is that there exists an "eddy viscosity" which yields an effective (scale dependent) Reynolds number Re/f which is O(l) even as the "bare" Reynolds number R. we treat the problem explicitly using perturbative methods. RNG methods are more robust and more appealing to our physical intuition about the significance or insignificance of eddy dynamics at large scales. rather than trying to sum up the entire perturbation series. This is done as follows. computing Reff and other quantities based on this assumption. at this fixed point. from the dynamic equations and thereby obtain new equations for the remaining variables. RNG. <5A. The basic idea of our approach is to iteratively remove narrow bands of wavenumbers. called a fixed point. Suppose that at some stage of this renormalization process the dynamic variables involve wavenumbers from the band 0 < k| < A. However. viz. — 0 will be shown to lead to zero coupling at the largest scales. RENORMALIZATION GROUP METHOD FOR RESUMMATION OF DIVERGENT SERIES Whereas there are methods of direct resummation of perturbation series of logarithmically diverging terms.162 3 S. there is a different route. When we begin this renormalization scheme. The main assumption of the RNG theory is that. we choose A = kj but at later stages the moving cutoff A satisfies A < kj. We remove the . the nonlinear effective coupling (or the effective Reynolds number Reff) is small enough that useful results can be obtained by a perturbation expansion in powers of Re/f. In comparison with techniques of direct summation of perturbation series. there is no general method to handle series with power-law divergences. so that Re/f —> 0 as e —>• 0.

Equations (16) and (17) exactly represent the fluctuating Navier-Stokes dynamics in the corresponding wavenumber bands. the use of the Neumann series (9) is justified because <5A is small. the errors in the reduced dynamical system that result from solving these relations need no longer be small because we are accumulating many small contributions. Of course. This perturbation technique in <5A generates so-called recursion relations for the terms in the reduced dynamical system satisfied by n < (A.) based upon the rule (12) applied to the "<"-band equation resulting from the Neumann series (9): . The advantage of the present explanation of the RNG technique is that the e—expansion (Re/f <C 1) is required only to eliminate high-order nonlinearities in the dynamical equations for tt < (A. expressing the dynamic variables for A — <*>A < |k| < A in terms of the random force in this narrow band. under the assumption that our Reff is small we proceed to use the dynamical system that results from the recursion relations. However. and then averaging over the corresponding subensemble of random forces. At each stage of this process. 0 < |k| < A — £A.). When the velocity field is decomposed as (7) generates equations for the "<"-band and the '>"-band: No approximations have yet been invoked. The justification for this last step has not been given for turbulence.) and not to evaluate constants appearing in the lowest order dynamical equations for u < (A. The next step of the RNG procedure is to solve these relations to obtain new dynamic equations in the case where many narrow bands of modes are eliminated.Renormalization Group 163 dynamic variables w > (^) in the band A — 6A < |k| < A by using the Neumann series (9) to obtain new expressions for the remaining variables u < (A. so it is only possible to judge the validity of the RNG equations by the accuracy of the results to which they lead. Computation of the Green's function G < (12) =< <5it < (l)/(5/ < (2) > involves averaging these stochastic PDEs over the subensemble of realizations / > (A.).).

and we have included the factor Pa.o.u — 0. noting that we obtain . Notice that this procedure of unconditional shell-averaging is asymmetric with respect to the arguments of the Green's function 6*0 and the correlation function UQ] the wavenumber of UQ is restricted to the shell A — 6A < k < A while there is no similar constraint upon the wavenumber of GQ. say. one obtains the correction to the Green's function which is second-order in the coupling constant: When explicit notations are introduced.k) and (6) = (/3. First. Upon taking the functional derivative < <5/<5/ < (6) > in (18) and gaussian averaging over the subensemble in which the Fourier modes of / are held fixed for |k| < A — <5A. (1) = (a. Orszag et al. To compute the integral in (20) we proceed as follows. = 0. using (6) and performing the integral over the internal frequency %.164 S.k').g(k) on the left side of (20) due to the incompressibility of u(k). A. (19) translates into the following analytic expression for the correction to the viscosity: where the symbol / indicates integration over the band A — <5A < q < A.

n) as . this latter integral has the asymtotic form Using the following properties of the projection operators P a/ g(k) and Pa^(k). q. we evaluate II a /3(k. Thus. we find This integral can be expressed in terms of the elementary angular integrals where Sd is the area of a d—dimensional unit sphere.Renormalization Group 165 where In the limit k/q —> 0.

Using analogous methods one finds that there is no "bare force renormalization". namely. i. However. We will now rewrite this system in terms of scale-dependent nonlinearities and thereby make contact with classical turbulence phenomenological concepts like local Reynolds numbers.tfr). Orszag et al. etc. we obtain the viscosity correction where r = log (fcj/A). may be evaluated in terms of the random force correlation function < // > noting that w(A) oc G(A)/(A) where G(A) is of order of the characteristic response time o^A)"1 oc [z/(A) A2]"1: where < // >oc D0A yui(A)Ad. Substituting this result into (20/). a "thermal" noise proportional to k2 is generated. From (21). the effective nonlinear coupling constant <?(A) = D 0 /z/ 3 (A)A c and the 'thermal' coupling constant <7:r(A) = _DrA c '~ 2 /i' 3 (A) which is the dimensionless intensity of the generated 'thermal noise' DyA.2. (22) it follows that . The charge g(A) is proportional to [Reff(A. effective viscosity. Therefore.)}2. Indeed. no contribution to the forcing D0k~y. We introduce two nondimensional "charges" of the theory: namely.e. we obtain The system dynamics can then be described in terms of the behavior of 0. A.166 5.

r oc e"1.Renormalization Group 167 Once the autonomous system (23) is solved. unlike the previous case. In the vicinity of this fixed point. Therefore. We caution that as of yet there is no rigorous proof that all such terms are negligible. there is a fixed point of this system in which QT decays rapidly to 0 for r increasing beyond (d — 2)"1. the RNG transformation given by (25) has a simple fixed point in which the coupling constant is indeed small: as conjectured above. the equation for g? becomes redundant since g? is small. equivalently. the constant g? quickly approaches a finite limit of order 1. the applicability of second order approximation is violated and there is no self-consistent asymptotic expansion in e — 4+y-d. which is small compared with the driving force of the system. . the scale-dependent viscosity Z'(A) is determined from the differential equation: that follows from (21). The case d — 2 requires special consideration which is beyond the scope of this paper. the viscosity behaves as V(T) oc e~ 1 ' 3 exp(—c/3r) and Reff ~ ^/^• When d < 2. There is no solution in which g and g? are small as € —» 0. Observe that when d — 2 > 0. At these large r. the equation for g becomes When r —>• oo. or. It is easy to see that when e < 1 and d > 2. at very large spatial scales. An example of such an "irrelevant term" is the self-generated thermal noise. It is a key part of the RNG procedure to obtain simple reduced dynamical equations for «<(&) in which various terms in the formal perturbation expansion can be argued to disappear in true dynamics as the integral scale £ -^ oo. for large r. This means that.

The difference from the earlier derivation lies in symmetry of the integral (20) with respect to the arguments of the Green's function and the correlation function. one finds The coefficients of (29) and (30) agree well with the experimentally observed parameters. It should also be noticed that the constant A^ is independent of e. Expanding to second order in e they recover the EDQNM equations introduced by Orszag (1977) which express the mean dissipation rate £ in terms of the lowest-order energy spectrum E(k) and the effective viscosity v(k}. (1987) using the property of energy conservation by the nonlinear terms. the symmetrized and unsymmetrized versions of (20) become the same.168 S. A. Oisz&g et al. in contrast to the result obtained by Yakhot and Orszag (1986). e = 4). as well as upon Equation (27). In the limit e —> 0. they obtain the relation Using (28). . Based on this representation. there is no force renormalization and the effective viscosity at the cutoff A is given by the solution of (25) with the initial condition f(A 0 ) = i>0: It should be emphasized at this point that since the effective Reynolds number is proportional to e1'2 to lowest order in €. it is not necessary to e—expand AJ. to obtain the RNG result f(A). With the present approach. In this case. The unknown amplitude D0 is determined by Dannevik et al. These general RNG results can be used to analyze three-dimensional fully turbulent flow (d = 3. all perturbation expansions used in the theory are valid at lowest order in e for e —> 0.

in good agreement with the "standard" value. RNG theory gives this result by eliminating the length scale I between the expression (27) for turbulent viscosity and the following expression for the total kinetic energy in isotropic inertial range eddies at scales smaller than I: Here the constant 0. the eddy viscosity in the RNG K — £ model is given by with C/j..0845.71 is obtained from the Kolmogorov constant CK by integrating the inertial range energy spectra to the cutoff scale / = 2ir/k.Renormalization Group 4 TRANSPORT MODELING 169 The methods described above have also been used to derive transport models in which all the scales up to the integral scale of turbulent flow are averaged over. turbulence kinetic energy li'. = 0. and energy dissipation rate £ and defines the eddy transport coefficients in terms of the latter. The RNG transport model describes the dynamics of the mean flow /7. For example. The high Reynolds number form of the RNG K — £ model is given by where i/j° = veddy + vmo\ and the rate-of-strain term R given by . Another advantage of the RNG theory is that it also allows us to interpolate (31) into the low Reynolds number regions and obtain more general expressions which are valid across the full range of flow conditions from low to high Reynolds numbers.

42 and C'£2 = 1.39. in comparison with the "standard" values (7^ fy 1. where strong anisotropy exists.4 and Cs2 « 1. the temperature field is governed by: The inverse turbulent Prandtl numbers a in (34)-(35) and (38) are obtained from the RNG scalar heat transport relation derived analogously to (27): where for the heat transfer problem a0 refers to the molecular inverse Prandtl number.R-term tends to increase eddy viscosity somewhat. the . and a = 1. The RNG K — £ model has been successfully applied to a number of difficult turbulent flow problems. and a = 1. the reduced value of (7f2 compared with the standard S -equation coefficient (^standard ^ ^<^ j^g ^g interesting consequence of decreasing both the rate of production of K and the rate of dissipation of S. In regions of small 77. in regions of low turbulence Reynolds numbers the RNG eddy viscosity has a cut-off below which the eddy viscosity is zero. The RNG theory gives values of the constants Csl = 1. This latter term is expressed in the RNG K — £ model equations as where 77 = SK/£ and S2 = ISijSij is the magnitude of the rate-ofstrain. First. Below. is unique. In regions of very large 77. leading to smaller eddy viscosities. R can become negative and reduces the eddy viscosity even more. we present some results . Secondly. based on the RNG theory. This feature of the RNG model is perhaps responsible of the marked improvement in anisotropic largescale eddies. but it is still typically smaller than its value in the standard model. There are two interesting properties of the RNG transport model described above which lead to reduced eddy viscosity. Orszag et al.9. The /^-dependency of C'£2 makes it possible to have a spatially as well as a temporally varying balance between production and dissipation terms in the ^-equation.170 5.68. This feature of dynamic balance. A. For turbulent heat convection problems.

we plot a comparison of the RNG results and the measured distribution of the Stanton number. 1-2 we plot heat transfer data compared with the results of Graziani et al. and p. 1979) which is large-scale and low-speed. and UQ are the values at the inlet of the density. Good qualitative agreement with the experimental data is observed. The data is expressed in terms of the Stanton number. specific heat. without the use of an empirically fitted transition point. the flow field is the turbulent flow field determined by the RNG model but the turbulent heat transfer coefficients predicted by the RNG theory are replaced by laminar heat transfer coefficients. In the latter case. Cp. Extensive parametric studies of heat transfer in this cascade were also performed to investigate the effects of Reynolds number and in- . the laminar heat transfer model does do a good job near the leading edge. where h is the heat transfer coefficient defined as h = qgen/AT. as well as with results obtained from alternative turbulence/transition models. and a transonic nozzle guide vane. Si = h/(pCpUo). Turbomachinery Heat Transfer Two cases of predicting turbomachinery heat transfer will be discussed. In Figs. we plot a comparison of the Stanton number predictions for the RNG and standard K — £ models and for laminar heat transfer .Renormalization Group 171 to illustrate the ability of this model to capture complex flow phenomena such as transitional behavior in turbomachinery heat transfer. The quantitative agreement is excellent in the leading edge region and good in the relaminarization region. the RNG model has demonstrated a significant improvement over existing prediction methods. In Fig.. On the other hand. the standard K — £ model overpredicts the heat transfer for this case by nearly a factor 2 and does not capture the transitional flow effects observed near the leading edge on the suction side. Overall.in the laminar case. 2. but does not account for the increase in heat transfer near the transition point. For the former case. Evidently. and time-dependent behavior of large-scale structures. qgen is the heat flux at the blade surface. the so-called Langston cascade (Graziani et al. the main difficulty is to accurately predict the pattern of the heat transfer coefficient distribution over the suction surface corresponding to flow relaminarization and subsequent transition to turbulence. In Fig. and velocity. compressibility and an extremely high turning angle further complicate the subtle heat transfer behavior over the surface. 1.

we show the distributions of Stanton number along the airfoil surface corresponding to different Reynolds numbers. These data indicate that boundary layer transition occurs at Re between 3.5 X 105 and inlet turbulence intensity level of 1%.5 x 10s and different inlet turbulence intensity levels are shown in Fig. In Fig. The curves are labeled by the Reynolds number relative to RCQ.3 X 10s and 3. A. The second case is a simulation of experiments performed in the .172 S. 4.31kW/m? at the airfoil surface and ambient flow temperature at the inlet. Virtually no variation in the Stanton number distributions was detected at turbulence intensities lower than 0.5%.6 X 105: the Stanton number distributions at 3. 3. Orszag et al. Boundary conditions for the heat transfer problem were the same for each run and corresponded to constant heat flux qgen — I. Distributions of Stanton number on the blade surface for the Langston cascade: RNG-based computations versus experiment. let turbulence intensity level on heat transfer patterns. The original experiment was done at a Reynolds number (based on axial chord and inlet velocity) of ReQ = 5. Figure 1. Heat transfer patterns corresponding to Re0 = 5.3 X 105 and lower match the laminar pattern.

with the suction side shown on the left side of the plot and pressure side on the right side. Again. it should be emphasized that both the RNG and standard model . By comparison the standard K — £ model overpredicts heat transfer by a factor of 2-5 due to significant overproduction of turbulence throughout the passage. von Karman Institute short duration Isentropic Light Piston Compression Tube facility CT-2 of a high pressure turbine nozzle guide vane (von Karman Institute for Fluid Mechanics Technical Note 174.Renormalization Group 173 Figure 2. the distribution of turbulent viscosity provided by the RNG model leads to an quantitative prediction of blade heat transfer over most of the entire airfoil surface. In Fig. Comparison of computed distributions of Stanton number on the blade surface for the Langston cascade. At the same time.based calculations were done using general pur- . The accurate quantitative prediction of blade heat transfer over almost the entire airfoil surface is readily observable. 5 we plot the distribution of heat transfer coefficient in W/m^K as a function of the distance along the blade surface. The two spikes in computed heat transfer coefficient represent purely numerical artifacts due to the junctions of the computational domains. 1990).

Figure 3.174 S. Distributions of Stanton number over the blade surface as a function of Reynolds number. the RNG transport model. pose codes which contain no adjustable parameters characterizing the turbine geometry. The curves are marked according to the fraction of the nominal Reynolds number of 5 X 105 ( based on inlet velocity and axial chord ). Orszag et al. which has a higher effective Reynolds . It will be seen that when these calculations have a steady-state solution it does not correspond to the time-averaged flow field. On the other hand. Time-dependent Turbomachinery Computations Some recent results from the computation of the flow over a compressor trailing edge indicate that steady-state computations prove inadequate in flows with large-scale unsteady structure. A.

The Reynolds number for the flow under consideration is 56. number than the standard K—£ model.400 based on the diameter of the half-cylinder trailing edge. The inlet.6 diameters upstream. Distributions of Stanton number over the blade surface as a function of inlet turbulence intensity. in this case the thickness of the trailing edge. A number of runs were computed including steady-state and time-dependent cases. VLES refers to the capability of the model to correctly predict the behavior of anisotropic eddies with a size of the order of the characteristic size of the problem. and a steady-state case with a splitter .Renormalization Group 175 Figure 4. The curves are marked according the intensity at the inlet in percent (100 X u'/Uo). taken at 10. may be used to perform timedependent. so-called Very Large Eddy Simulations (VLES). is a symmetrical zero pressure gradient turbulent boundary layer set to match experimental conditions.

176

S. A. Orszag et al.

Figure 5. Comparison of computed and experimental distributions of heat transfer coefficient on the blade surface for a high-load turbine nozzle guide vane. plate. First, steady-state computations of the trailing edge failed to predict the strength of the vortex in the wake yielding significantly over-predicted base pressures in the wake. As seen in Fig. 6, the "symmetrizing" effect of the steady-state computation on the distribution of the pressure coefficient Cp is close to that obtained by the addition of a splitter plate in the wake. The streamlines shown in Fig. 7 also demonstrate that the size of the vortex is the same in both cases. Next, a time-dependent flow with the RNG K - £ model was computed. The computed Strouhal frequency is approximately 0.2 in reasonable agreement with experiment. In Fig. 8 the time-averaged distribution of Cp for the RNG K - £ run is plotted. The timeaveraged VLES result is also in reasonable agreement with experiment and gives rise to the strong pressure minimum in the wake. The time-dependent run gives a strong vortex as indicated in Fig. 9, where both the magnitude and location of the velocity minimum a,re in reasonable agreement with the experimental values of-0.2 and 0.4

Renormalization Group

lj",

Figure 6. Pressure coefficient distributions over the surface and in the wake of a compressor trailing edge for steady-state computations with and without a splitter plate, and experimental splitter plate results (Re = 56,400 based on freestream velocity and trailing edge (TE) thickness). respectively. Finally, a time-aver aged calculation using the standard K — £ model was performed for comparison. A comparison of the timeaveraged results for Cp with experiment is shown in Fig. 8. As with the steady-state RNG computations, the base pressure in the wake is significantly overpredicted by the standard model. Excessive turbulent production leads to large eddy viscosities and hence mean wake vortices which are too weak. It appears that the VLES RNG model, by producing less turbulence as a result of lower eddy viscosities, can predict the time-dependent behavior of the (very) largest eddies. Flapping-Hydrofoil Simulations The flow over a two dimensional hydrofoil subject to vertical gusts at high reduced frequency has been simulated, and a comparison with the experiments performed in the MIT Variable Pressure Water Tunnel was done. A modified NAG A16 hydrofoil with chord length

178

S. A. Orszag et al.

Figure 7. Computed steady-state streamlines in the wake of compressor trailing edge with and without a splitter plate. of 18 inches and maximum thickness of 8.84% is mounted in the test section on the centerline of the tunnel. Upstream there are two flappers operating at a reduced frequency K — 3.6 and with an amplitude of 6 degrees. The Reynolds number based on test foil chord length and freestream velocity is 3.78 X 106. Turbulence intensity was measured in the empty test section and was found to be 1%. In the case of steady flow, measurement of velocities and pressure was taken on three nested boxes bounding the test foil. Surface pressure data were taken on eight locations and boundary layer velocity data were taken in nine location on the suction side and seven locations on the pressure side. There were also two sets of wake data taken. The computations were performed using the FLUENT code with the RNG K — £ turbulence model. For the case reported below, the simulation was for steady flow at an angle of attack of 1.18°. The computational domain spans the tunnel height with the upstream inlet coinciding with the location where experimental measurement of the flow data is available. The geometry and computational domain are depicted in Fig. 10. A C-type grid was built around the test foil and there are 301x166 total grid points with approximately 35 grid points spanning the boundary layer. The upstream boundary conditions were taken from the experimental data, in the two small re-

Renorma,liza,tion Group

179

Figure 8. Pressure coefficient distributions over the surface and in the wake of a compressor trailing edge for time-aver aged computations of RNG VLES models and Standard K — e with experiment (Re — 56,400 based on freestream velocity and trailing edge (TE) thickness). gions between upper/bottom tunnel wall and the flapper wake where experimental data is not available, uniform velocity profiles were assigned. Two sets of runs were performed with the same grid and boundary conditions, but using different turbulence models. One used the standard K — C model and the other used RNG K — £ model. The skin friction coefficients are plotted in Fig 11. On the suction side with x/C > 0.4 where experiment data were available, the computation with the RNG K — £ model produced excellent agreement while the computation results using the standard K — E model severely overpredicted the skin friction. The results from the RNG K — £ model predicted the separation point (shown by the location where skin friction first turns negative) at x/C = 0.968, while the experiment data showed the separation point between x/C — 0.972 and x/C — 0.990. The standard K — £ model, on the other hand, in-

180

5. A. Orszag et al.

Figure 9. Comparison of the computed time-averaged centerline velocity in the near wake of the compressor trailing edge.

Figure 10. The geometry and computational domain for flappinghydrofoil simulations. dicates no separation. The RNG K — £ model computation also predicted transition regions at x/C ~ 0.09 on the suction side and at x/C ^ 0.13 on the pressure side. Since the experiment used a trip device to trigger transitions on the test foil, comparison is not available in these regions. There now have been well over fifty substantially different test flows on which the RNG K — 8 equations have been successfully tested (e.g. Orszag et al, 1993b). This broad range of successes

Renormalization Group

181

Figure 11. Comparison of computed and experimental skin friction coefficients for the suction side of the hydrofoil. provides, we believe, an important indirect verification of the ideas entering the RNG theory of turbulence. Indeed, turbulence models are very sensitive to their details and we believe it is quite unlikely that a "wrong" theory would be likely to produce the breadth of significant engineering results available so far. In effect, this means that we have a reasonable working theory of turbulence at least for engineering calculations. Much further work remains to be done to extend the range of applications, determine the limits of validity of the theory, and, hopefully, provide a rational basis for it as a physical theory of turbulence.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work has been supported by the ONR, NASA, and United Technologies Research Center. Discussions with Victor Yakhot have been a constant source of stimulation. We would also like to acknowledge discussions with Torn Barber and Dochul Choi of UTRC. Finally, we should like to acknowledge our collaborations with Fluent, Inc., especially Ferit Boysan, Nelson Carter, Dipankar Choudbury,

. and Launder. Orszag et al. A. 5 REFERENCES S. p. and Yakhot.A. and Bart Patel. "Analytical theories of turbulence and the e—expansion. B. M.. "Dynamics of nonlinear stochastic systems. "An Experimental Study of Endwall and Airfoil Surface Heat Transfer in a Large Scale Blade Cascade. S. .. (B.. Yakhot. A. Taylor.. 1962." J. Graziani. Thesis. V. "Statistical theory of turbulence. Dannevik. 1993. 2021.. A. Orszag.. 1961. Phys. Speziale.. J. F. 1993. Blair. Kraichnan. So. Staroselsky. 1031-1046. H. Chen.. 70. C. S...H. Erratum: 3. Peabe." Phys. Rev. E. R. Balian and J. A.. Letts. E.. "Experimental Investigation of a Simulated Compressor Airfoil Trailing Edge Flowneld. 2. G. pp. Yakhot. 1987. F." In: Fluid Dynamics 1973. R. J. eds). Boysan. "Far dissipation range of turbulence. "R. 1993b.-L.. V. S. and Orszag. Z.W. Math. R.. J. R. S. D. p.S.." Phys. pp. Eds." AIAA Paper 840101. and She. Cambridge University Press. Kraichnan. R. Maruzewski. S. Orszag. 1993a." In: Large Eddy Simulation of Complex Engineering and Geophysical Flows.. Choudbury. 3051." In: Near-Wall Turbulent Flows. Gordon and Breach.." ASME Paper 79-GT-99. A.. 1977. I. Eds.. Orszag.A. Flannery. 1984. R.. M. "Some basic challenges for large eddy simulation research. Elsevier Science Publishers. C. S. G. "Unsteady Response of a Two-Dimensional Hydrofoil Subject to a High Reduced Frequency Gust Loading. p. 205... 124-148.. E..-S. Fluids A 30. and Mayle. W. Galperin and S. Doolen.. Herring.182 Joe Maruzewski. Massachusetts Institute of Technology.. Lurie. S. V. B. 237—374. Orszag. R..A. Les Houches Summer School in Physics. Paterson. W. R. Orszag. and Patel. pp. H. 1979." M. "Renormalization group modeling and turbulence simulations.

