Professional Documents
Culture Documents
M Enter 1994
M Enter 1994
Two new two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models will be presented. They combine different elements
of existing models that are considered superior to their alternatives. The first model, referred to as the baseline
(BSL) model, utilizes the original k-u model of Wilcox in the inner region of the boundary layer and switches
to the standard A>e model in the outer region and in free shear flows. It has a performance similar to the Wilcox
model, but avoids that model's strong freestream sensitivity. The second model results from a modification to
the definition of the eddy-viscosity in the BSL model, which accounts for the effect of the transport of the
principal turbulent shear stress. The new model is called the shear-stress transport-model and leads to major
Downloaded by IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY on January 23, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.12149
agreement with DNS data might only be a matter of interpre- lent shear stress. The resulting model will be called the shear-
tation. In the sublayer, Wilcox equates the quantity k in his stress transport (SST) model. It is this second step that leads to
model as being proportional to the normal component (with a major improvement in performance over both the original
respect to the wall) of the turbulent kinetic energy. This inter- &-co and the standard k-e model.
pretation leads to a very good agreement with experimental
and DNS data. In cases where the agreement with DNS data is Turbulence Model
considered important, the damping functions developed by New Baseline Model
Wilcox4 can be applied to the present model.
The A:-co model is also used in the logarithmic part of the The idea behind the BSL model is to retain the robust and
boundary layer. It has been shown1'5 that the behavior of the accurate formulation of the Wilcox k-u model in the near wall
A:-co model in the logarithmic region is superior to that of the region, and to take advantage of the freestream independence
k-e model in equilibrium adverse pressure gradient flows and of the k-e model in the outer part of the boundary layer. To
in compressible flows. achieve this, the k-e model is transformed into a &-co formula-
In the wake region of the boundary layer, the A:-co model has tion. The difference between this formulation and the original
to be abandoned in favor of the k-e model. The reason for this A:-co model is that an additional cross-diffusion term appears
switch is that the A:-co model has a very strong sensitivity to the in the co equation and that the modeling constants are different
(quiie arbitrary) freestream values co/ specified for co outside (A small additional diffusion term is neglected in the transfor-
the boundary layer. It has been shown in Ref. 6 that the eddy mation. It is shown in Ref. 9 that the term has virtually no
viscosity in boundary and free shear layers can be changed by effect on the solutions). The original model is then multiplied
more than 100% by simply reducing the value of co/. It has by a function F\ and the transformed model by a function
Downloaded by IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY on January 23, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.12149
also been shown in Ref. 6 that the k-e model does not suffer (1 - FI), and both are added together. The function Ft will be
from this deficiency. There is no mathematical theory to date designed to be one in the near wall region (activating the
which distinguishes between two-equation models that suffer original model) and zero away from the surface. The blending
from the freestream dependency and those that do not. It is will take place in the wake region of the boundary layer. The
therefore of great importance that the influence of freestream left-hand side of the following equations is the Lagrangian
values on the solutions of newly developed models is tested derivative: D/Dt: = d/dt +
very carefully. Original A:-co model:
The mathematical analysis of the behavior of two-equation
DpA: dk
models in adverse pressure gradient flows has been largely
restricted to the logarithmic region.1'7 Although the behavior
— --
E (D
of the model in the logarithmic region is of importance, espe-
cially in flows with moderate pressure gradients, it is the level 7i
of the eddy viscosity in the wake region that ultimately deter- Dt —
vt £l P)
mines the ability of an eddy-viscosity model to predict strong
adverse pressure gradient flows. This has been clearly demon- Transformed k-e model:
strated by the improvement that the Johnson-King model8
achieved over standard algebraic models by reducing the wake DpA: dui
region eddy viscosity in adverse pressure gradient flows. The Dt dxi £l 0)
limited influence of the logarithmic region on the results for
strong adverse pressure gradients is also evident in the failure Dpco
of the original A:-co model to accurately predict pressure-in-
duced separation (as will be shown later) despite its superior
log-region characteristics. The basic idea behind the Johnson- 1 aA: aco
King model is to enforce Bradshaw's observation that the -— — (4)
CO OXj OXj
principal turbulent shear stress is proportional to the turbulent
kinetic energy in the wake region of the boundary layer. Now, Eq. (1) and Eq. (2) are multiplied by Ft and Eq. (3) and
Enforcing this proportionality introduces a lag effect into the Eq. (4) are multiplied by (1 - FI) and the corresponding equa-
equations that accounts for the transport of the principal tions of each set are added together to give the new model:
turbulent shear stress. It will be shown that the classical for-
mulation of the eddy viscosity in two-equation models violates DpA: dk
Bradshaw's relation and thereby misses this important effect. +— 0* + °kpt) T- (5)
In the new model the eddy-viscosity formulation will be mod-
ified to take the transport effects into account.