. Wyld. V. H. Formulation of the theory of turbulence in an incompressible fluid. Comp. 3-51. . 143-165.Renormalization Group 183 Yakhot. "Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. Sci. 1. pp. 1986.A. 1961.W. Phys. S. and Orszag. 14. pp. Basic theory. I." Ann...." J.

This page intentionally left blank .

Chapter 5 MODELING OF TURBULENT TRANSPORT EQUATIONS Charles G. While this belief is largely warranted for the older eddy viscosity models of turbulence. A brief review of zero equation models and one equation models based on the Boussinesq eddy viscosity hypothesis will first be provided in order to gain a perspective on the earlier approaches to 185 . It is widely believed that Reynolds stress models are completely ad hoc. It will be shown how secondorder closure models and two-equation models with an anisotropic eddy viscosity can be systematically derived from the Navier-Stokes equations when one overriding assumption is made: the turbulence is locally homogeneous and in equilibrium. it constitutes a far too pessimistic assessment of the current generation of Reynolds stress closures. having no formal connection with solutions of the full Navier-Stokes equations for turbulent flows. Reynolds stress models remain the only viable means for the solution of these complex turbulent flows. Speziale 1 INTRODUCTION The hlgh-Reynolds-number turbulent flows of technological importance contain such a wide range of excited length and time scales that the application of direct or large-eddy simulations is all but impossible for the foreseeable future.

a variety of problems still remain. full Reynolds stress closures can then be constructed by the addition of turbulent diffusion terms that are formally derived via a gradient transport hypothesis. two-equation models constitute the minimum level of closure that is physically acceptable. second-order closure models constitute the most complex level of closure that is currently feasible from a computational standpoint. In particular. It will. It has now become clear that the traditional approach of using variable density extensions of incompressible Reynolds stress models is not sufficient for the reliable prediction of the high-speed compressible flows of aerodynamic importance. For turbulent flows that are only weakly inhomogeneous.186 C. this obviates the need to specify these scales in an ad hoc fashion. Spezide Reynolds stress modeling. however. Reynolds stress closures are needed where turbulent dilatational effects are accounted for in a physically consistent fashion. be argued that since turbulent flows contain length and time scales that change dramatically from one flow configuration to the next. Properly calibrated versions of these models are shown to yield a surprisingly good description of a wide range of two-dimensional mean turbulent flows that are near equilibrium. However. existing second-order closures are not capable of properly describing turbulent flows that are far from equilibrium and have major problems with wall-bounded turbulent flows. the stabilizing or destabilizing effect of a system rotation on turbulent shear flows is predicted in a manner that is consistent with hydrodynamic stability theory.a feature that most of the commonly used models do not possess. All of the central points of the paper will be illustrated by examples and an assessment . G. the two-equation models that are formally consistent with second-order closures have an anisotropic eddy viscosity with strain-dependent coefficients . However. modeled transport equations are solved for the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation rate from which the turbulent length and time scales are built up. Typically. Recent efforts in the modeling of the dilatational dissipation and pressure-dilatation correlations have led to significant advances in the description of free turbulent shear flows at high Mach numbers. However. While two-equation models represent the minimum acceptable closure. It will be shown how the former models follow from the latter in the equilibrium limit of homogeneous turbulence. High-speed compressible turbulent flows present a whole new range of problems to Reynolds stress modeling.

Turbulent Transport Equations will be made concerning future directions of research. 187 2 INCOMPRESSIBLE TURBULENT FLOWS The governing equations of motion for incompressible turbulence are: Navier-Stokes Eq. Hinze 1975): where an overbar represents a Reynolds average. P is a solution of the Poisson equation 2.1 Reynolds Averages The velocity and pressure are decomposed into mean and fluctuating parts. This Reynolds average can take a variety of forms for any flow variable 0: Homogeneous Turbulence . where Here. respectively. as follows (cf. Continuity Eq.

t) (Ensemble Average over N repeated experiments) It is assumed that the Ergodic Hypothesis applies. In a homogeneous turbulence. Speziale General Turbulence (f) = <j)(x. whereas in a statistically steady turbulence. Reynolds Averaging Rules Given that then .188 Statistically Steady Turbulence C. G.

given by |/f (here.Turbulent Transport Equations 2..-. 2. T. r^ is assumed to be a functional of the global history of the mean velocity field. The oldest Reynolds stress closures are based on the Boussinesq eddy viscosity hypothesis: where For incompressible turbulent flows. can simply be absorbed into the mean pressure.(2) are given by: Navier-Stokes Eq. .is the turbulent kinetic energy). In mathematical terms. the isotropic part of the Reynolds stress tensor.J — \K&ij + DTij where K = |r.2 Reynolds-Averaged Equations 189 The Reynolds average of the equations of motion (1) .e. i. Continuity Eq where is the Reynolds stress tensor (note that dui/dxi = 0).3 The Closure Problem The Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equation (10) is not closed unless a model is provided that ties the Reynolds stress tensor T{J to the global history of the mean velocity Ui in a physically consistent fashion.

Four decades later. G. both IQ and to are specified algebraically by empirical means. . Baldwin and Lomax (1978) Model where u> = Vxv is the mean vorticity vector. This representation is only formally valid for thin turbulent shear flows . The first successful zero equation model based on the Boussinesq eddy viscosity hypothesis was Prandtl's mixing length theory formulated in the 1920's.near a solid boundary .190 2. this type of model was generalized to threedimensional turbulent flows: Smagorinsky (1963) Model where is the mean rate of strain tensor. In the mixing length theory of Prandtl (1925).and One-Equation Models The eddy viscosity is given by C.where the mean velocity is of the simple unidirectional form v = w(j/)i.4 Older Zero. where IQ = Ky is the mixing length (K is the Von Karman constant and y is the normal distance from a solid boundary). The former model has been primarily used as a subgrid scale model for large-eddy simulations whereas the latter model has been used for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes computations in aerodynamics (see Wilcox 1993). Zero-Equation Models Here. Spezi&le where to = turbulent length scale and to = turbulent time scale.

These models should be formulated with a properly invariant anisotropic eddy viscosity model that is nonlinear in the mean velocity gradients. Baldwin and Earth (1990) and Spalart and Allmaras (1992) proposed one-equation models wherein a modeled transport equation is solved for the eddy viscosity z/x.wherein transport equations are solved for the individual components of T. However. In lieu of e. secondary flows in non-circular ducts). Limitations in computer capacity.Turbulent Transport Equations One-Equation Models The eddy viscosity in these models is typically given by 191 where K = \U{U{ is the turbulent kinetic energy which is obtained from a separate modeled transport equation. It is thus argued that two-equation turbulence models . This is virtually impossible to do in complex three-dimensional turbulent flows. they depend strongly on the flow configuration under consideration. both of these types of models have limited predictive capabilities due to the fact that the turbulent length scale IQ has to be specified empirically. and issues of numerical stiffness. the inverse time scale e/K has also been used (see Wilcox 1993).-J along with a . to zero-equation models in that the time scale to of the eddy viscosity is built up from turbulence statistics rather than from the mean velocity gradients.One-equation models are superior.. make second-order closure models .represent the minimum acceptable level of Reynolds stress closure.g. The standard Boussinesq eddy viscosity hypothesis makes it impossible to properly describe turbulent flows with: (i) Body force effects arising from a system rotation or from streamline curvature. The turbulent length and time scales are not universal. (ii) Flow structures generated by normal Reynolds stress anisotropies (e. 10 oc K3/2/e. Models of this type were first proposed independently by Prandtl (1945) and by Kolmogorov (1942) during the Second World War. More recently. In the most common approach to two-equation models.wherein transport equations are solved for two independent turbulence quantities that are directly related to IQ and to . to oc K/e and modeled transport equations for K and £ are solved (here e = ^f^ff1: is the turbulent dissipation rate).

. (13) can be written in operator notation as JV"ti.5 Transport Equations of Turbulence The transport equation for the fluctuating velocity U{ is obtained by subtracting the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equation (10) from its unaveraged form (1) which yields: Eq. Reynolds Stress Transport Equation This equation is obtained by constructing the second moment which is given by (cf.= 0. G. 2. Hinze 1975) where The transport equation for the turbulent kinetic energy (K = ^TH) is obtained by a simple contraction of the Reynolds stress transport equation (14): where . Speziale scale equation .192 C.the highest level of closure that is currently feasible for practical calculations.

(ii) Two-equation turbulence models with an anisotropic eddy viscosity are obtained algebraically from (14) by assuming that the turbulence is locally homogeneous and in equilibrium. the Reynolds stress transport equation reduces to . 2.6 Two-Equation Models Representation for the Reynolds stress tensor For homogeneous turbulence.Turbulent Transport Equations 193 Dissipation Rate Equation We construct the ensemble mean which yields the dissipation rate equation Both two-equation models and second-order closure models are obtained from the Reynolds stress transport equation as follows: (i) Second-order closures are obtained by modeling the full inhomogeneous Reynolds stress transport equation (14).

it can then be shown that for twodimensional mean turbulent flows in equilibrium (Speziale. G. With no loss of generality.194 or C.(4) it follows that Here. which can be non-dimensionalized as follows: It is assumed that an equilibrium state is reached where achieve constant values that are independent of the initial conditions. Sarkar . Lumley 1978 and Reynolds 1987) Since. from (3) . Speziale where (cf.

the former assumption is justified by invoking the Kolmogorov hypothesis of local isotropy for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. Comparison of the predictions of the Launder.204 -0. Equilibrium Values (&ll)oo (StfA)oo (^22)00 (£"12)00 LRR Model 0. Reece and Rodi (LRR) model and the Speziale.32 SSG Model 0. However.123 -0. we will neglect the anisotropy of dissipation dij and the quadratic return term containing Cj. The coefficients C\ — €4 were obtained by Speziale.158 -0.187 5. 6. For homogeneous turbulence in equilibrium.98 Experiments 0.08 Table 1.-j achieves equilib- . Sarkar and Gatski (SSG) model with the experiments of Tavoularis and Corrsin (1981) on homogeneous turbulent shear flow. In many studies.Turbulent Transport Equations and Gatski 1991): 195 where For the moment.150 6. this assumption is somewhat debatable as we will see later.156 5.201 -0.147 -0. Sarkar and Gatski (1991) based on a calibration with homogeneous shear flow experiments (see Table 1).148 -0.

in equilibrium.196 C. Hence. Pope (1975) first showed that the general solution to the implicit algebraic stress equation (26) is of the form: where . Since. G. it then follows from (24) that the Reynolds stress transport equation has the equilibrium form where (see Gatski and Speziale 1993): By the use of integrity bases from linear algebra. Speziale rium values that are independent of the initial conditions.

The explicit solution for two-dimensional mean turbulent flows simplifies considerably since only the first three integrity bases are linearly independent in this cases (see Pope 1975 and Gatski and Speziale 1993): where . Three-Dimensional Solution The resulting solution for G^ is given by (see Gatski and Speziale 1993): where the denominator D is given by and Taulbee (1992) derived a simplified.Turbulent Transport Equations 197 are the integrity bases and {•} denotes the trace. but highly special. threedimensional solution for the degenerate case where €3 = 2.

and Zhou et al. they are "projections" of the fixed points of Aij and Mijkt onto the fixed points of bij . e-RNG (see Yakhot and Orszag 1986 and Yakhot et al.0:2 and 0:3 are not constants but rather are related to the coefficients C\ — C$ and g. (1994) have derived models of this general form . these models are not consistent with second-order closures and they have dispersive terms that. Speziale (1987).a feature that can destabilize computations. G. grow unbounded with the strain rate . However. it appears that C\ — €4 can be approximated by constants due to the linear dependence on b^ which allows us to use the principle of superposition. 1992).198 C. It should be further noted that Yoshizawa (1984).that are tensorially quadratic with constant coefficients . It should be noted that these models obtained via the algebraic stress approximation need to be regularized before they are applied to complex turbulent flows. for two-dimensional mean turbulent flows. Speziale In more familiar terms. due to the constant coefficients. on two-scale DIA. this expression is equivalent to Here. respectively. In mathematical terms. (For threedimensional turbulent flows. 0:1. continuum mechanics. Rubinstein and Barton (1990). and recursion RNG techniques. However.quantities that can vary from one flow to the next. .via expansion techniques based. This can be accomplished via a Fade type approximation whereby we take (Gatski and Speziale 1993): This constitutes an excellent approximation for turbulent flows that are close to equilibrium with a form that is regular for turbulent flows that are far from equilibrium (the original expression yields a singular or negative eddy viscosity for sufficiently large values of 77 a feature that can lead to divergent computations). the general representation for Mijkf is nonlinear in bij which leads to an inconsistency that will be discussed later).

in the linear limit. T] and £ are of O(l).Turbulent Transport Equations 199 This explains why previous anisotropic corrections to eddy viscosity models have not fully succeeded: (i) The coefficients should depend nonlinearly on the invariants of the rotational and irrotational strain rates. If we have a separation of scales. Nonetheless.09 used in the standard K — £ model. then 77. we recover the eddy viscosity model which forms the basis for the standard K — e model of Launder and Spalding (1974). is used: where fim is the angular velocity of the reference frame. in practical turbulent flows we do not have a separation of scales.have had such a dependence and they are ill-behaved! Problem (ii) can now be overcome by a regularization procedure based on a Fade type approximation as discussed above. the new model of Gatski and Speziale (1993) yields with which is remarkably close to the value of CM = 0. Coriolis terms must be added to the r. for two-dimensional turbulent shear flows in equilibrium.based on the solution of the implicit algebraic Eq. (26) such as the model of Rodi (1976) . Gatski and Speziale (1993) showed that this analysis exactly accounts for such non-inertial effects in rotating frames if the extended definition of W*. £ <C 1 and. of the Reynolds stress transport equation (18). . However. In rotating frames. (ii) Only the traditional algebraic stress models .s.h.

200 The Dissipation Rate Model C. Spezi&le In homogeneous turbulent flows. The major contributions to this integral occur at high wavenumbers where the energy spectrum E ( K . G. The exact transport equation (17) for e in homogeneous turbulence can be written in the form: where This equation can be rewritten as where For isotropic turbulence. t ) oc E(Klk) given that Ik = . the turbulent kinetic energy is a solution of the transport equation Hence. closure is achieved once a transport equation is provided for e in terms of T^J and dvi/dxj.

for homogeneous turbulence. We then invoke the standard high-Reynolds-number equilibrium hypothesis whereby Models for d^j and d^ can be obtained from an analysis of the transport equation for the tensor dissipation which. Nij = Production by Vortex Stretching . is given by (see Durbin and Speziale 1991): where In physical terms.Destruction by Viscous Diffusion A -If = Structure and Redistribution Term. . This Kolmogorov scaling yields (Bernard and Speziale 1992): Hence.Turbulent Transport Equations 201 ^3/4^1/4 jg ^e Kolmogorov length scale.

G. For two-dimensional mean turbulent flows. The standard equilibrium hypothesis is made where: This leads to an algebraic system of equations analogous to that obtained in the algebraic stress approximation discussed earlier.202 C. symmetry properties and the fact that dij is small so that only linear terms need to be maintained. the exact solution is: . Spezia Speziale and Gatski (1992) proposed the following models: based on an expansion technique that makes use of tensor invariance.

The constants 03 and CE5 were evaluated using DNS results for homogeneous shear flow (Rogers.83 which yields an exponent of approximately 1. The constant C£2 can be evaluated by an appeal to isotropic turbulence. we have taken Cei — 1.Turbulent Transport Equations where 203 (Speziale and Gatski 1992). Moin and Reynolds 1986). .2 in agreement with the most cited experimental data (see Comte-Bellot and Corrsin 1971). transport equation yields the scalar dissipation rate equation where It should be noted that the contraction of (40) yields dlydvi/dxj — adijdvi/dxj which was used to obtain this result. Speziale 1991): Based on this. The substitution of these algebraic equations into the contraction of the e. This dissipation rate model predicts that the turbulent kinetic energy decays according to the standard power law in isotropic turbulence (cf..

Ferziger and Rogallo 1985) were largely ad hoc. The model (49) obviously contains less physics than the model (48) derived herein since it does not depend on rotational strains. Applications For weakly inhomogeneous turbulent flows that are near equilibrium. To the best knowledge of the author. Speziale For two-dimensional turbulent shear flows that are in equilibrium.44. G. Previous attempts to account for rotational effects (see Raj 1975. The results presented in this paper clearly show that this effect can be incorporated by accounting for anisotropic dissipation. For more general two-dimensional homogeneous turbulent flows. Hanjalic and Launder 1980. It has long been recognized that the dissipation rate is dramatically altered by rotations. we can extend the K and s transport equations by the addition of gradient transport terms that are obtained by a formal expansion technique: . the new dissipation rate model of Lumley (1992) takes the form for near equilibrium turbulent flows where C\ is a constant. this constitutes the first systematic introduction of rotational effects into the scalar dissipation rate equation. and Bardina. this model takes the form: where In contrast to this result. which is remarkably close to the traditionally chosen constant value of Cei = 1.204 C.

Ferziger and Reynolds (1983).3.09 < ft/5 < 0.53.5.0 and 1.068. From these results. the prediction of the new two-equation model for the mean velocity profile in rotating channel flow is compared with the experimental data of Johnston. These results are remarkably close to those obtained from the full SSG secondorder closure as shown in Figure 2. the time evolution of the turbulent kinetic energy predicted by this new two-equation model is compared with the large-eddy simulations (LES) of Bardina. it is clear that the new two-equation model yields the correct growth rate for pure shear flow (ft/5 = 0) and properly responds to the stabilizing effect of the rotations ft/5 = 0. These forms are assumed to be valid approximations at high Reynolds numbers. respectively.5 and ft/5 = —0. In Figure 3. it is oblivious to the application of a system rotation (i. this result is generally consistent with linear stability theory that predicts unstable flow for 0 < ft/5 < 0. It is clear from these results that the model correctly predicts that the mean velocity profile is asymmetric in line with the experimental results .5.Turbulent Transport Equations 205 where Uk and cre are constants that typically assume the values of 1. the standard K — e model incorrectly predicts a symmetric mean velocity profile identical to that obtained in an inertial frame (the standard K — £ model is . In this flow. The first case that will be considered is homogeneous shear flow in a rotating frame (see Figure 1). Since the standard K — £ model makes use of the Boussinesq eddy viscosity hypothesis. The new two-equation model predicts unstable flow for the intermediate band of rotation rates —0. In contrast to these results. In contrast to these results..e. In Figures 2(a)-2(c). an initially isotropic turbulence (with turbulent kinetic energy KQ and turbulent dissipation rate £Q) is suddenly subjected to a uniform shear (with constant shear rate 5) in a reference frame rotating steadily with angular velocity ft. it yields the same solution for all values of ft/5). We will now consider several non-trivial applications of the twoequation model derived herein which can be referred to as an explicit algebraic stress model (ASM) based on the SSG second-order closure.an effect that arises from Coriolis forces. the standard K — £ model overpredicts the growth rate of the turbulent kinetic energy in pure shear flow (ft/5 = 0) and fails to predict the stabilizing effect of the rotations illustrated in Figures 2(b)-2(c). Halleen and Lezius (1972) for a rotation number Ro — 0. as well as with the predictions of the standard K — e model and the full SSG second-order closure.

with secondary flows or recirculation zones driven by small normal Rey- . G. This is due to the fact that a representation is used for the Reynolds stress tensor that is formally derived from a second-order closure (the SSG model) in the equilibrium limit. As demonstrated by Gatski and Speziale (1993). oblivious to rotations of the reference frame. the results obtained in Figure 3 with this new two-equation model are virtually as good as those obtained from a full second-order closure. Speziale Figure 1. we will show results obtained from the nonlinear K — e model of Speziale (1987). as alluded to earlier). Two examples will now be presented that illustrate the enhanced predictions that are obtained for turbulent flows exhibiting effects arising from normal Reynolds stress differences. Schematic of homogeneous shear flow in a rotating frame. Here. It is now clear that previous claims that twoequation models cannot systematically account for rotational effects were erroneous.206 C. For turbulent shear flows that are predominately unidirectional.

In Figure 4.5 and (c) ft/5 = -0.Turbulent Transport Equations 207 Figure 2. nolds stress differences. Time evolution of the turbulent kinetic energy in rotating homogeneous shear flow: Comparison of the model predictions with the large-eddy simulations of Bardina et al. (a) ft/5 = 0.5 (from Gatski and Speziale 1993). (b) ft/5 = 0. it is demonstrated that the nonlinear K — e model predicts an eight-vortex secondary . (1983). a quadratic appoximation of the anisotropic eddy viscosity model discussed herein collapses to the nonlinear K—e model (see Gatski and Speziale 1993).

Comparison of the mean velocity profile in rotating channel flow predicted by the new explicit ASM of Gatski and Speziale (1993) with the experimental data of Johnston. in a square duct. Speziale Figure 3. In order to be able to predict secondary flows in non-circular ducts. Halleen and Lezius (1972). in line with experimental observations. This requires an anisotropic eddy viscosity (any isotropic eddy viscosity. . on the other hand. including that used in the standard K — £ model. G. the axial mean velocity vz must give rise to a non-zero normal Reynolds stress difference rm — rxx (see Speziale and Ngo 1988). flow.208 C. the standard K — e model erroneously predicts that there is no secondary flow.

Kline and John- . and (c) nonlinear K — e model of Speziale (1987). results obtained from the nonlinear K — £ model are compared with the experimental data of Kim. (b) standard K — e model. Figure 4.Turbulent Transport Equations 209 yields a vanishing normal Reynolds stress difference which makes it impossible to describe these secondary flows). Turbulent secondary flow in a rectangular duct: (a) experiments. In Figure 5.

In virtually all existing full second-order closures for inhomogeneous turbulent flows. G.•_. The pressure-strain correlation !!. 2.0 in close agreement with the experimental data. Speziale ston (1980) and Eaton and Johnston (1981) for turbulent flow past a backward facing step. It is clear that these results are excellent: reattachment is predicted at x/H sa 7. In contrast to these results. the standard K — e model predicts reattachment at x/H K 6. II^ and peij are modeled by their homogeneous forms.• is modeled as as discussed earlier. the SSG model takes the form (see Speziale. This predominantly results from the inaccurate prediction of normal Reynolds stress differences in the recirculation zone as discussed by Speziale and Ngo (1988). Sarkar and Gatski (SSG) model was provided. Sarkar and Gatski 1991) .6. In Section 2.25 .210 C. For turbulent flows where there are mild departures from equilibrium. (ii) Nonlocal effects arising from turbulent diffusion that can give rise to counter-gradient transport. the equilibrium limit of the Speziale.an 11% underprediction (see Thangam and Speziale 1992).7 Full Second-Order Closures These more complex closures are based on the full Reynolds stress transport equation with turbulent diffusion: Full second-order closures are needed for turbulent flows with: (i) Relaxation effects .

Turbulent flow past a backward facing step: comparison of the predictions of the nonlinear K — e model with experiments. (a) Streamlines and (b) turbulent shear stress profiles. where The Launder. Reece and Rodi (1975) model is recovered as a special case of the SSG model when .Turbulent Transport Equations 211 Figure 5.

There is no question that. The return to isotropy problem is a prime example where suddenly. counter-gradient transport effects can be accounted for. However. When these models are used in a full second-order closure. the mean strains in . at high Reynolds numbers. G. the Kolmogorov assumption of local isotropy is typically invoked where (then. £.This is typically modeled using a gradient transport hypothesis: Some examples of commonly used models are as follows: Hanjalic and Launder (1972) Model Mellor and Herring (1973) Model where Cs is a constant (« 0. at time t = 0. More generally.-j = §£<% and a modeled transport equation for the scalar dissipation rate £ is solved that is of the same general form as that discussed in Section 2. in principle. second-order closures account for more physics.212 C. This is quite apparent for turbulent flows exhibiting relaxation effects.6 is implemented. Speziale In most applications.11). a representation of the form can be used where the algebraic model of Speziale and Gatski (1992) discussed in Section 2. The only additional model that is needed for closure in highReynolds-number inhomogeneous turbulent flows is a model for the third-order diffusion correlation Cijk.6). this assumption is debatable as discussed by Durbin and Speziale (1991).

6. 1991). homogeneously strained turbulent flows. Fu. the flow then gradually returns to isotropy (i.a feature that makes it virtually impossible to systematically integrate second-order closures in complex geometries (see So et al. it performs remarkably well on certain threedimensional. it must be noted that the Achilles heel of second-order closures is wall-bounded turbulent flows: (i) Ad hoc wall reflection terms are needed in many pressure-strain models (that depend on the distance y from the wall) in order to mask deficient predictions for the logarithmic region of a turbulent boundary layer. While the previous results are encouraging. In Figure 6. (ii) Near-wall models typically must be introduced that depend on the unit normal to the wall . T = Sot/Ko). It is clear from these results that the models predict a gradual return to isotropy in line with the experimental data. all two-equation models — including the more sophisticated one based on an anisotropic eddy viscosity derived herein . Reece and Rodi (LRR) models are compared with the experimental data of Choi and Lumley (1984) for the return-to-isotropy from plane strain (here. fyj abruptly goes to zero. results for the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor obtained from the Speziale. This can be seen in Table 2 where the predictions of the Launder. In contrast to these results.-j —>• 0 as t —> oo). t* = Tt where F is the strain rate).Turbulent Transport Equations 213 a homogeneous turbulence are shut off. Reece and Rodi (LRR). when no ad hoc wall reflection terms are used. Shih and Lumley (SL). it is rather shocking as to what the level of error is in many existing second-order closures for the logarithmic region of an equilibrium turbulent boundary layer. Launder and Tselepidakis (FLT) and SSG .e. Sarkar and Gatski (SSG) and Launder. The predictions of the SSG and LRR models for the normal Reynolds stress anisotropies are compared in Figure 7 with the direct simulations of Lee and Reynolds (1985) for the axisymmetric expansion (here.erroneously predict that at T = 0.. In regard to the former point. It is worth noting at this point that while the SSG model was derived and calibrated based on near equilibrium two-dimensional mean turbulent flows.

214 C. Time evolution of the anisotropy tensor in the return to isotropy problem. Most of the models yield errors ranging from 30% to 100%. Comparison of the predictions of the SSG model and Launder. Speziale Figure 6. Only the SSG model yields acceptable results for the log- . are compared with experimental data (Laufer 1951) for the log-layer of turbulent channel flow. Reece and Rodi (LRR) model with the experiment of Choi and Lumley (1984) (from Speziale. These models are then typically forced into agreement with the experimental data by the addition of ad hoc wall reflection terms that depend inversely on the distance from the wall — an alteration that compromises the ability to apply the model in complex geometries where the wall distance is not always uniquely defined. G. Sarkar and Gatski 1991).

layer without a wall reflection term. This results from two factors: (a) a careful and accurate calibration of homogeneous shear flow (see Table 3) and (b) the use of a Rotta coefficient that is not too far removed from one (see Abid and Speziale 1993).Turbulent Transport Equations 215 Figure 7. Time evolution of the anisotropy tensor in the axisymmetric expansion for eo/TKo = 2. Comparison of the predictions of the LRR model and SSG model with the direct simulations of Lee and Reynolds (1985). The significance of these results is demonstrated in Figure 8 where full Reynolds stress computations of turbulent channel flow are compared with the experimental data of Laufer (1951). It is clear that the same favorable .45.

0 Table 3.082 0. Durbin (1993) developed an elliptic relaxation model that accounts for wall blocking and introduces nonlocal effects in the vicinity of walls .80 SK/e SL Model 0.16 -0. Recently.95 SSG Model 0.003 4.141 -0.101 -0.002 7. G. Comparison of the model predictions for the equilibrium values in the log-layer (P/£ — 1) with the experimental data of Laufer (1951) for channel flow. Speziale trends are exhibited in these results as with those shown in Table 2 which were obtained by a simplified log-layer analysis.042 3.15 -0.073 5.145 -0.129 -0.121 -0.12 Experimental Data 0.218 -0.028 2.151 -0.162 -0.44 FLT Model 0.122 0. HOMOGENEOUS SHEAR FLOW Equilibrium Values &n bi2 &22 &33 SK/e LRR Model 0.160 -0.178 -0.164 -0.079 -0.074 3.07 3.8) with the experimental data of Tavoularis and Karnik (1989).152 -0.201 -0.186 -0.07 5. Comparison of the model predictions for the equilibrium values in homogeneous shear flow (P/e = 1.116 -0.50 Experimental Data 0.196 -0.099 -0.14 -0.033 4.216 C.eliminating the need for ad hoc wall damping func- .22 -0.09 SSG Model 0.136 -0. CHANNEL FLOW Equilibrium Values 611 &12 &22 &33 LRR Model 0.16 -0.83 SL Model 0.119 -0.30 FIT Model 0.21 -0. The near-wall problem largely arises from the use of homogeneous pressure-strain models of the form (53) that are only theoretically justified for near-equilibrium homogeneous turbulence.060 5.120 -0.1 Table 2.127 -0.

(a) bn component and (b) &i 2 component (from Abid and Speziale 1993). SSG model.Turbulent Transport Equations 217 Figure 8.• . .600.LRR model. Comparison of full Reynolds stress calculations of channel flow with the experimental data of Laufer (1951) (O) for Re = 61. . and SL model. FLT model.

G. In the opinion of the author. which does extremely well for homogeneous shear flow that is not far from equilibrium. 1983) or realizability (Schumann 1977 and Lumley 1978). they typically deal with flow situations that are far from equilibrium (two-dimensional turbulence and one or two-component turbulence) where (53) would not be expected to apply in the first place. it is a vacuous exercise to develop more complex models of the form (53) using non-equilibrium constraints such as Material Frame-Indifference (MFI) in the twodimensional limit (Speziale 1981. Ristorcelli. .developed a pressure-strain model of the form (53) that satisfies MFI in the 2-D limit. It is clear from these results that all of the models perform poorly relative to the DNS of Lee et al. While this is a promising new approach.r From its definition. All of these models involve complicated expressions for Mjjkt that are nonlinear in 6. Even the SSG model. dramatically overpredicts the growth rate of the turbulent kinetic energy for this strongly non-equilibrium test case. Shih and Lumley (1985) attempted to develop models of the form (53) that satisfy the strong form of realizability of Schumann (1977). The failure of these models in non-equilibrium homogeneous turbulence can best be illustrated by the simple example shown in Figure 9. which is linear in the energy spectrum tensor Eke(n. This constitutes a rapidly distorted turbulent flow that. Reynolds (1987) has attempted to develop models of this form which are consistent with Rapid Distortion Theory (RDT). Since. Speziale tions. it does not alleviate the problems that the commonly used pressure-strain models have in non-equilibrium homogeneous turbulence (the Durbin 1993 model collapses to the standard hierarchy of pressure-strain models given above in the limit of homogeneous turbulence). initially. is far from equilibrium since SKo/eo = 50 (the equilibrium value of SK/e is approximately 5).following the earlier work by Haworth and Pope (1986) and Speziale (1989) .218 C. While these constraints are a rigorous consequence of the Navier-Stokes equations.t). Lumley and Abid (1995) . (1990).

j are also nonlinear in E^j. Kim and Moin (1990) for homogeneous shear flow (SKQ/£Q — 50) (from Speziale. Gatski and Sarkar 1992). where it follows that models for Mijke that are nonlinear in 6. This is a fundamental inconsistency that dooms these models to failure. Shih and Lumley (1985.which are linear .with nonlinear models (the principle of superposition is violated). Comparison of the SSG. SL and FLT model predictions for the time evolution of the turbulent kinetic energy with the DNS results of Lee. Furthermore. In the process of doing . 1993) unnecessarily introduce higher degree nonlinearities and non-analyticity to satisfy realizability.Turbulent Transport Equations 219 Figure 9. It is clear that it is impossible to describe a range of RDTflows.

Durbin and Speziale 1994 and Speziale and Gatski 1994). Abid and Durbin 1994. Entirely new non-equilibrium models are needed for the pressurestrain correlation and the dissipation rate tensor. they arrive at a model that is neither realizable nor capable of describing even basic turbulent flows (see Speziale. The former should contain nonlinear strain rate effects and the latter should account for the effects of anisotropic dissipation and non-equilibrium vortex stretching (see Bernard and Speziale 1992 and Speziale and Bernard 1992). Models of this type are currently under investigation. 3 COMPRESSIBLE TURBULENCE The full equations of motion for an ideal gas will be considered: Continuity Momentum Energy . Speziale so. G.220 C.

Cebeci and Smith 1974 and Speziale and Sarkar 1991): Continuity .1 Compressible Reynolds Averages For any flow variable f.2 Compressible Reynolds-Averaged Equations The Reynolds-aver aged equations of motion for an ideal gas are given by (cf.Turbulent Transport Equations where 221 p Ui p [JL <Tj-j T K R Cv $ ( \• \ A* = = = = = = = = = = = mass density velocity vector thermodynamic pressure dynamic viscosity viscous stress tensor absolute temperature thermal conductivity ideal gas constant specific heat at constant volume viscous dissipation d ( dxi\ \) 3. or the alternative decomposition where is the Favre (or mass-weighted ) average. we can introduce the decomposition where T is the standard ensemble mean. 3. Here.

If we assume in this region that fluctuations in the viscosity. Molecular Diffusion Terms In high-Reynolds-number turbulent flows. thermal conductivity and density can be neglected we can then make the approximations: The mean viscous dissipation is given by: where £ = cr'-u^-fp is the turbulent dissipation rate ($ -> pe as Re -> oo). G. Speziale Energy where turbulent fluctuations in Cv have been neglected. in order to achieve closure.222 Momentum C. rt-j . Hence. models are needed for: (i) The Favre-averaged Reynolds stress. the molecular diffusion terms are dominated by the turbulent transport terms except in a thin sublayer near walls.

respectively. 223 This makes the problem of compressible turbulence modeling far more difficult than its incompressible counterpart. Speziale and Sarkar 1991) where are.Turbulent Transport Equations (ii) The Favre-averaged Reynolds heat flux. u" (iv) The turbulent dissipation rate. 3. the deviatoric part of the pressure gradient-velocity correlation and the dissipation rate tensor. e (v) The pressure-dilatation correlation.3 Compressible Reynolds Stress Transport Equation The Reynolds stress transport equation for compressible turbulent flows takes the form (cf. Qi (Hi) The turbulent mass flux. the third-order turbulent diffusion correlation. . p'u'^.

G. Speziale Speziale and Sarkar (1991) proposed the following models for the turbulent transport terms: where More recently. from an analysis of the transport equation for the turbulent mass flux. Mt EE (2K/~/RT)1/2 is the turbulent Mach number. Here. The turbulent dissipation rate can be decomposed into solenoidal and compressible parts: . Dissipation rate model The Kolmogorov assumption of local isotropy is typically used where for turbulence Reynolds numbers Rt >• 1.224 Transport Terms C. it has been argued that to the lowest order when an equilibrium hypothesis of the boundary layer type is invoked (see Zeman 1993 and Ristorcelli 1993).

the Sarkar et al. (1991) where given that w. Then. as proposed independently by Zeman (1990) and Sarkar et al. (1991) model can be used for ec yielding where The solenoidal dissipation es is a solution of the modeled dissipation rate transport equation (see Speziale and Sarkar 1991): where and turbulent fluctuations in the molecular viscosity have been neglected. a term proportional to .' is the fluctuating vorticity. Pressure-Dilatation Model For turbulent shear flows. Sarkar (1992) proposed the following model for the pressure-dilatation correlation: where It should be noted that for turbulent flows with mean dilatation.Turbulent Transport Equations 225 respectively.

3. to the lowest order.4 Compressible Two-Equation Models Two-equation models with an anisotropic eddy viscosity can be systematically derived from the full compressible second-order closure presented in Section 3. yields . G. Sarkar and Gatski (1991) (the SSG model) is used for II.-j: where With this model. This.Velocity Correlation Iil} C. Speziale A variable density extension of the pressure-strain model of Speziale. we now have a complete second-order closure for high-speed compressible turbulent flows. Deviatoric Pressure Gradient.226 should be added (see Sarkar 1992).3 via the same homogeneous equilibrium hypothesis used earlier for incompressible flows.

p'w''» and u" are modeled as before. 3.5 Illustrative Examples A variety of examples of compressible homogeneous turbulent flows will first be presented based on the full compressible secondorder closure provided in turbulent kinetic energy in compressible isotropic turbulence are compared with the direct numerical simulations of Sarkar et al. (32). The model is able to correctly capture the increase in the decay rate of the turbulent kinetic energy that arises from compressible effects . (1991).Turbulent Transport Equations 227 where C*. C*D and C*E are variable density extensions of the incompressible coefficients derived earlier. that depend on both 77 and £. This anisotropic eddy viscosity model can be solved in conjunction with modeled transport equations for K and es that take the form where and the compressible terms e c .a feature that was traced to the compressible dissipation by Sarkar et al. (1991) for a variety of turbulent Mach numbers. in Eq. .

The decay of turbulent kinetic energy in compressible isotropic turbulence for initial turbulence Mach numbers Mt.4.228 C.0. G. and 0. 1991). (a) Direct numerical simulations and (b) Model predictions (from Speziale and Sarkar 1991 and Sarkar et al. . Spezi&le Figure 10.1.3.o = 0.

According to (95). The short-time solution to Eqs. a variable density extension of the commonly used second-order closures erroneously predicts that (see Reynolds 1987). (90) .results that are clearly in error as first pointed out by Reynolds (1987).Turbulent Transport Equations 229 The second homogeneous flow that will be considered is the rapid compression or expansion of isotropic turbulence. the mean velocity gradient tensor is given by where F is the expansion/compression rate which is constant. The model provided herein reduces approximately to the simple coupled nonlinear ODE's: for \T\K0/e0 > 1. in regard to homogeneous turbulence. we will consider the problem of compressible homogeneous shear flow. These are identical to the results obtained by Reynolds (1987) based on Rapid Distortion Theory (RDT). Here. an initially isotropic turbulence is subjected to a uniform shear rate S with the corresponding mean velocity gradient tensor . For this problem.(91) is given by: where A = li'3//2/e is the integral length scale. In contrast to these results. the integral length scale will decrease under an expansion (F > 0) and increase under a compression (F < 0) . Finally.

G. Equilibrium Values bu b\i &22 &33 Mt LRR Model 0. the results are not so favorable: the normal Reynolds stress anisotropies are drastically underpredicted and the Reynolds shear stress anisotropy is overpredicted by more than 25%.166 -0. Speziale The time evolution of the turbulent kinetic energy and turbulent dissipation rate in compressible homogeneous shear flow obtained from the SSG model with the dilatational models of Sarkar are compared with the DNS results of BlaisdeU et al. It can thus be concluded that with the addition of the newer dilatational models. In Table 4. It is clear from these results that the model does an excellent job in reproducing the dramatic reduction in the growth rate that arises from compressible effects (without explicit dilatational terms. (1991).424 -0. This deficiency arises from the use of variable density extensions of incompressible pressure-strain models .148 -0.60 FLT Model 0.051 0. Abid and Mansour 1994). existing second-order closures properly predict the reduced growth rate of the turbulent kinetic energy in compressible homogeneous shear flow.188 0. Launder and Tselepidakis (FLT) pressure-strain models with the dilatational models of Sarkar.230 C. for Mto = 0 and Mt0 = 0.a deficiency that . Speziale. Predicted equilibrium values for compressible homogeneous shear flow using the Launder.307. (1991).165 -0. the equilibrium values obtained using a variety of pressurestrain models .65 SSG Model 0.036 0.combined with the dilatational models of Sarkar are compared with the DNS results of BlaisdeU et al. in Figure 11.082 0.51 Table 4.118 -0. (Taken from Speziale. all existing second-order closures drastically overpredict the growth rate of the turbulent kinetic energy).187 -0.236 -0. Sarkar and Gatski (SSG) and Fu. Reece and Rodi (LRR).138 -0. Here. However.65 DNS Data 0.230 -0.130 -0.148 -0. the models are currently not capable of predicting the equilibrium Reynolds stress anisotropies accurately.189 -0.

O DNS of Blaisdell et al. .Turbulent Transport Equations 231 Figure 11. Time evolution of the turbulent fields in compressible homogeneous shear flow using the SSG model with the dilatational models of Sarkar for Mtfl = 0. (1991). (a) Turbulent kinetic energy and (b) turbulent dissipation rate (from Speziale. Abid and Mansour 1994).307. Mt.0 = 0.

it now becomes possible to predict the dramatic reduction in the spreading rate that arises from high-speed compressible effects. Figure 12. G. . The same kind of improved predictions for the reduction in the growth rate of compressible homogeneous shear flow are obtained for the spreading rate in the supersonic mixing layer (see Figure 12) with this type of compressible model.232 C. In Figure 13. the spreading rate predicted by a simple second-order closure both with and without the dilatational models of Sarkar are compared with experimental data. as computed by Sarkar and Balakrishnan (1991). Speziale must be overcome in future research. Schematic diagram of the supersonic mixing layer. With the addition of the dilatational terms.

Huang (Huang 1990 and Huang et al. Second-order closure without dilatational terms. it must be noted that the compressible dissipation model of Sarkar causes a degradation of the skin friction predictions. Second-order closure with dilatational terms.Turbulent Transport Equations 233 Figure 13. the model is not formally correct in the loglayer of high-speed compressible boundary layers. Consequently. (1993) (see Figure 14). G. 1994). more research is also needed on the modeling of dilatational terms in wall-bounded turbulent flows. Interesting enough.3 using properly calibrated twoequation models with no explicit dilatation terms. . good results are obtained for the compressible flat plate boundary layer for Mach numbers M^ as large as 8 and wall temperature ratios as low as 0. In fact. Normalized spreading rate as a function of the convective Mach number Mc: Comparison of the model predictions with experimental data for the supersonic mixing layer. This was probably first pointed out by P. o Experimental Langley curve. as shown by Zhang et al.

G.3: (a) Mean velocity and (b) mean temperature. Speziale Figure 14. (1993) for the compressible flat plate boundary layer with the experimental data of Kussoy and Horstman (1991) for M^ — 8. 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS Some significant progress in turbulence modeling has been made during the past two decades. The following general conclusions can .234 C. Comparison of the predictions of the K'—e model of Zhang et al.18 and Tw/Taw — 0.

Fundamental changes in the way second-order closures are formulated may be needed to overcome this problem. Most importantly. we should start to see Reynolds stress models make a major impact on the computation of the complex turbulent flows of technological importance. there is still cause for optimism. Significant progress has been made in the modeling of turbulent dilatational terms. (2) More research is needed to place Reynolds stress models on solid theoretical grounds for three-dimensional. Despite these unresolved issues.with an anisotropic eddy viscosity systematically obtained from a second-order closure . much more research is still needed. With further progress. however. new methods for the integration of second-order closures to a solid boundary in complex geometries are required. Compressible Reynolds stress models are not as well developed as their incompressible counterparts. Partial funding by the Office of Naval Research under Grant N00014-94-1-0088 (ARI on Nonequilibrium . Until such methods are more fully developed. The modeling of turbulent dilatational terms in high-speed compressible wall-bounded flows also needs more attention. fundamental new research on the compressible modeling of the pressure-strain correlation is needed. A new generation of two-equation models and second-order closures has emerged that provides a surprisingly good description of these flows. In addition.Turbulent Transport Equations 235 be drawn about the current status of incompressible turbulence models: (1) There is a relatively sound theoretical basis for the existing type of Reynolds stress models in two-dimensional mean turbulent flows that are close to equilibrium and only weakly inhomogeneous. it is preferable to use two-equation models .in complex wall-bounded turbulent flows. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Most of this work was funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration under Contract NAS1-19480 while the author was in residence at ICASE. non-equilibrium turbulent flows.

A. 29-39." ASME J. and Reynolds. Baldwin. Analysis of Turbulent Boundary Layers. and Smith. Fluids Eng. Baldwin. 321-336. and Lomax. 1985. J. 1776-1782. Choi. pp. New York. R. Program Officer) is also gratefully acknowledged. P. and Reynolds. SpezJale Turbulence. 5 REFERENCES Abid.. S. B.). Purtell..An alternative view. Cebeci. 1984. G. C.. S. and Lumley. 1978. and Speziale.. Bardina. . and Rogallo. J. "Bounded energy states in homogeneous turbulent shear flow . Ferziger. "Numerical simulations of compressible homogeneous turbulence. "Improved turbulence models based on large-eddy simulation of homogeneous. K." AIAA Paper No. N. T." Stanford University Technical Report No. J. 1992. Dr. and Barth. ed.." Stanford University Technical Report No. L. and Speziale. "Return to isotropy of homogeneous turbulence revisited. S. "Effect of rotation on isotropic turbulence: Computation and modeling. B. C.. TF-50. 1993. H." NASA TM-102847. 267-272. incompressible turbulent flows. pp. O. C. Blaisdell. 1983. R.. pp. G." J. Bardina. G... 1991. P. J. New York. G." Phys. Bernard. "Thin-layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent flows. TF-19. H. 78-257.. Fluid Mech. J.. Mansour. M. L. Fluids A 5. 1974. pp. N. J. 114. 154.236 C. C. T. Tatsumi. W. Academic Press." in Turbulence and Chaotic Phenomena in Fluids (T. "Predicting equilibrium states with Reynolds stress closures in channel flow and homogeneous shear flow. S. S. A.. North Holland. 1990. Ferziger. "A one-equation turbulence transport model for high Reynolds number wall-bounded flows. W. H.