Finally, in free shear layers away from surfaces, the stan- Dpco 7 d |~ x dcol
-=- - —— fa + 0^) ——
dard k-e model will be utilized. There does not seem to be a Dt vt dXj dXj I dXj]
model that accurately predicts all free shear flows (wake, jet,
mixing layer) and the k-e seems to be a fair compromise. 1 8k
2p(l - F!)(7w2 - — — (6)
To achieve the desired features in the different regions, the
standard high-Reynolds-number version of the k-e model will
be transformed to a A:-co formulation. It will then be multiplied Let 0! represent any constant in the original model (CTM, . . .),
by a blending function (1 — FI) and added to the original A:-co </>2 any constant in the transformed k-e model (ak2, . . .) and </>
model times FI . The blending function F\ will be designed to the corresponding constant of the new model (ok. . .), then the
be one in the sublayer and logarithmic region of the boundary relation between them is:
layer and to gradually switch to zero in the wake region. This
means that the new model will be based on a A:-co formulation, (7)
with the original Wilcox model activated in the near wall
region and the standard k-e model activated in the outer wake All constants, as well as the function Fl5 are given in the
region and in free shear layers. This first step leads to a new Appendix.
model that will be termed the baseline (BSL) model. The BSL
model has a performance very similar to that of the original Shear-Stress Transport Model
&-co model, but without the undesirable freestream dependency. One of the major differences between eddy-viscosity and full
In a second step, the definition of the eddy viscosity will be Reynolds-stress models, with respect to aerodynamic applica-
modified to account for the transport of the principal turbu- tions, is that the latter accounts for the important effect of the
1600 MENTER: EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS
transport of the principal turbulent shear stress r - : -pu'v' Model Versatility and Generality
(obvious notation) by the inclusion of the term The price for avoiding the freestream dependency and
achieving the improved performance due to the modification
DT dr in the eddy viscosity lies mainly in the necessary computation
= :
D? Tt + l dxk
(8)
of the blending functions FI, F2 and the additional cross-diffu-
sion term. The blending functions involve the distance from
The importance of this term has clearly been demonstrated by the surface which, however, has to be computed only once (as
the success of the Johnson-King (JK) model.8 Note that the long as there is no grid deformation). Note that the distance
main difference between the JK model and the Cebeci-Smith from the surface is uniquely defined as being the shortest
model lies in the inclusion of this term in the former, leading distance between the present point and all no-slip boundaries
to significantly improved results for adverse pressure gradient (distance does not have to be measured normal to a surface—
flows. The JK model features a transport equation for the e.g., backward-facing step). In most application codes, the
turbulent shear stress T that is based on Bradshaw's assump- boundary points have a marker and the computation of the
tion that the shear stress in a boundary layer is proportional to distance function can therefore be automated. The increase in
the turbulent kinetic energy k: complexity from the Wilcox model to the present model is
mainly in terms of coding. The overall computing time, as well
T= (9) as the stability of the code are not affected.
Once the model is implemented, it offers a wide variety of
with ai being a constant. On the other hand, in two-equation options. An example is a two-layer k-e model12 with the origi-
models, the shear stress is computed from: nal k-u model in the sublayer and the k-e model in the high-
Downloaded by IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY on January 23, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.12149
2.0 .2.0
——— k-w org. (high «f) ———— k-w BSL (high
- - k-o) org. (low Wf) - - - k-w BSL (low
1.5 1.5
1.0 £ 1.0
0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0
0 1 2 . 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
ixt/u.6'x100
Fig. 1 Freestream dependency of the eddy viscosity for the original and the BSL A:-co model.