Fluid Mech. S. . B.. "On explicit algebraic stress models for complex turbulent flows. J." Phys.. 113. T. 1990. E. "A Reynolds stress model for near-wall turbulence. Fluids Eng.." J. C. G. 280. S. "Local anisotropy in strained turbulence at high Reynolds numbers. C. Haworth. P. pp. 1987.. A. 273337. 1986. 34-40. D. Eaton. K. and Corrsin. E. Durbin. G. Hanjalic.. 1980. "A Reynolds stress model of turbulence and its application to thin shear flows.. Fu. Hanjalic. K. pp.. pp. Durbin. O. TFD/87/5. 1971. C.. Fluid Mech. 395-407. and Speziale. "Turbulent flow reattachment: An experimental study of the flow and structure behind a backward facing step." J. B. 1993. 1972. 707-709." J. "Accommodating the effects of high strain rates in modeling the pressurestrain correlation.. 102. Hinze.. and Speziale. 1980. Turbulence. and Launder. Durbin.Turbulent Transport Equations 237 Comte-Bellot." Stanford University Report No. P. 1994. C." ASME J. "Simple Eulerian time correlation of full.. 52. Fluid Mech. and Johnston. P. "Sensitizing the dissipation equation to irrotational strains.. "A generalized Langevin model for turbulent flows. Fluids 29. pp. pp. and Speziale. and Launder. pp. B. 254." J. 48. Fluid Mech. D. G. G.and narrow-band velocity signals in gridgenerated isotropic turbulence. K. A. Fluids Eng. 465-498.. E. 1975. J. pp. and Pope. Launder. and Tselepidakis. B. J. 1991. 2nd ed. S. Gatski." J. A. Fluid Mech. McGraw-Hill. 609-638. G." UMIST Technical Report No." ASME J. MD39. P. 1993. Private Communication. New York. "Realizability of secondmoment closure via stochastic analysis. 59-78. B. 249. Huang. pp. P.. P. 387-405.

Kline. J. M. Acad. "Structure of turbulence at high shear rate. M. P. B. "Effects of a spanwise rotation on the structure of two-dimensional fullydeveloped turbulent channel flow. Lumley. 1951.. J. Bradshaw. I. C. Launder. P. and Moin.. pp." Stanford University Technical Report TF-24. "Computational modeling of turbulent flows. 735-740. A. and Spalding." J. P. D. Fluids Eng. 1942. J. and Lezius. 1992. J. Fluid Mech. and Reynolds. Mech. Kim.. and Coakley.. J. J. 1985." Adv." Phys. Phys. Laufer. J. J. 123-176. J.. P. B. M. pp. S. Lee. 32. 56. Johnston. L. 3. D. Methods Appl." Isv. 1972. "Some comments on turbulence. 1975. 302-308. Reece. Kussoy. T. Speziale Huang. C." NAG A TN 1053. 1991. Lee. E.. G. Fluid Mech. M. 203-211. 1974. 533557." J. Appl. and Rodi. and Horstman.. "The numerical computation of turbulent flows. 18." ASME J. Sci. Kolmogorov. 68.. pp.. pp.. C. pp. 1980. 6. P." Comput. Lumley.. Fluid Mech. "Investigation of turbulent flow in a two-dimensional channel.. "Numerical experiments on the structure of homogeneous turbulence.. G.. 102. L. 216. 537-566. Eng. W. E. Mech. "The equations of turbulent motion in an incompressible fluid. K. J. pp. Launder. and Johnston. R. pp. pp. "Turbulence models for compressible boundary layers." NASA TM-103838.. J. G.238 C. "Investigation of a reattaching turbulent shear layer: Flow over a backward facing step. USSR. 1994. W. 1978. N. Halleen." AIAA J. 561-583.2.. Kim. 1990. B. pp. 56-58.. "Documentation of twoand three-dimensional shock wave/turbulent boundary layer interaction flows at Mach 8." J. . "Progress in the development of a Reynolds stress turbulence closure. 269-289. J. Fluids A 4.

" Phys. 1975. G. 1472-1476. pp.. Reynolds. Lumley. and Barton. NASA Langley Research Center. and Abid. T219-221. C. W. B. 1973. .. J. "Uber ein neues formelsystem fur die ausgebildete turbulenz. Rodi. R.. "A more general effective viscosity hypothesis. pp. W.. 1945. 93-88.." ICASE Report No. 1987. NATO." Nachr. Ser." J." Phys. TF-25. J. 1925. Rogers.. L. Rubinstein." J. P. "A survey of mean turbulent field closure models.. 331-340. Fluids A 2. Fluid Mech. H. 1241-1244. 136-139. pp." ZAMM 5. L. 1975. M. J. pp. "Nonlinear Reynolds stress models and the renorrnalization group. 1976. J. "A representation for the turbulent mass flux contribution to Reynolds stress and two-equation closures for compressible turbulence. Ristorcelli. C. R. AGARD Lect. pp. Moin. 1995. Gottingen Math. Prandtl.. 590-599. pp. 1986. Phys.. J. 292. "Fundamentals of turbulence for turbulence modeling and simulation. Akad. pp. New York. Fluid Mech. 6-19. pp. 11. R. and Reynolds. 86. R." in Lecture Notes for Von Kdrmdn Institute. Prandtl. Fluids 18. Ristorcelli. Raj. No. R.. 72. L. Kl 1945. 1-66. "Uber die ausgebildete turbulenz. 1993. and Herring. W.Turbulent Transport Equations 239 Mellor. M. "A new algebraic relation for calculating the Reynolds stresses. Pope." Stanford University Technical Report No. M. pp. 111-152." ZAMM 56. "A rapidpressure correlation representation consistent with the TaylorProudman theorem materially-frame-indifferent in the 2-D limit. "Form of the turbulence dissipation equation as applied to curved and rotating turbulent flows. 1990. L.. Wiss.. "The structure and modeling of the hydrodynamic and passive scalar fields in homogeneous turbulent shear flow. S." AIAA J..

"Closure models for rotating two-dimensional turbulence. J.. H.. Smagorinsky. 6984. pp. 1987. C. Shih. Speziale. P. C. "Second-order near-wall turbulence closures: A review. "Critical comparison of secondorder closures with direct numerical simulations of homogeneous turbulence. S.. H. Weather Review 91.. G. & Astrophys. 99-165.240 C." AIAA J. pp. 3-19. 1989. 721-725. So. Schumann. 1963. & Comput." J. L." AIAA J. "The pressure-dilatation correlation in compressible flows. and Hwang. 1981. Speziale. pp. G. C.. Fluids A 4. R. pp. 23. 1992. R. pp.. O. 1985. pp. 227. Speziale Sarkar. and Allmaras. and Balakrislman. "Some interesting properties of two-dimensional turbulence. 459-475." AIAA J. "On nonlinear K . 1993. Sarkar. S. pp. Y. Hussaini. 1991. G. pp.. Y. L. C. "Application of a Reynolds stress turbulence model to the compressible shear layer. and Kreiss. Fluid Dyn. 178. Fluid Dyn." Phys. Fluid Mech. M. G. Lai. C. G.. S. and Lumley. T. "A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. T. H.e models of turbulence. 2674-2682. 31. G. 1977. Erlebacher. 663-670. 473-493. pp. S..i and K . 1983. pp. J." Phys. R. Speziale. G." Geophys. 1992. "General circulation experiments with the primitive equations.. Spalart.. 1991.. . 29." Phys. M. J." Mon.. Shih. U. B. Fluids 20.. "Turbulence modeling in noii-inertial frames of reference. 29. Sarkar. and Lumley. 92-439. "The analysis and modeling of dilatational terms in compressible turbulence." AIAA Paper No. "Realizability of Reynolds stress turbulence models. Fluids 24. 1819-1835. pp. 1. C. Speziale." Cornell University Technical Report FDA-85-3. 1991.. 743-749. L. 1425-1427. "Modeling of pressure correlation terms in Reynolds stress and scalar flux equations." Theoret.. Fluid Mech." J.

Fluid Mech. Sci. Fluid Mech. 1099-1112. Speziale. p. G.. Fluid Mech. pp. B. P... and Gatski. C." J. S." J. 37. pp. T. B." Bull. Speziale. S..Turbulent Transport Equations 241 Speziale. R. "The energy decay in self-preserving isotropic turbulence revisited. . "Modeling anisotropies in the dissipation rate of turbulence. "Numerical solution of turbulent flow past a backward facing step using a nonlinear K — £ model. R. 1994. 457-478. C. "On the readability of Reynolds stress turbulence closures. and Bernard. N. G. Sci. Speziale... 1799.. "An improved algebraic Reynolds stress model and corresponding nonlinear stress model. 369-403. T. 227. Fluid Mech. C. G. "Second-order closure models for supersonic turbulent flows. G. Abid. C." Ann. 1992. Sarkar. 91-0217. 26. 1991. G. "Further experiments on the evolution of turbulent stresses and scales in uniformly sheared turbulence.. and Sarkar." ZAMP." Int. D. pp. and Karnik. 1989. Am. Speziale. P. 1994. N. Speziale. pp. G. Phys. Comp. B. to appear. C. 2555-2561. Abid. B. S." Phys.. 1994. Speziale. "Analytical methods for the development of Reynolds-stress closures in turbulence. S. 23. Speziale. J. Rev.... C. G. and Mansour. "Evaluation of Reynolds stress turbulence closures in compressible homogeneous shear flow. and Ngo. 1992. and Durbin. A. 241.. 245-272. 1991. and Gatski. Eng. Speziale. U. Fluids A 4. G. 32." J. Tavoularis. pp. Soc. 1991. 1988. "Modeling the pressure-strain correlation of turbulence: An invariant dynamical systems approach. and Gatski." AIAA Paper No. T." AIAA J. C. pp. pp. pp. 645-667. Taulbee. G. 204. 107-157." J. 2113-2115. 1992.. C. C. 9. "Assessment of secondorder closure models in turbulent shear flows. T.

O. G." Phys. So. V. C. 1314-1320. M. Gatski. Zhang. 1377-1387. 93-0897. pp.242 C. "Dilatational dissipation: The concept and application in modeling compressible mixing layers. 1.. S. 15101520.. 1994. pp. Zhou. G. 178-188.. "Development of a Turbulence Model Based on Recursion Renormalization Group Theory. A. and Lai. 30. DCW Industries and Griffin Printing. Basic theory. 1993. 1993. . 1992. G. 1993. 5195-5206. G. pp. C. G... Orszag. 1992. pp. "Development of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique. Speziale Thangam. Vahala. 3-51. T. A.. CA. S. 196-199. V. C. 0. D. Fluids A 2. Zeman.. Yakhot. S. "A new model for super/hypersonic turbulent boundary layers. R. "Turbulent flow past a backward facing step: a critical evaluation of two-equation models.. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. S." Physical Review E. 1986. H. Yakhot. B. Fluids 27. Glendale. 31. A. Comp... G. "Statistical analysis of the deviation of the Reynolds stress from its eddy viscosity representation. Ye.. 1990. pp.. Zeman. "Near-wall two-equation model for compressible turbulent flows." AIAA Paper No.." AIAA J. pp. C. Fluids A 4." AIAA J. 49. Thangam." Phys.." Phys. and Speziale. S. pp. Y. "Renormalization group analysis of turbulence I." J.. Wilcox. C. and Thangam. Yoshizawa. Speziale. and Orszag. Sci. and Speziale.. S. 1984.

density and viscosity variations will be 243 ./i and F{ denote the density.1 INTRODUCTION The Reynolds Equations The material presented in Section 1 will replicate that covered in earlier chapters. The tildes appearing above all quantities serve as a reminder that each.P. however. Launder 1 1. It may nevertheless be helpful to include it to familiarize the reader both with the nomenclature adopted and the assumptions being made. pressure. potentially. The instantaneous velocity field in a turbulent flow is described by the continuity and the Navier-Stokes equations which in conservative form may be written: Here /5. viscosity and body force per unit volume.Chapter 6 AN INTRODUCTION TO SINGLE-POINT CLOSURE METHODOLOGY Brian E. will display fluctuations due to turbulence. Here.

the averaging results in the instantaneous value being replaced by the mean of the variable in question. differ from those describing a laminar flow only by the presence of the term containing averaged products of fluctuating velocities. the averaged equations of motion are obtained as: These equations. contain only a single fluctuating quantity.. so.. "For cases where density variations are large (requiring retention of density fluctuations) the equations of motion are simplified by the adoption of mass weighted velocities. All except the second term on the left of eq (1. In the exceptional case Thus after some rearrangement. The process it represents is the additional transfer rate of x.2b). Habitually it is brought to the right side. . the convective transport of a.momentum due to turbulent fluctuations0. i. The resultant somewhat simpler pair of equations may then be written We now proceed to average each term in the above equation.244 B.e.momentum.. generally known as the Reynolds equations. A further limitation will be to flows which are incompressible in the mean. ones where dUi/ dx{ = 0. E. Launder assumed sufficiently small to have negligible direct effect on turbulence.

For example. This is the feature that has made the use of mass weighted quantities in variable-density flow so popular. if © stands for temperature. the molecular diffusion process may be governed by a more elaborate law than the simple gradient-diffusion relation supposed while.5) leads to the following rate equation for the mean level of the scalar Thus The quantity pvivj is known as the mass-weighted Reynolds stress. been re-interpreted as a turbulent stress or. Besides conventional sources or sinks it is convenient to imagine the term Sg absorbing any terms which. in contrast with conventional "volume" averaging. Its instantaneous value 0 is assumed to be governed by the equation: where F is the appropriate molecular diffusivity and Sg is the rate of creation of the property per unit volume. As the tensor is symmetric there are six independent Reynolds stress components.Single-Point Closures 245 Since the first term within the square brackets is the viscous stress.as in a uniform density flow. They are unknown elements in the averaged equations of motion and the theme of these notes is that of obtaining a satisfactory approximation to their magnitude. Notice that. for a particular transported scalar property. 1. the Reynolds stress tensor. the time-dependent term in the equation should strictly be multiplied by the specific heat at constant volume divided by that at constant pressure. Applying an averaging to eq (1. more usually. do not fit elsewhere. a difference that can be accounted for in Sg. -puiuj. the second.2 Mean Scalar Transport We consider the transport of some scalar property by the turbulent motion. the number of turbulent correlations arising from averaging the convective terms is just one . . naturally. has.

In such approaches the only averaged products of fluctuating quantities that appear are those in which the two or more quantities in question are evaluated at the same point in space. attention being limited to cases where the source or sink term is effectively zero. The solving procedure will. this turbulent scalar flux is an unknown and will correspondingly require approximation. with one or more equation of the type (1. be of fairly general construction designed to cope with some class of flow problems: for example. in all probability. three-di. Within the single-point framework there is a wide range of modelling methodology.mensional. so the term puj0 is transferred to the right side of the equation. etc. Ideally the turbulence model the scheme for evaluating v^uj and u$ ~ should enjoy a range of applicability comparable to that of the numerical procedure and should fit comfortably within it. two-dimensional thin shear flows. the additional convective flux of the scalar due to the turbulent velocity fluctuations is conveniently interpreted as a supplementary diffusional process. Like the Reynolds stresses. 1. Having drawn attention to this possibility.6) for transported scalars are to be solved numerically. in that event. Mathieu and Jeandel (1984) and Leslie (1973) have contributed text books describing 'two-point' or 'spectral' schemes. confined. its mean value may differ considerably from that obtained by inserting just the mean values of the separate constituent terms.246 B.3 The Modeling Framework In all practically interesting problems the mean momentum and continuity equations together. E. Just as with the averaged momentum equation. Launder An overbar has been placed on Sg to serve as a reminder that the source term may be a non-linear one and. At present most applied computational work on turbulent flows still adopts the idea that the turbulent fluxes and . in many cases. we shall not consider it further in the present treatment. Models of this type are seen more as helping to reveal the underlying physics of turbulence than as models for use in engineering computational procedures. non-recirculating flows. Schemes discussed in this article are single-point closures.

in particular. however. it seems preferable here to go directly to a more comprehensive treatment from which 'turbulent viscosity' models emerge as special cases under particular circumstances. while exact.4 Second-Moment Equations An exact equation describing the transport of the kinematic Reynolds stress u^Uj is formed by multiplying the momentum equation for Ui (in which we now use k rather than j as the repeated suffix) by Uj and averaging. 1. These in turn are obtained from transport equations similar to those describing mean flow quantities save that source and sink terms always play an important role. On balance. are unclosed: they contain correlations that are not exactly determinable and which must therefore be approximated in terms of quantities that are. then adding to it the mirror equation in which suffices i and j are interchanged. The term 'second-moment' applies to models based on the exact transport equations for the second moments.e. Before considering closure questions. it will be instructive to examine the exact second-moment equations and. i. etc. These are topics taken up below. chemical species. In some respects it makes sense to consider models based on the idea of a turbulent viscosity first before proceeding to more advanced second-moment treatments.Single-Point Closures 247 stresses can be represented in terms of effective turbulent diffusion coefficients for momentum. After a certain amount of manipulation. however. UiO etc. Approaches of this type range from simple mean-field closures (where the turbulent viscosity is expressed in terms of the mean velocity field and flow topography) to the widely used two-equation models where the effective diffusion coefficients are determined from local values of two scalar properties of the turbulence (and which may or may not have a directly measurable physical significance). the processes causing these quantities to depart from the levels found in isotropic turbulence. the resultant equation may be written: . Section 2 presents briefly the most popular current approaches to closure at this level. heat. These equations. for U{Uj.

G. The correlation between fluctuating pressure and fluctuating strain. faj. The rate of change arises from an imbalance of the terms on the right. The first two processes represent rates of creation of UiUj. E. P. as when one examines the flow in a rotating coordinate frame. We note that its trace is zero. The first of these. following well-established practice. appears a shorthand symbol for the process in question which we shall use to simplify later equations. in one case by the effects of mean strain. is a very important one. Their effect is thus . The terms comprising d{j are easily recognized as diffusive in character since we see from integrating them across a thin shear flow bounded by non-turbulent fluid that they make no contribution to the average level ofuiUj at any section even though.-j. that too can be handled without further approximation. One line is given to each process and. If the body force is linear. so as best to allow a physical interpretation of the processes. can clearly be treated exactly in a second-moment closure. within the shearflow. Launder The left side of the equation expresses the total rate of increase of the correlation ujuj for a small identified packet of fluid. beneath each term.248 B. and in the other by body forces. Here the terms have been grouped. the correlations themselves are non-zero.j. since by continuity The term thus makes no contribution to the overall level of turbulence energy but serves to redistribute energy among the normal stress components (those for which i and j take the same value). comprising products of Reynolds stresses and mean velocity gradients.

for the thin shear flow discussed above. term e. the reader will accept the likelihood that uiu-2 is consequently negative (that is. It will.7) to produce an equation for the transport of kinetic energy. This does not mean that there will be no turbulent fluctuations in the x-i and £3 directions for we have already noted that the pressure-strain correlation fyj serves to redistribute energy among the various normal stresses. The self-sustaining character of turbulence in a simple shear is emphasized by the clockwise rotating arrows connecting the stresses in Figure 1. be instructive to examine specific forms that the production tensors take in a few cases for. From the upper row of Table 1. d±j and Cjj is deferred to Section 2. of the same sign as its production rate) which gives in turn the "sensible" result that the generation of u\ is positive.-j and the viscous diffusion terms of d^ is that the former comprises correlations of fluctuating velocity derivatives and. Thus. The last term of dij describes diffusive transport due to molecular action. Finally. we_should expect — and this is amply confirmed by experiment . the dissipation terms cannot in general be ignored. We may see this is so by contracting eq (1. Nevertheless. consider the case of simple shear. Then. dkk makes no contribution to the overall level of turbulence energy at any section while <f>kk vanishes identically at all points. though short of a proof.1. the production rate of u\u^ is negative (since u\ is undoubtedly positive). Further consideration of <^-. There is no direct production of either u\ or M§. First. there would be a limitless growth of the flow's turbulent kinetic energy. Such a scenario is contrary to both intuition and observation. in the finest scales of motion present. over all or nearly all the flow it will be entirely negligible.Single-Point Closures 249 to promote a spatial redistribution. if ekk were negligible. however. turbulent velocity derivatives are large. The term P^k will be positive representing the continual extraction of energy from the mean flow by the action of the Reynolds stress on the mean shear. dUi/dx^ — A . serves to augment the inten- . the production terms firmly stamp the character of the resultant turbulent stress tensor. where A is assumed positive. Unlike viscous diffusion. in turn. The crucial difference between e. Pi2.-j represents (very nearly) the destruction rate of UiUj by viscous action.that u\ would be the largest of the normal stress components. in most practical flows.1: turbulent velocity fluctuations in the direction of mean-velocity gradient promote a growth in shear stress which.

however. _ Secondary(curvature) strain. It is what we might call turbulence's eternal triangle.1 shows the effects of superimposing on the primary shear a weak secondary strain 6 (=dU2/dxi) which represents a curving of the mean-flow streamlines.1: Stress couplings in simple and curved shear flows: Primary strain. represented in Figure 1.and so the sequence repeats itself. for it involves a coupling of the Reynolds stress and scalar flux fields Ui& . Launder sity of streamwise fluctuations. the extra contribution to P\i will tend to enlarge the (negative) magnitude of u\ui while that for P22 leads to an enhancement of u| which in turn helps amplify u\U2 through the principal contribution to P^.5) by U{ then adding it to eq (1.J. that makes turbulent shear flows so sensitive to weak streamline curvature. The lower line in Table 1. Pressure interactions deflect some of this energy to fluctuations in the direction of the velocity gradient . It is more complicated. if 6 is positive. It is this mutual reinforcement property of P.250 B. The result may be expressed as . E. That is to say. The shear stress and the normal stress in the direction of the velocity gradient are directly modified and their effects reinforce one another. The corresponding equation for u$ is obtained by multiplying eq (1.1 by the broken lines. ~*-~ Pressurestrain effect. Figure 1. Buoyancy has an effect on turbulence generation that in some respects is akin to streamline curvature.2b) multiplied by and 0 averaging.