MENTER: EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 1601
k-u model. Then, the preceding value was reduced by four stress. As expected, the JL k-e model produces the least accu-
orders of magnitude and the computations were repeated with rate results, with the BSL and the original £-co model being
both models. Note that the freestream value of k was also close to each other in the middle.
reduced to keep the freestream value of the eddy-viscosity Figure 3, depicting the wall shear-stress distribution for
constant (the freestream value of the eddy viscosity has no Driver's flow, shows that the SST model predicts the largest
influence, as long as it is small compared to its values inside amount of separation, whereas the JL model stays firmly
the boundary layer). Figure 1 shows eddy-viscosity profiles for attached. Again, the BSL and the original A:-co model produce
the original and the BSL A:-co model. The eddy viscosity of the very similar results.
original model changes by almost 100% due to the changes in The differences between the models can be seen in Fig. 4,
co/, whereas the BSL model gives the same results for both which shows the velocity profiles. The SST model clearly
cases. The strong sensitivity of the original model to co/ is produces the best agreement with the experiments. The larger
clearly unacceptable and can lead to a severe deterioration of displacement effect predicted by this model is reflected in the
the results for complex flows, as will be shown later. Results flattening of the cp distribution as was observed in Fig. 2. The
of the SST model are also independent of co/. A more detailed original k -co model predicts slightly better results than the BSL
study of the freestream dependency can be found in Refs. 6 model, and the JL k-e model shows very little sensitivity to the
and 9. pressure gradient, as was already reflected in Figs. 2 and 3.
In each of the following comparisons between the different The reasons for the different behavior of the models can be
models, co/was always chosen according to the formula given seen in the following two pictures. Figure 5 compares turbu-
in Ref. 6. lent shear-stress profiles at different stations. The JL model
Zero pressure gradient flat plate boundary layer computa-
tions are given in Ref. 9. All models give good agreement with
the experimental correlations for u + versus y+ and c/. The 0.4
k-« SST
A:-co models can be run with the first gridpoint as far out as k-w BSL
y+ = 3 without a deterioration of the results. k—u orq.
k-e JL
o 0.2 Experiment
Free Shear Layers o "
For free shear layers the SST and the BSL models reduce to x_
u~
the same model (F\ = 0; F2 = 0), and are virtually identical to 0.0
the standard k-e model. Because the behavior of the k-e model
for free shear layers is well known, and because of space
limitations, results are not shown here, but can be found in -0.2
Ref. 9. Reference 9 also shows the ambiguity of the results of -4 -2 0
the original A:-co model1 with respect to the freestream values. x/D
Adverse Pressure Gradient Flows Fig. 3 Wall shear-stress distribution for Driver's adverse pressure-
One of the most important aspects of a turbulence model gradient flow.
for aerodynamic applications is its ability to accurately predict
adverse pressure gradient boundary-layer flows. It is especially
important that a model be able to predict the location of flow
separation and the displacement effect associated with it.
The test case most widely used to measure the performance
of turbulence models under adverse pressure gradient condi-
tions is the flow reported by Samuel and Joubert.16 Results for
this flow are shown in Ref. 9 and are not reproduced here due
to space limitations. It was found in Ref. 9 that all three A:-co
models reproduce the experimental data very well, whereas the
JL k-e model gives values that are too high for c/.
The small differences between the solutions reported in Ref.
9, especially between the different A:-co models, do not allow
final conclusions about the abilities of the models to predict
adverse pressure gradient flows. It appears that the Samuel- Fig. 4 Velocity profiles for Driver's adverse pressure-gradient flow
Joubert flow does not pose a sufficiently strong challenge to at x/D = -0.091, 0.363, 1.088, 1.633, and 2.177.
1602 MENTER: EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS
0.5 Experiment
ration and the resulting viscous-inviscid interaction.