1: Stress Production Rates due to Primary and Secondary Shear The emerging equation is similar in structure to that describing the transport of Reynolds stress. ^ = A 9Z2 -lH^u^X 0 0 -u\X Due to curvature perturbation. Diffusive transport of u$ (dio} is caused by velocity and pressure fluctuations and by molecular trans- . The generation terms P. 0 — 2uiu^6 0 —u\d QUi _ 9si g Table 1.# comprise products of second-moment correlations and mean-field quantities and will not require approximation.Single-Point Closures 251 Pij Pll P"22 -Ps3 -Pi 2 Due to primary shear.

m) the only direction in which a heat flux is generated is that of the temperature gradient x2 and the sign of P-2B is opposite from that of the temperature gradient. The unknown processes in the above equation will be approximated in Section 2.2: Heat flux generation rates due to a temperature gradient 8®/dx2 With the above information. E. This is also the case in a non-isotropic stress field if the mean shear lies entirely in a plane normal to the temperature gradient (last line Table 1. a stream wise scalar flux is generated. contributions arising from both P{$\ and Pt'02. If the background Reynolds stress field is isotropic (ufUk = \&ikUmu. we can see that the two contributions to the generation reinforce one another. both being of the same sign as the product Pie Due to a shear Pie ~uiu2^ Pie ~U2§^ Pze ® dU!/dx2 Duetoashear -^"g0 ~ulj^ ° dUt/dxa Table 1. Launder port while pressure fluctuations also play a non-dispersive role (<fog) which we shall later see is of vital importance. Here we consider briefly the form taken by the generation terms under a simple temperature gradient dQ/dx^ in a fluid moving in direction x\. however. it is now possible to infer the effect of a buoyantly stable stratification of fluid on the stress generation .2).252 B.If we accept the idea that the stresses and fluxes will be of the same sign as the generation terms. When the direction of mean velocity gradient coincides with that of the temperature gradient.

there is a double-edged effect of buoyancy on the Reynolds shear stress. give rise to a fluctuating body force per unit pass —p' g/p in the vertical direction.yO. Turbulent variations in density. Likewise. Thus. being of the opposite sign from P12 will also act to suppress the vertical transport of streamwise momentum by turbulence. P^Q and thus (we suppose) G^ is negative. Pie and hence G\e will be positive. to fix ideas let us suppose dUi/dx? is also positive.5 The WET Model of Turbulence The foregoing sub-section has obtained the exact transport equation for UiUj and UiO and examined the form that the generation terms in these equations take in a few situations. As we have seen. will be wealthier than someone . Of course.the task of Section 2. here is a model to avoid modelling. with his house paid for. these generation terms are exact. G-22 will tend to reduce u\ thus diminishing PI 2 (see Table 1. in the Reynolds stress equations (with #2 vertically up) we find non-zero buoyant generation components as follows If the fluid in question is a perfect gas p'/p — —6/Q (where the origin on the 0 scale is absolute zero) and so the generation rates may be re-written In a stably stratified medium dQ/x^ is positive. however. before we can use the transport equations to find the stress levels. 1. To round off the Introduction. yet it is still more true than untrue that the more one earns the better off one is. and that someone of 50. It is based on the simple economic idea that As such it is a gross over simplification. models must be devised for the unknown processes .1) while Gi2. So.Single-Point Closures 253 rates. Thus. from the above discussion. g being the gravitational acceleration.

6. Thus. one finds from experiment that the left side of eq (1. Such schemes would predict that.1).2.254 B. Extrapolating this concept to the second moments leads naturally to the proposition Thus: The choice of turbulent time scale Tt and how to compute it is deferred to the next section. as is correspondingly the ratio of the generation terms (about -2. there does indeed seem to be more than a casual connection between the left and right sides of eq (1.11).10). Near a wall the ratio of the turbulent heat fluxes is larger. because there are no x\ gradients in mean temperature. Accordingly: In fact. the isotropic value of a vector is of course zero). . E. the turbulent flux in that direction would be zero! When considering the Reynolds stresses we need to apply the WET concept to departures from the isotropic state. the right side about -1. The success is particularly striking when set against the background of results given by simple eddy diffusivity models.3 in a free flow. Launder of 25 just starting out on his career. Thus: In a mildly heated shear flow without body forces in which dQ/dx^ and dU\/dx2 are the only non-zero temperature and velocity components. this formula. however. about -2. The basic idea can. (This is not inconsistent with eq (1. has formed the basis of many successful predictions of turbulent free shear flows. arrived at by a much less direct route.11) is approximately -1. readily be tested by looking at ratios of the scalar fluxes.

Here mention should also be made of the work of Andre et al. Broadly. It is clearly a matter of taste and of the flows to be calculated how freely one invokes this principle.Single-Point Closures 255 2 2.g. rules that are held inviolate for second moments are sometimes dispensed with in the interests of algebraic and computational convenience in dealing with third moments. So. This can be regarded as the application of a further fundamental concept: the principle of receding influence. Clearly. (1976) who . Although this principle is usually adhered to at second-moment level. if the process requiring approximation is a second-rank. Donaldson et a/. 1972). for it is that idea which ultimately legitimatizes second-moment closure. accelerations and reflections of coordinate frame as the real processes (e. as a first requirement. we would also insist that the mathematical character of the model should conform in various respects with the original. Next. Everyone developing models at this level makes some use of it. For example.. It is generally accepted that the approximate forms should exhibit the same responses to translations. Schumann (1977).1 CLOSURE AND SIMPLIFICATION OF THE SECOND-MOMENT EQUATIONS Some Basic Guidelines Our aim is to mimic those processes not exactly determinable at second-moment level in terms of mean and turbulence properties that are. the search for a model should be limited to forms possessing these properties. it is frequently ignored in modelling the third moments. At the practical level there is pressure to adopt the simplest closure consistent with achieving the desired width of applicability. Two further principles of mathematical physics have been invoked in determining modelling approaches. The second constraint is that the modelled set of transport equations should be rendered physically incapable of generating impossible or 'unrealizable' values such as negative normal stresses or correlation coefficients (such as uiuif^/(u\ ^2)) greater than unity. there is no controversy on this point. any surrogate form must have the same dimensions as the correlation it replaces. This naturally affects the importance that different workers have attached to different closure principles. however. the idea is that the nthmoment correlations have markedly less effect on the mean flow than those of (n — l)th order. symmetric tensor with zero trace.

Fu et al (1987). the interested reader is referred to the far more detailed treatment by Lumley (1978). Shih and Lumley (1985). its adoption adds considerably to the complexity of the turbulence closure and only the latest generation of modelling proposals employ 'realizable' forms in computations of inhomogeneous flows. whether the model should comprise exclusively turbulence correlations or terms containing mean-field elements . E.and the way they are combined together. swirling or other complex flows have been made with forms that do not guarantee realizability. in practice.g. only do so for flows which are of only academic interest. Launder devised a scheme for overwriting or 'clipping' the values of triple moments whenever they reached physically unattainable values in comparison with other double and triple moments.a feature that consistently eluded the simpler models that were not. it could be the case that building in 'earthquake-proof technology brought other benefits to the overall design of the structure that justified the expense. e. Of course. Craft and Launder (1989). Models which in principle are capable of generating impossible values may. Although Schumann suggested ways of securing 'realizability'. A considerable simplification to the task of turbulence modelling results from applying the high-Reynolds-number hypothesis. for example. one form might give much more insight than another. Second-moment-closure studies of recirculating. Unfortunately. It is often helpful to explore different ways of expressing the correlation of interest. The turbulence modeller should always try to ensure that the proposed form is a physically plausible substitute for the real process. Some would argue that to insist that all models be fully realizable is rather like requiring that all new buildings in Paris be as resistant to earthquake damage as those built in San Francisco. although the principle of realizability is a sound one. This statement relates to the choice of physical quantities. For example. There are some indications that this might be the case provided a sufficiently capacious framework is adopted. the UMIST group has found that employing fully realizable closures has enabled the observed reduction of turbulent mixing at high strain rates to be accommodated . Simply stated the proposal contains two complementary ideas: . The next concept is one that blurs into intuition.256 B.

are steepest.2) is that there is no viscous sink of shear stress. therefore. is reversed.-# arise from the fine-scale motion for it is in these eddies that gradients of velocity. that the fine-scale motions responsible for viscous dissipation are unaware of the nature of the mean flow and the large-scale turbulence. therefore. That is: Likewise e tj must be expressible as proportional to the product of the contraction e(=v(duij'5xj)2) and the isotropic unit tensor Sij. We assume. is zero. Now. Thus: where the constant of proportionality is obtained by contracting each side of the equation. in isotropic turbulence dui/dxkdd/dxf. but nevertheless. 2. that the large-scale interactions predominantly responsible for momentum and scalar transport are unaffected by the fluid's viscosity. if judiciously applied.2 The Dissipative Correlations As noted in Section 1.-j is thus the only mechanism for preventing the unlimited growth of the off-diagonal components of UiUj. The process </>. temperature.Single-Point Closures 257 1. particularly in regard to higher moment correlations. changes sign if the coordinate direction x. Wyngaard and Sundararajan.g.-0 are isotropic. the dissipative correlations c^j and e. Their structure is similar to that found in isotropic turbulence. both aspects of the highReynolds-number hypothesis are very useful in turbulence modelling. etc. is not exactly like isotropic turbulence (e. and be consistent with isotropic turbulence. but the properties of isotropic turbulence are unaffected by such reflections of axes. that the motions contributing predominantly to e^ and e. from the high-Reynolds-number hypothesis. There is still little agreement in the literature on whether the dissipative correlations can be adequately obtained from isotropic . It is becoming increasingly evident that the fine-scale motion. An implication of (2. The only value that dui/dxkdO/dxk can take. 1979). 2.

it is difficult to disentangle departures from equations (2. Launder relations.1) and (2. the pressure-strain process may be written .258 B.3) as sources of pressure fluctuations. So. 1984) but inevitably these simulations are at relatively low Reynolds number. In practice. in applying second-moment closure. a common practice (Lumley. p(3). that a successful model for the turbulent correlations involving pressure fluctuations (0.14) and subtracting its mean part.-j and €{g and to absorb any departure from isotropy in the dissipation processes into the turbulent parts of (f>ij and </>. Direct numerical simulations by the Stanford group and others show significant and systematic departures from local isotropy (Reynolds.2) from errors in accounting for the pressure-strain and pressure-scalar gradient processes.3 Non-Dispersive Pressure Interactions By taking the divergence of the Navier-Stokes equations (1. 2. There are evidently three agencies: non-linear interactions between fluctuating velocities p^y a process involving mean velocity gradients. p/2y and one arising from fluctuating body forces.# whose approximation is now considered. 1978) is to adopt the isotropic relations for e. Direct measurements are not usually sufficiently accurate to allow conclusions to be drawn. Thus. a Poisson equation is produced with the fluctuating pressure as its subject: We may regard terms on the right of eq (2. therefore. E. It is to be expected.-j and fag ) will contain terms corresponding to these different sources in eq (2.3).

however. The form of a^ij is unknown at the outset so one begins by writing the most general form and then uses the desired symmetry properties to reduce the number of unknown constant coefficients. General surrogate forms are assumed for the different component parts of faj and fag.5) may be developed starting from the solution of the Poisson equation for p. It is convenient to write the above equation in the short-hand form: An analogous equation for fag^ may likewise be obtained and the result written as In principle. Lin and Wolfshtein (1979). and others. This approach assumes where aikij is a fourth-rank tensor comprising Reynolds-stress elements. . the various constants in the model are determined. Note that the postulated model. Then.4) and (2. Analyses of this type have been presented by Naot et al. If attention is restricted to terms linear in the Reynolds stress there are five independent coefficients. A less formal approach is more often favoured. like p/2\. approximations to each of the constituent processes in (2. (1973).Single-Point Closures 259 where the primes denote that the quantity in question is evaluated at a distance r from where faj is determined. by insisting that the model possess certain symmetry and contraction properties of the original process and/or that it should comply with some other physical constraint or experimental data. Mean-Strain Contributions fajzdiez The strategy summarized in the above paragraph is well illustrated by the 'quasi-isotropic' (QI) model for faj2. depends linearly on the mean velocity gradient.

(1973). The behaviour produced in shear flows by either Reynolds' or Lumley's value of 6 is quite unacceptable.7) has been invented and rediscovered many times in the past twenty years e.4a) shows that continuity requires that aiku = 0 while direct integration of the Poisson equation for the contraction formed by setting j = k leads to the requirement that Each of these constraints furnishes two relations that the coefficients a. the latter requires that So.. the model may be organized in a form with just one undetermined coefficient. An advantage of this elaboration is that. like Naot et al. have chosen S to optimize the relative stress levels found in simple shear (S = 2/55). 1978).260 B.6) may be expressed where Equation (2. Launder et al.7) (which is the major term in components where P. Reynolds (1984). After some algebra eq (2.). Launder Moreover. one can satisfy the "two-component . /3. These vastly different values for S do not have a major effect on the first of the three groups in eq (2. Lumley (1975. The writer's group. for example. (1973). must satisfy. these workers introduce non-linear terms to a^ij (terms like u\u^ u. Reynolds (1984) took 6 = 10/77 in order that the resultant expression should be formally independent of the mean vorticity while Lumley (1978) takes 6 = -2/33. (1973). To compensate.Uj/k etc. E. because of the additional unknown coefficients. Naot et al. 6.g. reference to eq (2.-j is large) but give large variations in the coefficients of the other two. etc. Different strategies have been adopted by different workers in fixing the final constant.

Fu et al. | PkkEq (2. If one retains all the possible quadratic products of Reynolds stress in a^. As = aikakmUmi where aij = (uTuJ — l / 3 6 i j U k U k ) / k . The leading term is the same as in eq (2. It equals unity when the stress field is isotropic but its most useful property (Lumley. turbulent fluctuations normal to the surface vanish faster than the other components.7b) has an interesting appearance. the second term effectively introduces a dependence on (P/e) into the return-to-isotropy coefficient of faji while the third introduces more varied non-linear effects. goes to zero. 1978) is that it vanishes in two-component turbulence. As we shall see later. This requires that (with xa the coordinate normal to the interface) <t>aa2 should vanish as u^. Shih and Lumley [4] (1985) overcame this problem by adding a correction term ^2 The parameter A is defined as [1 ..AS)] where A^ and AS are the second and third invariants of the anisotropic part of the Reynolds stress: Az = aijOfci . 1987): where P is the generation rate of turbulence energy. does not lead to acceptable relative stress levels in simple shear flows: with U\ — E/i(x2) it produces u\ > u| contrary to both experiment and direct simulations. 1985. . The resultant form is conveniently written (Shih and Lumley.-.Single-Point Closures 261 limit.one finds that the number of assignable coefficients exactly equals the number of algebraic equations in satisfying the two-component limit as well as the other constraints discussed above. such as a free surface." At a wall or an interface. despite the rigour and the respect for realizability implicit in the satisfaction of the two-component limit. This formulation. It is thus tempting to refer to A as the "flatness factor".7a) with a somewhat smaller coefficient.9/8 (A^ .

the cubic terms are identically zero in an irrotational deformation and they can be seen as purely a correction for rotationality. Launder despite the quite different meaning usually attached to that expression. that associated with c'2 being particularly long. after considerable algebra. . however. (1987) (see also Launder (1989)). Thus. It has been found. Fu et al.6 and c'2 to zero. in that case there are in total twenty independent groups. On applying the same kinematic constraints as for the quadratic model one arrives. that the behaviour of simple free shear flows can be very satisfactorily mimicked by setting c% to 0.262 B. Notice that where fij/t is the vorticity tensor (dUj/dxk — dUk/dxj). if c2 is taken as zero. In place of equation (2.7c) one may alternatively include thirdrank products of Reynolds stress in aikij'. at the following form (Fu et al. thus reducing the algebra to more manageable proportions. E. The quantities that these coefficients multiply are evidently of very different length.. 1987): where The first two lines of this equation are identical to the quadratic model while the coefficients c-2 and c'2 of the cubic terms are freely assignable.

moreover.is retained..Single-Point Closures 263 Recently at UMIST there has been a tendency to include nonzero values of c'2. In fact.8) can be regarded as a simplification of equation (2. Examples of predictions made with both sets are presented later.7d) in which simply the leading term . most computations of complex flows have been made with a simpler model of 0^2 than any of the above. to the mean-strain contribution of the pressure-scalar gradient contribution fooi. in isotropic turbulence (uj/uj = 1/3^. one obtains the exact result obtained by Crow (1968) Equation (2.6 and 0. Fu (1988) showed that the choice 02 = 0.6 led to an improved prediction of the stress tensor in strong simple shears 6 .0 . Local equilibrium is attained for S ~ 3.7a).0).55.Thus The shear rate may be characterized by the dimensionless parameter S = k ( d U i / d x 2 ) / e . 1994) found that when these same values were adopted for near-wall inhomogeneous flows they were more successful in reproducing the increasing anisotropy as the wall was approached than the earlier combination (0. in his original study of homogeneous shear flows. 1970) it is interesting to note that if. at least when used in conjunction with the simple linear model of faji (discussed below). The Isotropization of Production (IP) Model In fact. Li (1993) (see Launder and Li. eq (2. b . it supposes that the net effect of the mean-strain part of the pressure strain process is effectively to reduce the anisotropy of the production tensor.6.indeed the only linear term of that equation . Sometimes called the Isotropization of Production model. (2. c'2 = 0. The idea underlying the IP model is readily applied to the force field part of </>.j and.-jupZfc"). 1993. as is often the case. It has been widely applied in a diversity of flows and has been found to be conclusively better than the superficially more general linear form. 'strong' shear relates to values of 5 of 5 or greater. Thus one postulates </>i# = C2 (Pij \^Pkk). the value of c% is taken as 0.8) While the proposal was inspired by intuition (Naot et a/. to date. given earlier.

5 to 0. Successful applications of the model have.264 B. a value of 0. been reported by the UMIST team (Craft and Launder. Effects of Force Fields <pij3. 1976: Cousteix and Aupoix. The approximation level is then formally equivalent to that of eq (2.10) can be largely overcome by proceeding.3 for buoyant flows though those adopting the IP approach have generally preferred to choose a value akin to that used for mean strain effects. within the 'quasi-isotropic' analysis. 4*i93 Because of the considerable variety of possible 'force' fields and of source or sink terms in the transport equation for U{ and 0. the two most important force fields are those due to buoyancy and to rotating the coordinate frame (Coriolis forces) to facilitate. namely The QI analysis gives a value of the coefficient 03 of 0. no general statement can be made on the effect that they bring to (^3 and (f>ies.e. Cresswell et al. 1989) in a range of free shear flows. 1989. Hah. however. The problems with eq (2.In engineering.5 this formula is distinctly more successful than the linear quasi-isotropic form (i. 1981). Launder With the coefficient c2# set to about 0. to include terms up to quadratic order in the Reynolds stresses. the QI model leads to a form identical to that of the IP approach (Launder. for 4>ig3 we find . In these cases. 1973) is incompatible with predicting the correct ratio of heat fluxes down and at right angles to the mean temperature gradient in a simple shear flow. 1981.6 is typical. the study of flows in rotating passages.7d).7a) for 0jj) which in t his case is obtained with no free coefficient: The latter form (Launder. for example. the equivalent of eq (2. 1975. Correspondingly. The fact that it has nevertheless been quite widely used in predicting boundary layer flows reflects that turbulent heat fluxes in the streamwise direction are usually not important (being far outweighed by mean convection). The resultant form is of similar length to that equation and is not reproduced here. E.

most applications have tended to chose a value of about 0. (1987) found the use of eq (2. again.Single-Point Closures 265 where c^g from a QI analysis equals 1/3 for buoyant flows while.5. however.which is hereafter denoted dj along with the production tensor and Coriolis tensors in applying the isotropization of production approach: where Fij denotes the Coriolis tensor Fu et al.13) brought great improvements to their predictions of swirling jets while in non-swirling flows the net contribution of terms containing dj was small. To illustrate this point. In fact. If. A choice in the range 0. The accuracy with which these simple models can hope to capture the real processes hardly justifies a separate optimization for each constant. a topic discussed extensively by Launder et al. one takes any ratio of 03 : c2 other than one half. (1987). The Turbulence-Turbulence Part of faj and fag To model the parts of 4>ij and fag arising from p^ we seek forms containing only turbulent quantities.5 would nearly always be appropriate. Experiments indicate that grid turbulence made strongly non-isotropic by passing it through a duct of rapidly changing cross-sectional shape will revert towards isotropy once the mean strain is removed. (1987). there are grounds for taking the coefficient €3 to be half that adopted for c%. In the absence of any alternative . One is the practice noted above. Obviously. an axisymmetric swirling jet can be analysed perfectly well in a stationary reference frame but it can equally well be examined with the coordinate frame rotating about the jet's axis. there are various ways of ensuring independence of the results from the observer's motion as discussed by Fu et al. the predicted results are dependent on the rate of rotation of the coordinate system.3 to 0. the predictions should be independent of the observer's frame of reference. In the case of Coriolis forces. another is to include the convective transport tensor DUiUj/Dt .

15) produces an interesting asymmetry of response. </>m takes a larger negative value than the (positive) value of ^221. The coefficients Cj and c" may be chosen so that the resultant expression for </>.266 B. experiments and computer simulations on the return to isotropy of highly anisotropic stress fields indicate a faster proportionate rate of return than when the stress field is only weakly anisotropic.-ji exactly satisfies the two-component limit0. E. If. Laundei process. No firm proposals of this type have so far been advanced.33 will increase from its initial zero value. Suppose all the ajj's are zero except an = £ and a^i — —£ (so A? = 2<5 2 ). Rotta's original form does not satisfy this limit since. say). so (juj for this component equals +2/3 cie rather than zero. 1978. If c( is positive. One can. we must conclude that <$>(j\ (which. however. The negative value of c'{ on its own produces the reverse of the desired effect.0. as before. At UMIST a non-zero value of c( is retained. its value of ai} is — 2/3 . which in turn means that 0. offset the consequences of a negative c!{ by causing c\ to increase rapidly with A 2 . In mos1 computations of complex flows Rotta's (1951) linear return mode' has been adopted: More elaborate versions have been proposed (Lumley. is traceless) is the agency promoting this reversion. Fu et a/.Consequently u\ will tend to revert more rapidly to isotropy from above than will u2. we take u\ — k(l + <5).5.. the requirement that </>22i should vanish irrespective of the size of 6 leads to c^ = 3/2. for moderate levels of anisotropy (A 2 in the range 0. 1987) which are conveniently expressed through the dimensionless anisotropic stress a.2 . c" = —3/4. if one component of Reynolds normal stress vanishes.-j: The second term in eq (2. in principle. u\ = k(l — <5). c . like the other parts o: (f>ij. A simpler way of making </>. the presently adopted form being: Clearly. While we have experimented at UMIST with these values. Reynolds 1984. from below.-ji vanish in two-dimensional turbulence is to arrange that c\ should contain the factor An. a problem that their use introduces is that. Lumley's group prefer this route and take the coefficients c[ and c'{ as zero.

What we conclude is that. We have already . that since such disparate values have been put forward the whole approach is worthless. where turbulence generation and dissipation processes are in balance) it is readily shown that with this basic model the resultant stress tensor depends not on the individual values of c\ and c2 but rather on the single parameter (1 — c 2 )/ci. Craft and Launder. 1978. The line in Fig 2. Fig 2. 1976. however. Elghobashi and Launder. Jones and Musonge. the very different pairs of ci and c2 will lead to nearly the same results. however. Lumley. Now. as: More elaborate forms have been proposed (Samaaweera. 1978. 1983) have suggested the partial or complete replacement of the dynamic time scale k/e by the scalar time scale 1/2 ¥/Cg. wall-reflection terms as discussed below) is often referred to as the basic model. as to what values should be assigned to the coefficients c\ and c 2 . where appropriate.1 is simply that corresponding to (1 — c 2 )/ci = 0.8) and (2. Looked at with an engineer's eye.1. 1983. In order to pick the 'best' pairing one needs to look at non-equilibrium cases. in the case of a simple shear flow in local equilibrium (i.8. The question arises. For this reason the pair of equations (including.e. 1989) while several workers (Launder. Optimum Choice of Coefficients in Basic Pressure-Strain Model Equations (2.14) have been the basis of many different proposals and have been incorporated into several commercial software packages. for equilibrium simple shear flows. one might be tempted to fit a straight line through the 'data points'. following Monin (1965). Values proposed for c\ range from 1 to 5 while recommendations for c2 cover the range from zero to 0.23 which evidently does rather a good job of fitting the various proposals. The range of different choices suggests. at first glance.Single-Point Closures 267 The corresponding process fagi in the U{6 equation is conventionally modelled.

13)) then it is found that reasonably satisfactory predictions of the swirling jet are obtained with the standard values of GI and cj.1: Map of proposals for coefficients in Basic Model of <j>ij.6 is fully compatible with these extreme cases and is marked by a triangle in Fig 2. If the model of <f>ij is made objective (as it should be) by including the stress convection tensor dj (eq (2. . His proposal arose from the failure to predict swirling jets correctly when larger values of c2 were adopted. Fu et al. noted that a value of c2 of 0. E.268 B. However.5 to 2.1.8 and 0. mention should be made of Younis' (1984) pairing since this is the most recent entry in the table. Launder Figure 2. as has been earlier noted.0 if the level of stress anisotropy is similar to that found in a typical free shear flow. PZJ is not an objective tensor. Before leaving this topic.6 exactly describes the case of isotropic turbulence subjected to rapid distortion while direct simulations of the return of anisotropic turbulence towards isotropy suggest a level of GI of from 1. The pairing usually adopted nowadays of 1. (1987).

e. What actually happens is that agitations cause the free surface to be slightly "crinkled". However. the surface topography is not quite plane and is continually changing. This is usually achieved by introducing the unit vector normal to the wall (n/t) and applying a correction proportional to the turbulent length scale. However. The main effect of the wall on faj is to dampen the level of u\ (the normal stress perpendicular to the wall) to about half the level found in a free shear flow. the free surface is at a uniform pressure. effectively through the boundary conditions? A great deal of research at present is aimed at developing models of fyj that do automatically respond to the wall's proximity. It isn't just rigid walls where surface effects on <j>ij and (f>ig are important. . it is their effect that causes the maximum velocity in a river usually to be located below the free surface. then pressure fluctuations will exist at the lid surface. divided by the distance from the wall. The recommended correction of this type combines proposals of Shir (1973) and Craft and Launder (1992) and may be written where ^Strictly. i. fc3/2/e. in near-wall flows pressure reflections from the surface have a significant effect on the pressure-strain correlation. In free-surface flows the resultant pressure "reflections" from the free surface are significant^ .indeed. It is mainly this reduction that makes the wall jet in stagnant surroundings spread at only two thirds of the rate of the free jet. as we habitually do in free-surface studies. Do these wall effects automatically get accounted for as one approaches the wall. if we imagine the free surface to be replaced by an undeformable but frictionless lid. the 'basic' model presented above requires rather substantial correction close to a wall to return accurate relative levels of the stress tensor.Single-Point Closures Wall Effects on ^ 269 Although sometimes ignored.

18) wall reflection. Figure 2. Launder In the above / = fc3/2/€ and y denotes the wall distance. from Craft and Launder (1992) shows the application of the basic . Gibson-Launder (1978) wall reflection. — Eq (2.2.270 B. E. 1993a) Symbols: Experiment or DNS results. Figure 2.2: Behaviour of two near-wall flows a) Turbulence intensities in flat plate boundary layer b) Component of turbulence normal to wall on axis of axisyrnmetric impinging jet (from Craft et a/..

18) is. 1993a). as noted earlier. Analogous problems arise in handling flow through tube banks. the mean velocity gradient evaluated at a distance r from the point where (f>ij is to be determined) can be replaced by that at the point itself. an effective mean velocity gradient . case-specific interpretation while in others it is simply unworkable.Single-Point Closures 271 model using the wall correction of eq (2. Launder and Tselepidakis (1991) first proposed improving this assumption by adopting. What has come in their place? Firstly.4a). (1987). The latter flow is a critical turbulence modelling test case: numerous models developed by reference to flows parallel to walls give seriously incorrect prediction of the radial wall jet development as the flow develops away from the vicinity of the stagnation point (Craft et a/. Secondly. a scheme that requires ad hoc. one needs to predict flows within an enclosure or around bodies with several distinct faces. there is the recognition that. In flow through a square duct. correspondingly. It would. there are four vector directions normal to a wall and. for example. instead. a benefit of using the non-linear models for <$>{j\ and <^.18) and similar approaches may be adequate if one is dealing with a single plane or mildly curved surface. Bradshaw et al. the form recommended for 4>™j (solid line) achieves much better agreement with experiment than does the earlier (and more widely used) proposal of Gibson and Launder (1978) shown by a broken line. for the impinging jet. namely wall distance and unit vectors.18) to compute the flat plate boundary layer and the impinging turbulent jet. however. at best. the turbulence is varying so rapidly in the direction normal to the wall that some explicit correction for inhomogeneity should be made to the pressurestrain process. The figure indicates that. four wall-normal distances. Equation (2.. In these cases the approach indicated by eq (2. It is this geometrical complexity that has spurred efforts to eliminate from the closure the very parameters on which traditional 'wall-proximity' corrections depend. within the immediate wall vicinity. within internal combustion engines or in turbomachinery flows. In most engineering applications.-j2 is that there is a much diminished wall-proximity correction. there is the assumption that dU'k/dx'j (that is. seriously misrepresent the situation to leave the impression that modelling of near-wall influences was in a satisfactory state. For example in replacing the exact expression for faji in eq (2. however.

6) together with an earlier form of eq (2.3: Prediction of fully developed flow in a duct of square cross section. The reason for introducing A 1 / 2 is pragmatic: the conventional length scale / = k3' 2 /e exhibits a point of inflexion within the buffer layer which causes dl/dxm to undergo excessive variations in magnitude thus making it unsuitable. The predicted flow is extremely sensitive to suppositions about wall damping and it is encouraging that agreement is reasonably good. Figure 2. The anisotropy of the Reynolds stress field in the cross sectional plane of the duct induces weak secondary motions which are responsible for causing the mean velocity contours to bulge towards the corners. Gessner and Emery (1981) .15. Cubic Model without wall correction. Figure 2.19) to the problem of flow in a duct of square cross section. The smooth increase of A as one moves away from the wall removes this problem. Launder and Li (1994) a) Mean velocity contours b) Wall shear stress distribution. If one applies the Basic Model with wall-reflection terms omitted no . Launder In current work at UMIST the quantity I is taken as IA1/2. E. c'2 = 0. Basic Model.3 shows an application of a closure employing eq (2.272 B. Symbols: Experiment.55. The quantity c/ has an optimum magnitude of about 0.7d) (c2 = 0.

partly because the processes are.19) returns values negligibly different from the local velocity gradient. In the calculations shown in Fig 2. the quality of agreement is much inferior to that using the non-linear pressurestrain models with an inhomogeneity correction and no wall reflection term. is not fully satisfactory for handling flows impinging orthogonally (or thereabouts) on a wall.3 it has been supposed that wall reflections associated with the four walls can be linearly superimposed treating each alone as though it was a plane surface of infinite extent. However. partly because this article is intended to provide an introduction to turbulence modelling. At UMIST we are presently seeking alternative approaches to achieving the desired damping including the adoption of an inhomogeneity correction to (f>ij\. however. dig At least as much may be written about approximating diffusive transport as about the non-dispersive action of pressure fluctuations discussed above. and partly because the quite elaborate models to be found in the literature have by no means been extensively tested. relatively uninfluential on the mean flow development. in most engineering circumstances. requires arbitrary decisions about how to handle the abutting walls. together with an inhomogeneity correction to <pij2.4 Diffusive Transport d.uy: .Single-Point Closures 273 secondary flows are predicted. 2. Only a few brief remarks will be made. the turbulent part of the pressure-strain process.18). The use of non-linear models. by way of an equation like '(2. which may be written: Thus. if <p is the instantaneous Reynolds stress u. GGDH. This latter approach is particularly successful in predicting the distribution of shear stress around the perimeter. These assumptions cannot be applied for ducts of arbitrary cross-section and even here.-j. to include wall reflection. In these cases the mean velocity decreases virtually linearly to zero along the stagnation streamline so eq (2. The most popular basis for representing diffusive transport in second-moment closures is the generalized gradient diffusion hypothesis.

21) and (2. In that case. the model for u^UjUk consists of three terms identical to the right side of (2. to the fact that those workers who have adopted (2.-. E. it.22) for the triple moments have generally not included any model for the pressure diffusion terms: and which appear in the u^Uj and u$ transport equations. Launder One evident weakness of these forms is that while the indices i and k on the left side of the equation can be interchanged without altering the resultant product. Andre el al. Thus. (1979). In these pressure terms the indices i and k are not interchangeable. in practice. No ambiguity arises because in the u^uj and Ufd transport equations a d/dx^ operation is applied to the triple moments.274 or.-0 . at least partly. While most approaches have started from the exact triple-moment equations. More rigorous and comprehensive models of triple moments have been put forward by Lumley (1978). This could be due.22). Reynolds (1984) and Dekeyser and Launder (1984). likewise. 1976).21) but with a permutation of the indices i. for the transport of scalar flux B. nevertheless. the difference in character between the exact and the modelled form would appear to be a significant shortcoming.22) can be obtained by making sweeping closure simplifications to the transport equations for the triple moments (Hanjalic and Launder. forms very similar to (2. perhaps we should really regard (2. j and k. These somewhat more elaborate and superficially more correct models do not.21) and (2. that for u^u^Q also consists of three terms in which w/t. In fact.22) as models for the complete turbulent diffusion of TZT/tZJ and w. such a rearrangement on the right intrinsically alters the form. . seem to bring better agreement when used in numerical solvers. Lumley's approach is based on the orthogonal decomposition theorem in which approximations for the triple moments are developed from those made for the second moments. Launder. 1972.21) and (2. 0 successively occupy the position of u^ in (2.

All proposals can be written in the form : where Tt denotes the net transport of c and EST stands for "extra . the relative stress levels are reasonably correct but the predicted level of kinetic energy is too large .a result that points to the dissipation rate equation as the main source of error.from the high-Reynolds-number hypothesis — the fine-scale motions. especially </>{. it is often possible to distinguish the source of the problem. Launder and Morse (1979) traced the failure to predict the swirling free jet to the pressure-strain process. it may be helpful to address the following frequently recurring question: how. Although an exact transport equation for 6 may be derived from the Navier-Stokes equations. Chou (1945) proposed the first equation for a variable proportional to e but current concepts in modelling the energy dissipation rate really spring from the work of Davidov (1961). fajz. Before discussing proposed forms for that equation.Single-Point Closures 2. For the (non-swirling) axisymmetric jet. so far as the Reynolds stress field is concerned.5 Determining the Energy Dissipation Rate 275 The scalar 6 remains as an unknown in the models so far discussed. However . Thus. because the correlation between streamwise and azimuthal velocity fluctuations was of the wrong sign. this is by no means as useful as the corresponding equation for UfUj. one is essentially resorting to dimensional analysis and intuition. in devising a transport equation to mimic the spatial variation of e. can one tell whether poor Reynolds stress and mean velocity predictions arise from errors in determining the level of the energy dissipation rate or from weaknesses in modelling the unknown processes in the ufuj equations. in the absence of reliable measurements of e. The conclusion to be drawn from all this is that. Errors in e will tend to give too high or too low energy levels. are passive. it is to be obtained by solving a transport equation. errors in fyj will tend to give the wrong relative levels of individual Reynolds stresses.•? While difficulties in discrimination do sometimes occur. however. they adjust in size as required to dissipate energy at the rate dictated by a system of substantially larger eddies whose structure is largely independent of viscosity. The reason for this is that the major terms in the equation consist of fine-scale correlations describing the detailed mechanics of the dissipation process. however.

one proceeds by intuition. in predicting free shear flows. the energy dissipation rate (and thus effective time and length scales) appear to be rather sensitive to small secondary strains. in the u^Uj equations. Recent work at UMIST has concluded that there are overall benefits to reducing the value of cei from its "standard" value and compensating by allowing c e2 to depend on the invariants A 2 and A. transport equation but Lumley's experiences and those of Morse (1980) show that this is not possible. Unfortunately while.276 B. So. the loose coupling between the HiUj and e fields that resulted produced strongly oscillatory rates of spread. however. Lumley (1975). Worse. recommend the retention of both types of process. Originally. the production tensor P. in a well argued proposal. Specifically they proposed There are sound physical reasons for preferring to eliminate the term containing c^ from the (. The subsequent studies on buoyant diffusion undertaken by Zeman and Lumley (1979). however. Launder strain terms". E. no equivalent help is available in the case of the € equation. The form presently recommended is The presence of the terms marked EST is an indication that.-j shows clearly the origin and the approximate sensitivity to particular strains. argued that ct\ should be taken as zero and c e 2 should become a function of the second invariant A^. Pope (1978). both coefficients cei and c £ 2 were taken as constant with "standard" values of about 1. as remarked earlier.92 respectively. suggests the inclusion of an additional source term in the e equation proportional to This term is zero in plane two-dimensional flows but not in an axisymmetric flow. taking cei as zero and c £ 2 a function linearly proportional to AI led to poor profile shapes. The latter found that. The size of the coefficient was thus tuned to give the . like the Reynolds stresses.44 and 1.

Leschziner and Rodi (1980) effectively changed the sign of the sensitivity of the equation to streamline curvature. he found that these flows were predicted better with the extra term deleted. this direction was designated as Xi with x-2 orthogonal to it. The above examples illustrate the difficulty with the f. The originators tested their proposals over several cases but unfortunately not in curved flows. The term thus acts to reduce the sensitivity of the e source to shear strain relative to normal strain. re-optimizing the coefficient to suit the second-moment closure he was using. he shifted from the round jet in stagnant surroundings to data of coaxial jets. The coefficient of proportionality is negative and.interpretation. were too great. The additional term has been found to be helpful in boundary layers in strongly adverse pressure gradients as well as in the round jet for it allows the term — 2(i^ — u^dUi/dxi (in P^) to make a larger contribution (in comparison with —2uiU2 dU\/ dx-^) to the generation rate of e. Leschziner and Rodi (1980) adopted a modification of Hanjalic and Launder's proposal in which at every node the orientation of the mean velocity was determined. however. however. reducing the Reynolds stress levels. The contributions of the former to P^k in eq (2. the main contributor to the term is —k(dUi/dx<2) . When. though the effects the term produced in a second-moment closure. Since (dUi/dxi) is predominantly negative in these flows and u\ > u^ the result is that e becomes relatively larger (length scales smaller). When that comparison was made the modification that the new term brought to the e equation was substantial and its effect was to worsen agreement with experiment. in a straight two-dimensional shear flow.21) were simply multiplied by a coefficient approximately three times as large as c€i (which was retained as the coefficient of the shear strain). they could unambiguously discriminate between "normal" strains and "shear" strains. Hanjalic and Launder (1980) recommended the addition of a term that is superficially similar in appearance to Pope's: The action of the term is quite different. Huang (1986) has made further tests on Pope's correction. equation. With that choice made. With this re. The standard version is naively simple in form and has well known .Single-Point Closures 277 correct rate of spread of the round jet in stagnant surroundings (using the k .e EVM).

convection and diffusion) of the Reynolds stresses is approximated in terms of the transport of their contraction. at least for "production runs".e. Launder failures. Note that in this notation the turbulence energy equation is simply so finally we obtain Insertion of eq (2. A popular step in simplification is the so-called algebraic secondmoment (ASM) closure.8) and (2. so far. (2.278 B. The most widely used stress-transport hypothesis is due to Rodi (1976): where T^ means "net transport (convection minus diffusion) of </>" . full second-moment closures are now being used in fairly complex recirculating flows. This subsection therefore describes briefly the main steps to simplification followed by different workers. E. so this step reduces the differential equations for u^Uj to a set of algebraic ones (hence the name).26) into the stress transport equation. This applies equally to the much publicized RNG form of the equation (Orszag. Only the transport terms contain stress gradients. at research level.6 Simplifications to Second-Moment Closures Although. It is now becoming popular to compute the scalar dissipation rate €g from its own transport equation. In these schemes the transport (i. 1993). produces the following constitutive equation linking the turbulent stress and mean strain fields: . Yet. Interested readers may refer to Craft and Launder (1989).14). have produced worse agreement than the original for some other flow. or rather the turbulence energy. It is a rapidly developing field of research that lies outside the scope of this discussion. closed with the help of equations (2.2). when subjected to wider testing. 2. all attempts at improving it have produced modifications which. k. they place sufficient demands on computer resource to make it desirable to devise simpler schemes.

Single-Point Closures

279

where P = 1/2P^. The equation is in fact identical to that given by the WET model, eq (1.24), save that now the coefficient on the right hand side is explicitly a function of P/e. Note also that the time scale Tt emerges here as k/e. Experience at UMIST suggests that, in wall-bounded flows where transport effects are of secondary importance, the ASM approach gives results very similar to that of a full-second-moment closure for about 60% of the computational effort. The behavour is less satisfactory in free flows; however, particularly axisymmetric flows (Fu et al., 1987). Transport terms are then much more important and the weakness of eq (2.26) has more serious consequences than in wall flows. The situation becomes even worse in flows with strong swirl. For this reason the user needs to be cautious when applying the ASM approach to free flows. Brief remarks will now be made about some other approaches to avoid solving the full set of differential Reynolds stress equations. Specifically for application to thin, simply-sheared flows, Bradshaw et al (1967) and Hanjalic and Launder (1972,1976) have made other, less general simplifications than the ASM route that allowed the number of stress transport equations to be reduced. Hanjalic and Launder retain an equation for uiu? but express all the normal stresses either as constant fractions of k or make use of the near constancy 1 /2 of the shear-stress correlation coefficient UiU2/(u\ ufy in a twodimensional boundary layer. Bradshaw et al. (1967) assume a simple prescribable connection between the shear stress and the turbulence energy and solve a transport equation only for the latter. For most of the shear flows considered, a direct proportionality between the shear stress and the turbulence energy was assumed:

the quantity c^ being generally taken as 0.09. One can place most confidence in eq (2.28) when turbulence is in local equilibrium. That is, when energy generation and dissipation rates are in balance. Now, in a thin shear flow, the energy generation rate is effectively equal to —uiu^dUi/dx^- Thus, in local equilibrium, the kinetic energy equation reduces to

280

B. E. Launder

or, with the help of (2.28)

and finally,

This is the constitutive relation that is employed in the so-called k — € (eddy viscosity) model (EVM). For the purpose of applying the idea to curved and recirculating flows, eq (2.30) is generalized in an obvious way to:

Now, eq (2.31) is a much simpler stress-strain connection than eq (2.27) - but it is also a less general one. It does not mimic the subtle responses that the turbulent stress field makes to small perturbations in the strain field. Nevertheless, it often allows a predicted behaviour in sufficiently close agreement with experiment for engineering purposes. In dealing with thin shear flows and, especially, boundary layers, it is often the case that, instead of solving a transport equation for the dissipation rate, e can be obtained as accurately from the formula: where / is an algebraically prescribed function of position in the boundary layer. Thus, if one is working within the framework of an eddy viscosity model, the expression for the turbulent viscosity becomes The first such 1-equation EVM was proposed by Prandtl (1945) and subsequently reinvented by Emmons (1954). It is not just in eddy viscosity treatments that a prescribed length scale has been adopted. Much of Donaldson's group's work with second-moment closures ( e . g . Donaldson et a/., 1972) has used a prescribed profile of /, as has the ASM study of turbulence driven secondary flows by Launder and

Single-Point Closures

281

Ying (1973) and Bradshaw!s "boundary-layer method" (Bradshaw et al, 1967). For historical completeness, one final stage of simplification must be mentioned. The introduction of eq (2.30) into (2.29) and the subsequent elimination of k and t with the help of equations (2.32) and (2.33) leads to

or

Equation (2.34) is known as Prandtl's mixing-length hypothesis in which the mixing length, lm, is equal to cj I . Prandtl (1925) conceived the model (by arguments akin to those employed in the kinetic theory of gases) to deal with simple shearing wherein dlli/dx^ was the only significant strain. However, the local-equilibrium argument presented in these notes enables a more general expression to be obtained; for, in a multi-component strain field, eq (2.29) becomes:

or

This more elaborate form of the mixing length hypothesis has been used with a surprising degree of success in the computation of flows near spinning discs and cones where the velocity vector is strongly skewed.

2.7 Non-Linear Eddy Viscosity Models

Eddy viscosity schemes do not, on the whole, cope well with strong streamline curvature, whether this arises from flow over curved surfaces or imparted swirling. The question arises whether, by adding non-linear strain elements to the basic constitutive equation, the sensitivity to streamline curvature, that is missing from linear EVM's, can be captured. Models of this type have been proposed since the

282

B. E. Launder

early 1970 's but only relatively recently, with the prospect of applying CFD to very complex flows, has an impetus developed to devise models with a width of applicability approaching that of second-moment closure for a computational cost similar to a linear EVM. Such nonlinear EVMs have many similarities with ASM's but, for complex flows, they require much less computational effort (typically, one half to one quarter) due to their improved stability characteristics. Recent contributors to models of this type include Speziale (1987), Nisizima and Yoshizawa (1987), Rubinstein and Barton (1990), Myong and Kasagi (1990), Shin et al. (1993) and Taulbee et al. (1993). Our experience at UMIST is that most of the weaknesses of the linear EVM cannot be rectified by introducing just quadratic terms to the stress-strain relation. Only by proceeding to cubic level does one find sufficient variety in the stress-strain couplings to achieve the desired effects. The UMIST work thus adopts the following stress strain relation:

where

Ci

C2

C3

C4

Cs

CQ

C'j

-0.1

0.1

0.26

-1.0

0

-0.1

0.1

Single-Point Closures

283

Figures 2.4 and 2.5 show two recent applications of the above model (Craft et a/., 1993b) to flows that defeat conventional linear models, namely fully developed swirling flow in a pipe and the impinging jet. In the former the roughly parabolic variation of the circumferential velocity with radius is correctly reproduced while any linear eddy viscosity model gives rise to solid body rotation. Equally, the dynamic field of the impinging jet is captured just as well with the non-linear model as with any of the tested second-moment closures.

Figure 2.4: Non-linear Eddy Viscosity model applied to the prediction of swirling flow in a pipe, Craft et al. (1993b): o Experiment, Cheah et al. (1993) ; non-linear EVMlinear EVM. Again it should be said that this is an area where rapid changes are occurring and where further testing is needed to establish rigorously the width of applicability of the proposed form.