The new models require an increased amount of program-
ming effort compared to the original A:-co model. However,
once programmed, the new models consume only insignifi-
cantly more computing time and more importantly, they have
proven to be very stable even in complex applications.23 The
concept underlying the new models is very flexible and lends
itself to a multitude of different combinations. An example
-0.5 given in the text is a two-layer k-e model.
0.4 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.6
/
x/c It is the author's conviction that a turbulence model has to
be tested rigorously for a large number of flows, to establish
Fig. 10 Comparison of surface pressure distributions for transonic the boundaries of its usefulness. Because of the limitations of
bump flow at M = 0.925.
the available theoretical tools and the severe assumptions in-
volved, this is also true for models based on more theoretical
arguments. The new models are presently tested for transonic
times larger than it was in the previous computations. The flows with very encouraging results. An early version of the
change in co/had very little impact on the computation with the SST model has been tested for complex three-dimensional
SST model (small changes might be due to a slight influence flows in Ref. 24. The results compare very favorably with the
on the transition behavior), whereas the original A:-co model results of a full Reynolds-stress model, but significantly more
predicts significantly different results. The results of the origi- testing in three-dimensional flows will be necessary.
nal model for the high co/ are very close to those of the BSL
model, as had to be expected from the derivation of the Appendix: Baseline and Shear-Stress Transport Models
models. This example clearly shows the dangers of using the Baseline Model
original A:-co model for industrial applications.
DpA: dUj
Transonic Bump Flow (Al)
The final test case is the axisymmetric transonic shock-
wave/turbulent boundary-layer experiment of Bachalo and Dpco i n .
- ~ Tfj —L - ftoco2 + — 0*
Johnson.22 In this experiment, an axisymmetric boundary
layer interacts with a shock wave created by a circular arc. It
is beyond the scope of this paper to present a detailed study of + 2(1 - (A2)
transonic flows and only the highest Mach number case
(M = 0.925) will be shown. The number of gridpoints used
was 150 x 3 x 80. Grid independence was established by using The constants </> of the new model are calculated from the
different grids (129 x 3 x 60 and 180 x 3 x 100). Figure 10 constants, <t>\, f a , as follows:
shows the wall pressure distribution computed by the different
models, compared with the experiment. The SST model pre- (A3)
dicts significantly better results than the other models, due to
its improved transport features. Detailed comparisons for The constants of set 1 (</>i) are (Wilcox):
transonic flows will be presented in the future. 0*1 = 0.5, owi = 0.5, fa = 0.0750
(A4)
Conclusions /3* = 0.09, K = 0.41, Tl = fa/0* - awl K
Two new turbulence models have been developed on a
strictly empirical basis. They are combinations of what the The constants of set 2 (</>2) are (standard k-e):
author considers to be the best available elements of existing a*2=1.0, o«2 = 0.856, 02 = 0.0828
eddy-viscosity models to date. Both models are based on a A:-co (A5)
formulation which is superior to other formulations with re- 0* = 0.09, K = 0.41, =
T2
gard to numerical stability. In a first step, a new baseline
(BSL) model has been derived. It utilizes the original A:-co With the following definitions:
model in the sub- and log-layer and gradually switches to the
standard k-e model in the wake region of the boundary layer. k
vt = — (A6)
The k-e model is also used in free shear layers. For boundary- CO
1604 MENTER: EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS
. 500A
(A7) arg2 = max ( 2 • (A16)
Important detail!
In applying this model, it is important that the reader be
) = tanh (arg{) (A8) aware of the following ambiguity in the formulation of the
production term of co for the SST model. The definition of the
production term of co is sometimes written as:
V*500
arg, = (A9)
co du;
P* = 7 T ru —- (All)
where y is the distance to the next surface and CDku is the which introduces the nondimensional group vt (co//:) in front
positive portion of the cross-diffusion term of Eq. (A2): of the strain rate tensor. In the original and in the BSL model
this group is equal to one and the two formulations for Pw are
therefore identical. This is not the case for the SST model
(2pa w2 - — -^» 1Q-20) (A10) because of Eq. (A14). The SST model has been calibrated with
\ a) oXj oXj J respect to Eq. (A2) and Eq. (A17) should therefore not be used.