284

B. E. Launder

Figure 2.5: Non-linear Eddy Viscosity model applied to the turbulent impinging jet, Craft et al. (1993b): a) Mean velocity b) Shear stress c) rms turbulence intensity normal to wall: o Experiment, Cooper et al. (1993); non-linear EVM; linear EVM. 3 3.1 LOW REYNOLDS NUMBER TURBULENCE NEAR WALLS Introduction

The closure proposals made so far imply negligible effect of viscosity on the energy containing motions and no influence of the mean-strain field on the dissipative ones. While we may expect these assumptions to be reasonably valid throughout most of a turbulent flow, the no-slip condition at a rigid boundary ensures that over some region of a turbulent wall layer, however thin, viscous effects on the transport processes must be large. The present chapter provides a brief account of turbulent transport in this viscosity-modified sublayer. A more extensive treatment, albeit less up to date, has been provided by the writer elsewhere, Launder (1986). In round terms, molecular influences may be expected to be in-

In cases where surface transpiration is absent and where the influence of force fields (including pressure gradients) on the region is negligible. kinematic viscosity and normal distance can be used in place of the no-slip boundary condition to avoid the need to extend what may be a costly twoor three-dimensional numerical solution to the wall itself.3 Although the extreme thinness of the viscosity-affected sublayer. which we refer to as "low-Reynolds-numbertreatments". Models of this type. the resultant distribution is known as the 'Law of the Wall'. friction velocity. complicates the task of model development. suitably normalized. Turbulence models applied in this low-Reynolds-number region have usually been developed from some high-Reynolds-number closure by introducing various viscosity-dependent terms and/or by making the coefficients of existing terms functions of a turbulence Reynolds number. \/TW/p . in some respects. streamwise convective transport within this sublayer is often sufficiently small compared with diffusive or (in the case of properties of the turbulent field) source or sink processes that it may be neglected. is of order 102.Single-Point Closures 285 fluential over a region extending from the surface to where the local "eddy" Reynolds number. based on a typical eddy dimension normal to the wall and the intensity of velocity fluctuation in that direction. For the case of the mean velocity. in another it simplifies the problem. for. This approach is especially advantageous if the matching is applied outside of the viscosity dependent region (though close enough to the wall for streamwise transport to be negligible). despite the important contributions being made by direct numerical simulations. while largely empirical. the processes are highly complex and the acquisition of accurate experimental data is greatly complicated not just by the thinness of this sublayer but by wall-proximity influences of various kinds on the instruments themselves. It is thus no wonder that . are discussed in Section 3. Turbulence models for this region may reasonably contain elements that introduce appropriately these viscous influences. are then functions of only a normaldistance Reynolds number. are chosen to ensure that certain general kinematic constraints are satisfied. for then the turbulence model used for the numerical computation does not have to include . These adaptations. our knowledge of this important region of flow is still incomplete. The region in question is thin (even in low-speed laboratory studies rarely extending over more than 2mm). the flow-field properties. This connection between velocity.

to a zone where molecular transport is of only minor importance in comparison with that due to turbulent exchange processes. for small increase in X2. since ul = 0. if we expand the fluctuating velocities in a Taylor series about the wall. 'universal' state. Likewise. more recently. 6's and c's are functions of time whose mean value must be zero. moreover. The linear variation of u\ over a significant sublayer region is well confirmed by experiment and. there follows: where the a's. one escapes the need for the especially fine mesh that is inevitably required to resolve the viscous region because there the curvature in the profiles of both the mean velocity and turbulence properties is so high. casting the expression in dimensionless form: . It follows from continuity that 8u2/dx2 = 0 at x2 = 0 so. a detailed modelling of the sublayer is the only route considered. in the present article. an increasingly large proportion of problems being tackled are ones where it is not safe to treat the near-wall sublayer as though it is in its quasiequilibrium. as CFD gains in maturity and computational power per dollar continues to double every 18 months or so. E. 3. Launder viscous effects and. if very thin. It follows from (3. by direct numerical simulation.2 Limiting Forms of Turbulence Correlations in the Viscous Sublayer We consider flow in the immediate vicinity of a wall lying in the plane x% — 0. region where turbulent stress is negligible compared with viscous stress which gives way. rather rapidly. That is why.286 B. the turbulent kinetic energy variation is given by: Alternatively. However.1) that This cubic variation of turbulent stress helps explain why the viscous layer exhibits a distinct.

is non-zero there.1) we can also obtain the following expression for e = v(du{ldxjf or. vanishes at the wall . The newer direct-simulation data indicate a value of approximately 0. (.035.025 < a+ < 0. 1972) where: a choice which evidently permits the dependent variable to be set to zero at the wall. which. by which t differs from the true dissipation . These simulations suggest unequivocally that the maximum level of e occurs at the wall itself which is very much different from that predicted by any pre-1990 turbulence model (these typically produced a peak level of e at x J w 12 with the wall value being less than half the maximum value).05. at the wall.3) and (3. Thus. By comparing (3. e The term v ( d m / d x ] ) ( d u ] / d x t ) rate. A popular strategy is to adopt e rather than e as the dissipative variable (Jones and Launder. This result has been used in different ways in modelling the limiting behaviour of e at the wall. From (3. equals the turbulence energy dissipation rate 6 .Single-Point Closures 287 where Patel. The direct numerical simulations of wall turbulence give values of e as the wall is approached consistent with those indicated recently from turbulence energy measurements.4) we may readily deduce that the approximation is correct up to terms linear in x%. Rod! and Scheuerer (1985) concluded from the available data that a+ lay in the range 0. in dimensionless form.

however. In the limiting case of wall turbulence. The corresponding component terms.3 Low Reynolds Number Modelling Preamble The present notes are written at a time when second-moment closure strategy for low-Reynolds-number regions is in great ferment. It is of interest to compare the ratio (e. like u\u?. The answer is that viscous action diffuses energy towards the wall (vd2k/dx^} at a rate which just balances the dissipation rate there. Launder It may be wondered how. in the absence of turbulence energy generation (P. €{j. the relative magnitudes of the stress and dissipation rate ratios differ from component to component. The question of modelling this limiting behaviour is taken up in the following section. It is this feature that is mainly responsible for the damping of near-wall transport coefficients. have been plain to see for several years) allied to an immensely important store of new information about near-wall turbulence. So far as the writer's group is concerned. is proportional to cc^). defined as may be treated in the same way as e. aimed at replacing these outmoded approaches by something more modern.288 B. E.j/e) with u^Uj/k. It follows. the stress field approaches a "twodimensional" state since the fluctuations normal to the wall die out faster than those parallel to the surface. In isotropic turbulence the terms are both equal to 2/3 Sij. Models and ideas developed in the 70's and 80's are being cast aside and new activity. that turbulence . is underway at several institutions. • As the wall is approached. in truth. The two essential facts are: • The variation of Reynolds stresses through the sub-layer region and the associated damping of the effective transport coefficients seem to be affected rather little by viscosity. a non-zero dissipation rate can be sustained at the wall. the change of emphasis has arisen from finally accepting two important facts (which. therefore. 3.

1 which examines the experimental variation of u\jk across the near-wall region.1: Variation oiu\/k across sublayer (Launder. low-Reynolds-number k — e models present their constitutive stress-strain relation in the following form: where C M normally takes the constant value 0. (In the figure u2 is denoted by v and x 2 by y). According to the high-Reynolds-number free flow model of Gibson and Launder (1978). On comparing these two equations it is evident that they would be identical if .09 and /^ is the "viscous" damping function employed in models of that type. Substantial support for these assertions_is offered by Fig 3.Single-Point Closures 289 modelling in the sublayer should be consistent with the twodimensional limit especially as regards the pressure-strain and dissipation processes. Now. in local equilibrium the connection between shear stress and mean velocity gradient in a simple shear is simply Figure 3. 1986). (This is also the form given by the generalized gradient diffusion hypothesis GGDH).

It implies. the proper diminution of u\ can be modelled.1. the flow between plane and slightly curved parallel surfaces by Kim et al. Component dissipation The process in which it appears most important to include viscous effects is the dissipative correlation. there would be little need for other "viscous" damping. however. therefore. The first of these. Haiijalic and Launder. it is usually assumed that the fine scale motion is isotropic and thus: As the Reynolds number approaches zero the energy-containing and dissipating range of motions are no longer distinct and the dissipation rate is then commonly approximated (for example Rotta. E. from admittedly rather imprecise experimental data (the uncertainty band attaching to /^ is probably larger than that shown for u\/k}. shows the variation of the quantity across the sublayer region as deduced by Patel. as the wall is approached. 1951. There are good reasons for supposing that the former is dependent on viscosity only within the near wall sublayer while u^/k increases with distance from the wall over a more extensive region. Thus.342 /M. The "store of new information about near-wall turbulence" noted above refers to the results of full simulations of turbulent shear flows that have become available over the last five years. that the requisite damping of u\/k should. that the two parameters vary in essentially the same way across the sublayer. the modeller can make direct appeal to data of the processes to be approximated — data generated not by experiment but by computer simulation. from Launder (1986). at high Reynolds numbers. be provided by non-viscous parameters. The more recent direct simulation data lead to essentially the same distribution of f ^ . to a large extent. The processes that are most influential in determining the level of u\ are the pressure-strain and dissipative correlations. Launder u\lk were equal to 0. The figure does show quite convincingly. (1987) and Moser and Moin (1984). As remarked earlier. including the contributions made by the pressure-strain correlation.290 B. Rodi and Scheuerer. for the first time. Figure 3. provided. Thus. 1976) as: . present detailed budgets of each Reynolds-stress component right up to the wall itself.

if one of the indices refers to the direction normal to the wall: and. the dissipation is very nearly isotropic. It may readily be deduced (Launder and Reynolds. if eq (3. is not an exact limiting form.6) and (3. 1985): It is readily deduced that. The recommended form for fs to have emerged from the computations of Hanjalic and Launder (1976) was: so that. An invariant way of expressing these results is through the unit vector normal to the wall Hk (Launder and Reynolds.11).. Equation (3. j = 1 arid i = 3 . j = 3.12) is to satisfy equations (3. 1983. eq(3. Kebede et al.Single-Point Closures 291 If one accepts eq (3.10) and (3. 1983) from the polynomial expansions for the velocity components that. it is natural to generalize the result as: The function fa is usually assumed to be a function of the turbulent Reynolds number (Rt = k2/z/e). its value going from unity to zero as Rt varies from zero to infinity. while it is correct if neither i nor j takes the value 2. for the u\ component.7) as asymptotic forms valid in the limit of very high and very low Reynolds number. by the start of the fully turbulent region (Rt « 150).7). the coefficients a and /? must be unityA A model for the dissipative correlation that satisfies both this wall-adjacent limit and the high Reynolds number. locally isotropic form can clearly be y For the case i = 1 .12) gives . while attractively simple.

f. Launder obtained by replacing euiUj/k in eq (3. As noted above. the turbulent Reynolds number is the usual choice but Fig 3.can only represent e^j in the immediate vicinity of a wall. E.5) which expresses the limiting dissipation rate at the wall in terms of gradients of -\fk. However.8) by the right hand side of eq (3. .12). This has been the route followed in several closure studies from the mid-eighties to the present. It is for this reason that present studies at UMIST continue the practice of Launder and Tselepidakis (1991) in employing one of the stress-invariant parameters as an ar- where 'a' takes the value 1 or 3.292 B. brings out a problem: for this case Rt reaches its maximum value at x% ~ 20 whereas the dissipation ratios shift towards their isotropic levels well beyond that.8) would need to be adopted The question arises as to what parameter fs should depend on. the discussion in Sec. Fig 3. namely: The form of eq (3.12) cannot be said to be a convenient equation for general application as it brings in the unit vector normal to the wall (c. 2 on the desirability of removing unit vectors and wall distance). The expression for t*j only departs significantly from eu^Uj/k within the viscous sublayer where ^-gradients are steep.2a. In the immediate vicinity of the wall u\ is negligible compared with u\ or v% giving the desired limiting behaviour. To obtain an expression for e^ of greater width of applicability a composite expression of type (3. which shows the DNS-computed variation of different quantities (including Rt~) across the near-wall region of turbulent channel flow.3.13) was suggested by eq (3. eq (3. The quantity c*. Recently the writer has discovered that the desired limiting values may be obtained in a form that is free of unit vectors.

such as occurs as one .-/e versusus normalized wall distance b) resultant profile of e. Near-wall effects on pressure-strain process As discussed in Section 2.Single-Point Closures 293 Figure 3. The form currently adopted is (J R Cho.can only represent c.2b.15). eliminates them entirely). For this reason we here discuss only schemes employing cubic versions of faff because this formulation seems naturally to give rise to the decrease of uiu^/k with increasing strain rate.-j/e using eq (3.-j in the immediate vicinity of a which produces.14). with eq (3.2: Variation of fij/e in near-wall turbulent flow a) e*. to achieve a widely applicable formulation it is important to adopt a model of <foj that keeps wallreflection effects to a minimum (and. This is because there seems no way at present to model their impact in flows with highly irregular boundary surfaces.13-3. the component dissipation profiles shown in Fig 3. if possible. personal communication): The quantity e*. gument of fs.3.

At present such models have been applied only in fairly simple flows so it remains to be seen how well they extrapolate to recirculating and impinging flow regions. Launder Figure 3. Replacing € in the equation for 4>iji by f. (1987)(from Launder and Tselipidakis. A.15) is consistent with the 2-component limit it does not enforceit.4. enters the viscosity-dependent sublayer. thus causing u\jk to fall to zero.15)) vanish with A would appear to ensure that ^221 fell to zero in the 2-component limit that applies at the wall.294 B. 1991): Rt] — A 2 . it still fails to reduce u\/k except in the immediate wall vicinity. Figure 3. Simpler linear schemes have been extensively reviewed by Hanjalic (1994). Of course. from early work of Launder and Tselepidakis (1990) shows this is not the case. Making the coefficient Cj of ^i (viz eq (2. A$ and A across viscous sublayer of low Reynolds number channel flow of Kim et al. agreement with the DNS results is still far from complete with that . however.3: Distribution of Rt. A does not vanish at the wall and neither does cj. A<2.4. however. Apparently. E. Thus u\/k remains virtually constant across the near-wall sublayer. the only way to ensure a proper decrease of this stress ratio is to introduce damping via the turbulent Reynolds number Rt as was done for the lowest curve in Fig 3. at least ensures that faji vanishes at the wall. A3. _ The principal task is to make u\/k fall to zero in the correct manner as the wall is approached. While eq (2.

3).DNS data.-j2 is adapted in two ways as one approaches the wall. discussed already in connection with eq . see the discussion in Section 2. : ci damped by turbulent Reynolds number. the coefficient c2 is amended to c2 = 7mn(c2co.022) increase rapidly as the wall is approached leading to the annihilation of Uiu2.Single-Point Closures 295 early model. The term with coefficient c2 gives rise to the following sink term in the shear-stress equation: Both AW and (an . Lines: Second-moment predictions of Launder and Tselipidakis (1990) without wall reflection: : ci a function of A. The other amendment. The high-Reynolds-number. The more recent results to emerge from the UMIST group (to be shown below) have been obtained with the following choice of the coefficient of <^. free-flow form of <^. where C2oo is the value c2 would take in a free shear flow (that value depends slightly on whether c2 takes a non-zero value.-ji: Figure 3. To limit the strength of this sink. A). : as before but e replaced by e.4: Variation of u\/k across low-Reynolds-number channel flow: A Kim at al (1987) .

The formula adopted.19).6) for the rapid spatial variation of the mean velocity gradient. however. Likewise. is the need to correct eq (2. because non-zero pressure fluctuations occur on the wall. In a channel flow the correction. in the u\ and u\ budgets. is of substantial importance in the buffer region but becomes negligible further from the wall. with u\u<i = a^bix^ (c. eq (3. given by eq (2. molecular transport outweighs diffusion by velocity fluctuations. It isn't that the formula is regarded as satisfactory.2)) the net viscous diffusion of UiH? is Qa^b^x^ while its dissipation rate is ^aib^vx-^. employed the wall normal vector and for this reason it is not reproduced here.296 B. the leading viscous diffusion and dissipation terms do balance. Most computations have retained the GGDH representation with the same value for the coefficient cs (0. Launder (2.A minor improvement to the standard GGDH scheme would be to introduce e in place of e so that the turbulent time scale remains finite as the wall is approached. UiUjUk. where diffusive transport balances the loss by dissipation. In fact. Since the form of faji ensures a variation of this process to a power of x^ greater than unity. pressure diffusion dies out less rapidly than the velocity diffusion as the wall is approached. This may be seen by considering the stress budget in the viscous sublayer. in the immediate vicinity of the surface. where no pressure-diffusion terms appear. Tselepidakis (1992) devised a model of pressure-diffusion among components thereby satisfying the budget in all components. (1987) from a processing of the DNS data. By contrast. but rather that. This behaviour is consistent with the conclusions reached by Bradshaw et al. For example. A less restrictive form is .19) or similar forms. in the u\ equation it is easily deduced that a pressure diffusion of magnitude -\b\vx\ is required to offset the excess viscous diffusion (\1b\vx\) over dissipation. Diffusion Serious study of stress diffusion in the near-wall sublayer is only just beginning.22) as in fully turbulent regions.f. in the near-wall fully turbulent region. transport is often of relatively little importance while. the imbalance between viscous diffusion and dissipation can only be compensated by a non-zero pressure diffusion amounting to — laib^vx^. E.

is probably satisfactory. The first term may.44 commonly used at high Reynolds numbers 9 . that in the ~u\u^ equation is only reduced by one half. in a thin shear flow. the above replacement — which removes about 75% of the (small) problem . be expressed in terms of eq (3. rates of change of the instantaneous turbulence field will be much larger in direction x% than in x\ or £3. in fact. at high Reynolds numbers.Single-Point Closures 297 This formula embodies the' same underlying idea but does not employ the unit vector. the mean velocity is significant only in directions parallel to the wall (so index 'i' denotes 1 or 3). Earlier work by the writer's group (Hanjalic and Launder. If direction x\ is aligned with the near-wall mean velocity both lead to the result: Equation (3. however. Low Reynolds number effects on e In Section 2.5 no detailed consideration was given to the exact 6 equation because. within the sublayer.12) or (3. in the viscous layer: there the exact dissipation equation shows the mean strain to act as a source of e principally through the term: Having regard for the fact that. since Tselepidakis (1992) found his formulation to have only a secondary effect on the stress profiles.0 adopted in recent UMIST work when cC2 is a function of AI and A. while the imbalance in the u\ equation is entirely eliminated with this form.17) suggests therefore that at x^ = 0 the value of c£i should be 2.0 rather than the value 1. That distinction does not apply. 9 . However.13). Nevertheless. The changeover from the high-Reynolds-number limit to equation (3. the scales of the controlling eddies and the dissipative motions are quite distinct. 1976) has adopted a value for cf\ that was entirely independent of Reynolds Or the value 1. the second term is evidently small compared with the first since.17) should consistently adopt the function fs.

2 to an asymptotic value of 2.1. the exponential term in eq (3. A viscosity dependent influence of mean strain was introduced. The most complete turbulence decay data are those of Batchelor and Townsend (1948). these suggest that below a value of Rt of about 10 the decay exponent n in the relation k oc t~n increases from the high-Reynolds-number limit of about 1. c e2 must be multiplied by some function of Reynolds-number. c £ 2/ e e 2 /fc tends to infinity as x 2 goes to zero. If we assume the changeover to be describable in terms of the local value of Rt. Hanjalic and Launder (1976) replaced e2 in the sink term by ec where . Launder and Tselepidakis (1993) take c£l = 0. 3 . therefore. however. however.5. In this case the transportable fluctuating quantity </> is d u { / d x j . a more important modification to this sink term needed in wall turbulence since. We now shift attention to the decay term in the dissipation rate equation which. to give the desired limiting values of the decay exponents. E. In more recent studies c'el has usually been set to considerably smaller values.18) falls to zero so rapidly that /E is essentially unity over the whole of the region near the wall where turbulence is important.0 adopted for c'fl by Hanjalic and Launder (1976) was.298 B. as noted in Section 3. e is non-zero at the wall while k varies as x\. There is. at high-Reynolds-numbers. Accordingly. Launder number. arguably. Hanjalic and Launder (1976) took There is no reason to suppose much similarity between the lowReynolds-number sublayer near a wall and the viscous decay of weak grid turbulence. however. therefore. via the source term which may be regarded as the outcome of using the generalized gradient-diffusion hypothesis to close a term containing d2Ui/dxjdxk in the exact e equation. / £ . so. Even with the introduction of /£.43. For example.4 times as large as is usually adopted. However. The value 1. has been taken as c&^/k. that one should turn to low-Reynolds-number grid turbulence to decide if modifications are needed. that choice was compensating for the fact that c£i had been held fixed.For high-Reynolds-numbers the coefficient c& was determined by reference to grid turbulence decay and it is natural.

c^fc/e. /^. Finally.D studies at UMIST. This suggests that a separate approximation ought to be incorporated. A possible model for the additional term that is significant only in the viscous region has been proposed in that article: Tselepidakis and Launder (1993) have suggested a value of c£4 of 0.5 and 3. There is also the question of pressure diffusion to be considered. 1986). Virtually all proposals for extending the e equation to the wall adopt this form. This is a little ironic because models of this type are really designed to handle complex mean strain patterns and far-from-equilibrium states. however. _The writer's group has retained the high-Reynolds-number form.Single-Point Closures 299 As noted in Section 3.92. An order-of-magnitude estimate of this term in the exact e equation suggests.4 Applications Low-Reynolds-number models designed to match the wall-limiting behaviour have so far been applied only in simple shear flows. there remains the matter of viscous effects on the diffusion of e to be accounted for. 3.6 show applications from two recent Ph. e varies as x\ near the wall and thus the term c^f^l/k tends to a constant value as the wall is approached. Figures 3. The first relates to plane channel flow and the figure compares the computed variation of rms velocity fluctuations across the near-wall . that as the wall is approached the process becomes significant (Launder.2. one has to start with simple flows to calibrate any free coefficients in the model. All proposals have included the exact viscous transport vdt/dxj as an addition to the high-Reynolds-number diffusion model. In high-Reynolds-number turbulence no explicit accounting of this process was attempted. Nevertheless. as the appropriate diffusion coefficient in the low-Reynolds-number region while Prud'homme and Elghobashi (1983) multiply the coefficient ce by a viscous damping function.

The model in this case was similar to that adopted in the previous example except that. i. The adopted model of <pij2 was the complete cubic form (c2 = 0. in turn. in consequence a small 'wall-reflection' contribution was added. from Launder and Tselepidakis (1994). Kim at al (1987) —: closure computations. Launder and Li (1994) a) turbulence intensities normalized by friction velocity b) shear stress. the simplified cubic model of </>.55. because the computations were carried out rather earlier. in orthogonal mode rotation. increases the shear stress u\u-i and thus of streamwise fluctuations too. The resultant asymmetry in the turbulence intensity profiles arises from the direct effect of the Coriolis forces on the turbulent stresses in the x\ — x^ plane.5: Distribution of turbulent intensities and shear stress across near-wall region of low-Reynolds-number channel flow.6 . sublayer with the DNS results of Kim et al.300 B. Symbols: DNS results.e. Generally the closure .-j2 was adopted (c2 = 0. also relates to channel flow but here the channel rotates about the #3 axis. The agreement of the closure computations with the DNS results is reasonably satisfactory.19)) but no "wallreflection" term.6 in eq (2. The second application. E. (1987). c'2 = 0) and. augmenting fluctuations normal to the wall on the pressure (left) side of the channel which. c'2 = 0.7(d)) with an inhomogeneity correction (eq (2. Launder Figure 3.

c) rms turbulent intensities Symbols: DNS results. 1990). computations (continuous line) are quite successful in mimicking the asymmetries found in the DNS data generated by Kristoffersen and Note: UTo is friction velocity for non-rotating duct at same bulk Reynolds number h . b) turbulent shear stress profile 8 . Kristoffersen and Andersson (1990) : Launder and Tselipidakis (1994).6: Application to turbulent flow in plane channel rotating about x3 axis (orthogonal mode rotation) a) Mean velocity profile.Single-Point Closures 301 Figure 3. : Launder and Shima (1989) (from Kristoffersen and Andersson.