The term arg! obviously goes to zero far enough away from Acknowledgments
Downloaded by IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY on January 23, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.12149
solid surfaces because of the l/y or l/y2 dependency in all The author wants to thank S. E. Rogers and J. Bardina for
three terms in Eq. (A9). Inside a boundary layer the three providing the mean flow solvers for the incompressible and
arguments in Eq. (A9) have the following purpose: the first the transonic computations, respectively, as well as their assis-
argument is the turbulent length scale divided by y. It is equal tance in implementing the turbulence models.
to 2.5 in the log layer and goes to zero towards the boundary-
layer edge. The second argument ensures that FI is equal to References
one in the sublayer [note that co goes like l/y2 in the near wall !
region and is proportional to l/y in the log region, so that Wilcox, D. C., "Reassessment of the Scale-Determining Equation
for Advanced Turbulence Models," AIAA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 11,
l/(co.y2) is constant near the surface and goes to zero in the log
1988, pp. 1299-1310.
region]. The third argument is an additional safeguard against 2
Michelassi, V., and Shih, T.-H., "Elliptic Flow Computation by
the freestream-dependent solution. It can be shown that the Low Reynolds Number Two-Equation Turbulence Models," NASA
last argument ensures that argj goes to zero near the bound- TM-105376, CMOTT-91-11, Dec. 1991.
3
ary-layer edge in case the "degenerate" solution given in Ref. Wilcox, D. C., "Comparison of Two-Equation Turbulence Mod-
6 is approached. As arg! goes to zero near the boundary-layer els for Boundary Layers with Pressure Gradient," AIAA Journal,
Vol. 31, No. 8, 1993, pp. 1414-1421.
edge, so does FI so that the standard k-e is used in that region. 4
The following choice of freestream values is recommended: Wilcox, D. C., "A Half Century Historical Review of the k-w
Model," AIAA Paper 91-0615, Jan. 1991.
5
Huang, P. G., Bradshaw, P., and Coakley, T. J., "Assessment of
Closure Coefficients for Compressible-Flow Turbulence Models,"
(All) NASA TM-103882, March 1992.
6
Menter, F. R., "Influence of Freestream Values on k-u Turbu-
lence Model Predictions," AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 6, 1992, pp.
where L is the approximate length of the computational domain. 1651-1659.
7
The boundary condition for co at a solid surface is: Rodi, W., and Scheurer, G., "Scrutinizing the k-e Model Under
Adverse Pressure Gradient Conditions," Journal of Fluids Engineer-
ing, Vol. 108, June 1986, pp. 174-179.
8
Johnson, D. A., and King, L. S., "Mathematically Simple Turbu-
co =10 at y = 0 (A12) lence Closure Model for Attached and Separated Turbulent Boundary
Layers," AIAA Journal, Vol. 23, No. 11, 1985, pp. 1684-1692.
9
Menter, F. R., "Zonal Two Equation k-w Turbulence Models for
where Ayi is the distance to the next point away from the wall. Aerodynamic Flows," AIAA Paper 93-2906, July 1993.
10
Equation (A 12) simulates the smooth wall boundary condition Menter, F. R., "Performance of Popular Turbulence Models for
+ Attached and Separated Adverse Pressure Gradient Flows," AIAA
of Ref. 1 as long as 4y, <3. Journal, Vol. 30, No. 8, 1992, pp. 2066-2072.
n
Driver, D. M., "Reynolds Shear Stress Measurements in a Sepa-
Shear-Stress Transport Model rated Boundary Layer," AIAA Paper 91-1787, June 1991.
12
Rodi, W., "Experience with a Two-Layer Model Combining the
The SST model is identical to the preceding formulation, k-e Model with a One-Equation Model Near the Wall," AIAA Paper
except that the constants, 0i, have to be changed to: 91-0216, Reno, NV, Jan. 1991.
Set 1 (SST inner): 13
Rogers, S. E., and Kwak, D., "An Upwind Differencing Scheme
for the Time-Accurate Incompressible Navier-Stokes Equations,"
(7*! = 0.85, crwl = 0.5, 0! = 0.0750, ^ = 0.31 AIAA Paper 88-2583, June 1988.
14
Rogers, S. E., private communication. NASA Ames, 1993.
15
(A13) Launder, B. E., and Sharma, B. I., "Application of the Energy-
18* = 0.09, /c = 0.41, 7i Dissipation Model of Turbulence to the Calculation of Flow near a
Spinning Disk," Letters in Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 1, No. 1,
and the eddy viscosity is defined as: 1974, pp. 131-138.
16
Samuel, A. E., and Joubert, P. N., "A Boundary Layer Develop-
ing in an Increasingly Adverse Pressure Gradient," Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, Vol. 66, Pt. 3, 1974, pp. 481-505.
(A14) 17
Driver, D. M., and Seegmiller, H. L., "Features of a Reattaching
Turbulent Shear Layer in Divergent Channel Flow," AIAA Journal,
Vol. 23, No. 2, 1985, pp. 163-172.
18
where 0 is the absolute value of the vorticity. F2 is given by: Thangam, S., and Speciale, C. G., "Turbulent Separated Flow
Past a Backward-Facing Step: A Critical Evaluation of Two-Equation
Turbulence Models," Institute for Computer Applications in Science
F2 = tanh (arg2) (A15) and Engineering, ICASE Rept. 91-23, 1991.
MENTER: EDDY-VISCOSITY TURBULENCE MODELS 1605
19
Abid, R., Speciale, C. G., and Thangam, S., "Application of a sonic Turbulent Boundary Layer Separation Generated on an Axisym-
New k-r Model to Near Wall Turbulent Flows," AIAA Paper 91- metric Flow Model," AIAA Paper 79-1479, June 1979.
23
0614, Jan. 1991. Rogers, S. E., Menter, F. R., Mansour, N. N., and Durbin, P. A.,
20
Coles, D., and Wadock, A. J., 'Tlying-Hot-Wire Study of Flow "A Comparison of Turbulence Models in Computing Multi-Element
Past an NACA 4412 Airfoil at Maximum Lift," AIAA Journal, Vol. Airfoil Flows," AIAA Paper 94-0291, Jan. 1994.
24
17, No. 4, 1979, pp. 321-328. Menter, F. R., "Assessment of Higher Order Turbulence Models
21
Rogers, S. E., Wiltberg, N. L., and Kwak, D., "Efficient Simula- for Complex 2D and 3D Flow Fields," Proceedings of the Second
tion of Incompressible Viscous Flow Over Single and Multi-Element International Symposium on Engineering Turbulence Modeling and
Airfoils," AIAA Paper 92-0405, Jan. 1992. Measurements (Florence, Italy), Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1993, pp.
22
Bachalo, W. D., and Johnson, D. A., "An Investigation of Tran- 229-239.
Downloaded by IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY on January 23, 2019 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.12149
Procedure Writing
Principles and Practices
Douglas Wieringa, Christopher Moore, and Valeric Barnes
Procedures are instruc- from booting up a per- parts of these documents principles govern the way
tions, and this book ex- sonal computer to oper- may be considered pro- it should be written. The
plains how to write in- ating a nuclear power cedures if they present authors drawon their more
structions so that others plant during an emer- instructions. No matter than ten years of experi-
can understand them. gency. Plans, mission how simple or complex ence and present their prin-
Procedures can range statements, proposals, the procedure is, certain ciples in this book.
from simple to complex; and technical articles are 1993, 211 pages, Paperback
they describe anything not procedures, although ISBN 0-935470-68-9, $29.95, Order #: PPP-1(945)
&AIAA Sales Tax: CA residents, 8.25%; DC, 6%. For shipping and handling add $4.75 for 1-4 books (call
for rates for higher quantities). Orders under $100.00 must be prepaid. Foreign orders must be
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
prepaid and include a $20.00 postal surcharge. Please allow 4 weeks for delivery. Prices are
Publications Customer Service, 9 jay Could Ct., P.O. Box 753, Waldorf, MD 20604 subject to change without notice. Returns will be accepted within 30 days. Non-U.S. residents
FAX 301/843-0159 Phone 1-800/682-2422 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. Eastern are responsible for payment of any taxes required by their government. |