S. K Suga and Dr. 1976. 33. G.C. N Z Ince. Atmos.. de Moor." 5th IAHR Conference on Refined Flow Modelling and Turbulence Measurements. Bradshaw.. Heidelberg. P. D P Tselepidakis. Summer Program. this model only partially complied with asymptotic wall-limiting behaviour. J.1 (ed. N." Proc. Springer-Verlag. Ozkan..E.159. de Moor. L. Cooper.J. T J Craft. "The clipping approximation and inhomogeneous turbulence simulations. J. "On the structure of flow in spirally fluted tubes.H. Therry. and Atwell. "Calculation of boundary-layer development using the turbulent energy equation.476.. N. R.. G. 1987.302 B. P." J..." Turbulent Shear Flows .N. Launder Andersson (1990)..). While it too captures broadly the asymmetry of the flow. Presse Ponts et Chaussees. 307. Center for Turbulence Research. Particular contributions have been made by Drs. it is also clearly not as successful as the cubic form. 28. Sciences. 4 REFERENCES Andre. Paris. For comparison. R. p." J. 1979.. Durst et a/. D. . P. Mr. J R Cho. The text of this article has been prapared in TATgX format by Erdinc. F. 1993.. Cheng..C. p.. p. 1967. "On local approximations of the pressure strain-term in turbulence modelling. "Turbulence approximation for inhomogeneous flows: Part I: The clipping approximation. B. P.C. S Fu. predictions obtained by Professor Andersson's group using the older 2nd-moment closure of Launder and Shima (1989) are also included. Bradshaw..593.P. and Launder. and du Vachat. Fluid Mech.293-300. U. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The recent developments described are based largely on the research discoveries of former and present students and research assistants in the UMIST CFD group. G. Ferriss. and Piomelli. Lacarrere. and du Vachat. S-P Li. Andre. pp. E. Mansour. D. Cheah. Lacarrere. Stanford University.

J." Int. B. 2685. 30.J.. 1981. 1945.J.2970. and Liao.. 1993b.. Paris. "A new model for the pressure/scalar gradient correlation and its application to homogeneous and inhomogeneous flows." Phys. L. . pp.. Launder. Cooper.. R. Jackson. Daly.E.. p.E. 3. B. 7th Symposium Turbulent Shear Flows. 1993a. Math. Cresswell.E. and Szczepura.T. "Extending the applicability of eddy viscosity models through the use of deformation invariants and non-linear elements. d'Aerothermique. J. Stanford University." Int. p. 1989." 5th IAHR Conference on Refined Flow Modelling and Turbulence Measurements..2675. pp. Fluid Mech. B. "Transport equations of turbulence. T. K. Presse Fonts et Chaussees. Launder. N.2634. Turbulent Shear Flows. 125-132." Quart. V.Z. 7th Symp." J. B.. "Visco-elastic properties of fine-grained incompressible turbulence. T. Craft.. Part 2: An examination of the performance of four turbulence models. B. 1993. P. "Impinging jet studies for turbulence model assessment. D. 1968." Unpublished report.C. F. G. 1992." AIAA J.C. J. B. B.81. Appl.J. Craft..W. "Measurement and modelling of buoyancymodified elliptic shear flows..H. and Launder. Crow. 1989. T. Craft. Paper 17-1. p. ONERA/CERT. "Modelisation des equations aux tensions de Reynolds dans un repere en rotation. "New wall-reflection model applied to the turbulent impinging jet.. p.." Proc. "Impinging jet studies for turbulence model assessment: Part I: Flow-field experiments..E.X. p. S. Ince. 41.Single-Point Closures 303 Chou. and Launder.Y. Heat Mass Transfer 36. T.E. B. and Aupoix. Launder. Dept. and Suga. Cousteix. Craft.W..38-54. "On velocity correlations and the solution of the equations of turbulent fluctuation. Stanford University.. 1970.J. Heat Mass Transfer 36.. Fluids 13. J. Graham. R. D. and Harlow. and Launder. Haroutunian. Paper 12-4.J.E." Proc.

Toulouse. Fu.I. Dept. 1972... "A comparison of algebraic and differential second-moment closures for axisymmetric turbulent shear flows with and without swirl. M.. 1961. S. Sullivan. S.E." Phys. p.. TFD/87/5. A.. ASME.. D. and Rosenbaum. and Leschziner. "Modelling strongly swirling recirculating jet flow with Reynolds-stress transport closures.W. 1965. S. L.A. S.10.. "Computational modelling of turbulent swirling flows with second-moment closure models. Rep. "On the statistical dynamics of an incompressible turbulent fluid. Huang. p. and Tselepidakis." Soviet Physics Doklady 6. 41. R. I." Proc." J. "A comparison of triplemoment temperature-velocity correlations in the asymmetric heated jet with alternative closure models.. Appl. 1970.W. H. Fu. Fu.). p. 6th Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows. B. "Turbulent time scales and the dissipation rate of temperature variance in the thermal mixing layer.. pp. Favre.304 B. S. Launder. 1987a. Fluids 26. Eng. 1988..4 (ed. Fluid Mech.P. UMIST. Berlin. J.102. 162. and Leschziner. Launder. Deardorff. "Equations de gaz turbulents compressibles. . B.A. du P. 2nd US Cong.E. Elghobashi. Fu." Turbulent Shear Flows .. "A theoretical study of the generation of atmospheric clear-air turbulence.453." Proc.361-421. M." Mech.G. 1987b.E." J. C. Eng. TFD/86/9. Rep. P. E.. "A numerical study of 3-dimensional channel flow at large Reynolds numbers." PhD Thesis. Mecanique 4.. p." AIAA J. Faculty of Technology." Mech. Donaldson. B.E. Springer. 1986. H. Mech.. and Launder..D. UMIST.. B. Dept. 10. 1954. p. Emmons. and Launder.E. Bradbury et a/. 1983.J. Launder. "Shear Flow Turbulence. University of Manchester. B.. B. "Accommodating the effects of high strain rates in modelling the pressurestrain correlation. Launder Davidov.2415.E.. Dekeyser.S. 1984..

equation model of turbulence. Hah. "Modelling of scalar transport in homogeneous turbulent flows." PhD Thesis. 1981. 1981. "Large amplitude periodic flow: A second-moment closure study. and Launder.P. M. B. 15. "The numerical prediction of developing turbulent flow in rectangular ducts.M. Heat Mass Transfer 15.P. "Advanced turbulence closure models.E. AIAA 14th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conf.. 1972.. 5th Turbulent Shear Flows Symp. Ithaca. "Sensitizing the dissipation equation to secondary strains. Cornell University. 1986..491." Int. p. B." AIAA Paper No." J. 1983.." Proc. and Launder. "The computation of elliptic turbulent flows with second-moment closure models. p.18. 86. W.A. Fluid Mech.G. 1994.. P. and Musonge. J. Gibson. "Three-dimensional structures and turbulence closure of the wake developing in a wall shear layer..E. K. 102. and." ASME J." J. B. University of Manchester. C." Int. . W. Fluid Mech.. Huang.301. pp. K. "The prediction of laminarization with a two.593. Hanjalic. Karlsruhe. 51. Hanjalic. and Launder. J. pp... California.178-203. and Younis. "A Reynolds-stress model of turbulence and its application to thin shear flows. Jones. B. 4th Turbulent Shear Flows Symp.. and Launder. and Emery. W.Single-Point Closures 305 Gessner. Fluids Eng. K. Jones.." Proc. Fluids Eng. "Ground effects on pressure fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer. P. 74.301. 81-1269. Faculty of Technology.E. p. Launder. Fluid Mech. K. F.E.. p. p. 1972. B..E. 1976. 103. 1985. Kebede. Hanjalic. Launder.445. B.. 1978. "Contribution towards a Reynolds stress closure for low Reynolds number turbulence. 1980. Heat Fluid Flow.3440. 17." J." ASME J. B. Hanjalic. Palo Alto.E.

Moin.E. S-P. 1976. Langley Free Shear Flows Conf. B. So et a/. M. Launder.I.204.. Launder. and Reynolds..D. "On the effects of a gravitational field on the transport of heat and momentum.P. Chap. R. and Li." J. 6 Topics in Applied Physics: 12 . "Turbulence statistics in fully-developed channel flow at low Reynolds number. W. 3rd European Turbulence Conference. 67. B. A. Springer-Verlag. UMIST.306 B. Springer. "Heat and Mass Transfer".. E." J. Bradshaw). NASA. 1973. R. Launder. 1987. . Berlin." Phys. Morse. Stockholm. "On the prediction of flow over riblets via 2nd-moment closure. TFD/86/4. Conf. Launder. B. p.. 1983.C. B.a comparison of the performance of six turbulence models..C. heat and mass transfer in swirling turbulent boundary layers." Mech. Launder. Fluid Mech.M. J. Launder. "On the elimination of wall topography parameters from second-moment closure..) Elsevier. R. Launder. Eng.E.282. D.E. B. and Sharma. Launder. Heat Transfer 94C. Fluid Mech.E.E. "Second-moment closure: present. and Spalding.. Kristoffersen. p. "Prediction of free shear flows . Rodi. Fluids 26.. Launder. and Andersson... 1989. Launder Kim. H. B. Heat Fluid Flow 10. P. "Low-Reynolds-Number Turbulence Near Walls. p.569.. P. B.E. Launder. p. 177.. B." Phys.." Turbulent Shear Flows . 1990. 1994. and Li. A.133." Proc. and Morse.Turbulence (ed.279. B. W. "Asymptotic near-wall stress dissipation rates in a turbulent flow.E. Koo Sin Lin.." ASME J.I. S-P. and Moser. Fluids 6 (2).. 1975. 1974. 1986. and future?" Int. SP320. "Prediction of momentum.E. New York.P.1. J. p." Proc. Dept. Near-Wall Turbulence (ed. "Numerical prediction of axisymmetric free shear flows with a Reynolds stress closure. Heidelberg. B. 1993.B. Proc. p.. 1979.E. Rep..999. B..E.

327.P. "Application of a new second-moment closure to turbulent channel flow rotating in orthogonal mode.1319. Lin. M. Inst. Leschziner. Oxford.818-833.455. Hemisphere. Kline and N. 1979. B. Launder. "Directions in secondmoment modelling of near-wall turbulence. "Contribution to the modelling of near-wall turbulence. and Tselepidakis. B.E. Tselepidakis.) Springer-Verlag. .63. 1993. and Wolfshtein. D. p.P. B. 1981. Launder. Launder." Proc.210. F. "A second-moment closure for the near-wall sublayer: development and application.1. J." Turbulent Shear Flows-8 (ed. and Ying.E. H.. and Younis. "Theoretical study of the Reynolds stress equation. "Prediction of flow and heat transfer in ducts of square cross section.E. "A second-moment closure study of rotating channel flow. N. 1973." J.. 103. p. Launder. Li.E..P. and Rodi.. 27." AIAA J. and Tselepidakis.. D." PhD Thesis. D. and Tselepidakis. Engrs. D. S-P. Mech. Heat Fluid Flow 15. B. D. Fluid Mech. Leslie. B. 187. p. 1991. p. Durst et a/." J." Int.P. 1973. W. Springer-Verlag. B. B. B. Fluid Eng'g. 1989.A. 1987. "Calculation of annular and twin parallel jets using various discretization schemes and turbulence-model variations.Single-Point Closures 307 Launder. Launder. and Tselepidakis.M. W. Heidelberg. D... M.352. Heidelberg. Launder.C. J.P.E. pp. "Predicting riblet performance with engineering turbulence models. 183.. Developments in the Theory of Turbulence. A. Faculty of Technology. "Contribution to the second-moment modelling of sublayer turbulent transport" NearWall Turbulence (ed S.E. pp." Turbulent Shear Flows .. and Shima.E. 1994. 1990.." AIAA Paper 910219. p. Afgan)..A. 1993. University of Manchester.

and Wolfshtein. 8.217.45.308 B. M.. 738. G. M. Patel. p. A.." Phys. Orszag. 25." Advances in Applied Mechanics 18. Lumley. J. R. "Prediction of anisotropy of the near-wall turbulence with an anisotropic low Reynolds number k-e turbulence model.259. and Jeandel.M. Morse.E. Belgium. and Moin.. Shavit.. D. 1965. p... Fluid Mech. TM-85974. p.521. p." Near-Wall Turbulent Flows (Ed R. A." AIAA J.. 112. University of London." J. . D." NASA Rep. von Karman Inst. 1980. 1985.L. Faculty of Engineering.. D. J.1320. 1987. Phys.Lecture Series 76.414." Isv. Paris.).C. lll.. 1993. and Kasagi. S." .. 1981. P. "Computational modelling of turbulent flows. 1973." PhD Thesis. E. "Axisymmetric free shear flows with and without swirl. 1984. G.. "La simulation des modeles de turbulence et leurs applications. 1978.-Genese.. and Yoshizawa.. Ocean. 1990.S. Rodi. A.L. "Turbulent channel and Couette flows using an anisotropic k-e model." J. V. p. 1975. p. H. J. Newman. "On the symmetry of turbulence in the surface layer of air. Elsevier. J." AIAA J. and Wolfshtein. "Direct numerical simulations of curved channel flow. Launder. Launder Lumley. Monin. "Turbulence models for near-wall and low Reynolds number flows: a review.. A. and Lumley.. S. Technol. A. Shavit. So et a/. Israel J. Naot.K.p. Amsterdam. 1. Rhode-St..D. Myong. 23. Nisizima. Mathieu. N." I. and Scheuercr.. "Modelling the behavior of homogeneous. 1970.. Naot. W. Fluids 16. Eyrolles.C. Fluids Engrg. "Two-point correlation model and the redistribution of Reynolds stresses.L.123. scalar turbulence.P. Atmos. p. "Prediction methods for turbulent flow. "Renormalization group modelling and turbulence simulations. 1984. Moser. B.

Rodi. Roshko. "A new algebraic relation for calculating the Reynolds stresses. Free Shear Flows Con/. pp. "Renormalization group analysis of the stress transport equation.Single-Point Closures 309 Pope. L. Paris.. W. 1925. W. concepts and new directions in turbulence modelling and simulation. Reynolds and W. 1972. 186. 1978. J. "Statistiche Theorie nichthomogener Turbulenz.S. Eyrolles.7. G.1422-1436. A. W. University of London. Open forum discussion.C. p. R." Phys Fluids A 2. Rodi." AIA J. 1. 1945. Proc.136. Langley." Nachrichten von der Akad der Wissenschaft. Gottingen.. L. 1978." Proc.. M.. W. Rodi. pp. Proc. Reynolds. S. and Elghobashi. S.and 3-dimensional temperature fields." PhD Thesis.219. and Scheuerer. "Bericht iiber Untersuchungen zur ausgebildeten Turbulenz.. D. "On the dynamical theory of incompressible viscous fluids and the determination of the criterion.C.. . A.." Trans." ZAMM 5. p.. and Barton. 1951.." Phys.. p.." Z.E.1472. p. Prud'homme. "Prediction of wallbounded flows with an improved version of a Reynolds stress model.C." ZAMM 56. 1895. Faculty of Engineering. 1990. Rubinstein.M. p.629-635. Phys. Karlsruhe. Launder.B. Reynolds.123.547. NASA SP320. J^th Turbulent Shear Flows Symp.. "Turbulent heat transport in 2. Samaraweera. Soc. "Uber ein neues Formelsystem fur die ausgebildete Turbulenz.279. Roy. 1983. p.A. 16. 0. 129. 1984. Fluids 26. Prandtl." in Turbulence Models and their Applications II by B. 1983. J.. "Physical and analytical foundations. Prandtl. "An explanation of the round-jet/plane-jet anomaly. Rotta. 1976. "Calculation of curved shear layers with two equation turbulence models..

and Aerospace Eng. University of Manchester. Faculty of Engineering. 1984. Martelli). "On non-linear k-L and k-e models of turbulence. J. Shih. Turbulence Modelling and Measurement (ed.P." PhD Thesis. Younis. C. Rodi and F. Sibley School of Mech." Turbulent Shear Flows .. "Development and application of a new second-moment closure for turbulent near. "Realizability of Reynolds stress turbulence models. "On modelling the effects of streamline curvature on turbulent shear flows. and Lumley. Elsevier. Faculty of Technology. W. 2nd Int. A. Heidelberg.295-306.L.. J.H. U. 1993. 1979. Heidelberg. "Buoyancy effects on entraining turbulent boundary layers: a second order closure study." Phys. p. Launder Schumann.. Wyngaard. Taulbee.." PhD Thesis. and Wall. . Amsterdam. "The temperature skewness budget in the lower atmosphere and its implications for turbulence modelling." Turbulent Shear Flows. Tselepidakis. J. T. and Sundararajan. K.G.B. Speziale.A. 1977. 1992.. J. Durst et a/. pp. B. SpringerVerlag.M. p..1.. Symp. 178." Rep.R. FDA-85-3. Fluids 20.). F." Proc. Sonnenmeier. Cornell University. on Engrg. SpringerVerlag. D. and Lumley.. D.721.459. E.wall flows.C. "Modeling of pressure correlation terms in Reynolds stress and scalar flux equations.310 B..1 (ed. p.319.J.L. "Application of a new non-linear stress-strain model to axisymmetric swirling flow.." J. O. 1987. Fluid Mech. 1979. 1985. University of London. Zeman.

102 incompressible homogeneous.115 compressible. 194 dissipation rate. 248. 264 deformation work. 6 backscatter term. 97 remeshing. 224 dissipation anisotropy. 197 applications. 273 direct numerical simulation (DNS). 204-210 anisotropic eddy viscosity model. 100 homogeneous. 91 dissipation dilatational. 81 solution methods fast vortex. 223 Reynolds-average equations. see Favreaverages two-equation models. 96 spectral element.208 autocorrelation coefficient. 210 buoyancy effects. 257. 221 Reynolds-averages. 275 component. 189 coherent structure capturing. 202 algebraic second-moment models. see very large eddy simulation large eddy simulation. 26. 191. 227 311 Reynolds stress equation. 297299 . 86 resolution requirements. 148 compressed (expanded) isotropic turbulence. 88 viscous vortex. 119 backstep flow. 233 compressible turbulence equations of motion. 79. 103. see algebraic stress model algebraic stress model. 147 coherent structures. 226 Coriolis forces. 111. 229 compressible mixing layer convective Mach number. 250 closure problem. 220 homogeneous shear. 23 diffusive transport. 249. 146— 148 modeling. 290-293 low Reynolds number. 29. 85 inhomogeneous. 229 isotropic.Index algebraic dissipation rate model. 98 vector expansion.

9. 123 cross term. 244 force fields. 280 eigenvectors. 119. 20 negative production. 127-132 scale similarity. 247 mean-field scalar transport. 80. 267 ergodic hypothesis. 6 integrity bases. 275 Favre-aver ages. 201 universal spectrum. 216 ensemble average. 127 extra strain effects. 68 . 141-143 subgrid-scale models. 13 nonlinear eddy viscosity model. turbulence in. 10 energy cascade. 135-137 filtering. 156 eddy damped quasi-normal Markovian (EDQNM). 14 fading memory. 9. 188 equilibrium flows dissipation. 263 Kolmogorov. 169. 195 scales. 135 eddy shocklets. 288 mass flux. 125-127 shifted model. 187 integral length scale. 140 Smagorinsky. 284 modeling. 118 cutoff filter. 264 friction factor. 19 spectral cascade. see Favreaverages material frame-indifference. 9 hypothesis of local isotropy. 221. 109 a priori testing. 81 generalized gradient diffusion hypothesis. see viscous sublayer non-equilibrium flows energy cascade delay in crossing. 218 mean scalar transport.121. 200. 28 eddy viscosity model.312 Index large eddy simulation (LES). 156 Kurarnoto-Sivashinsky. 223 mass-weighted average. 187 near-wall asymptotic behavior. 102 homogeneous turbulence. 250 Helmholtz decomposition.288 isotropization of production model. 281 dissipation wavemimber. 118119 differential. 118 low Reynolds number turbulence. 25 elliptic relaxation model. 196 isotropic turbulence. 132-135 law of the wall. 116 numerical methods. 223. 273 heat flux. 103. 188 extra strain terms. 247 Navier-Stokes equations. 119-123 spectral. 245 mean-field closure. 6 equilibrium.247. 285 Leonard term. 137-138 dynamic. 194.

155 e—expansion. 195 stress coupling. 199 relaxation effects. 212 turbulent eddies. flow in. 163 applications flapping-hydrofoil. 210 one-equation models. 225 spectral scaling. 259 realizability. 187 rotating channel flow. 193 kinetic energy. 208 statistically steady turbulence. 5 square duct. 81 turbulent scalar flux. 258 pressure reflections. 187 strain rate tensor. 118 supersonic mixing layer. 192 near-wall. 232 third-order diffusion. 293-296 turbulence-turbulence part. 7 turbulent kinetic energy. 194 Reynolds-averaged equation. see Reynolds stress single-point closure. 37-42 wall region. 210. 112 Reynolds-averages. 248 313 statistical perturbation theory.Index nonlocal effects. 162-168 Reynolds stress. 300 rotating homogeneous shear. 42-52 quasi-isotropic model. 249 subgrid-scale Reynolds stress. 159-161 thermal noise. 192 . 265 principle of receding influence. 190 pressure Poisson equation. 225 pressure-strain correlation. 169 Reynolds stress anisotropy. 243 Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes (RANS). 162 Prandtl mixing length. 224 turbulent pipe flow. 11 turbulent Mach number. 255 proper orthogonal decomposition (POD). 246 turbulent transport equations dissipation rate. 205 rotational strains. 269 pressure-dilatation. 174-177 turbomachinery heat transfer. 205. 166 two-equation model. 204 second-moment closure. 171-174 resummation of divergent series. 177181 time-dependent turbomachinery. 210 renormalization group (RNG). 52-66 models using. see Reynolds stress second-order closure. 191 outscatter term. 33 eigenfunctions. 246 solenoidal dissipation rate equation. 218 regularization. see Leonard term power-law divergences.

213-220 wall models large eddy simulation. 286 Von Karman constant. 190 van Driest damping. 190 vorticity rate tensor. 195 wall effects. 190 Smagorinsky model. 253 zero-equation models. 138141 wall shear velocity. 67 WET concept.314 Index near-wall models. 296 . 190 Baldwin-Lomax model. 81 wavelets. 269 diffusion. 122 very large-eddy simulation (VLES). 147.175 viscous sublayer.

Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

We've moved you to where you read on your other device.

Get the full title to continue

Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.

scribd