A Review of Recent Developments in Turbulence

Modeling of Flows around Road Vehicles

Kartheek Chandra
UNC Charlotte
Charlotte, NC, USA
In the partial completion of MEGR 7090:006 Vehicular Aerodynamics
Under Guidance of Dr. Mesbah Uddin
Abstract:
Even though Detached-eddy simulation (DES) was first developed in 1997 and first time used in 1999 our
aim in this paper is to portray the recent developments and proposals in DES models suggest after 2005 like
cubic explicit algebraic stress models by Greschner et al. in 2008 and zonal DES in which in which the use of
a single but versatile equation set is very important and has worked for Simon et al. in 2007 for base flow.
DES is more capable presently than either unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) or large-eddy
simulation (LES) for High Reynolds Number but it is weak against grids with wall spacing same as boundary
layer thickness.
Key words:
Turbulence, Separation, Modelling

I. INTRODUCTION


The above picture is an Acoustic isosurface
around a symmetrical Ford Ka automobile (es turbo
3.1) (Mendonca et al. 2002). Figure courtesy of F.
Mendonca and Ford Motor Co.
Boundary layers and LES content around the
wheels and mirror are important. The separation
line near the end of the roof is the major cause of
drag and also responsible for the accuracy of RANS
models.


II. BACKGROUND:

The challenge of highReynolds number, and
massively separated flows for RANS and LES
models and hence DES model is created.
For a pure LES model to run for a ground
vehicle we need 10
11
grid points and 10
7
time steps
for which we dont have the computational costs to
bear as of now. Infact an estimation by Spalart is
told that the problem cannot be addressed till 2045
A.D (Spalart 2000). No breakthrough in LES had
ooccured from 1997. RANS is pretty accurate to
predict boundary layers but not large separation
regions.
In the original proposed DES model in 1997, we
used LES at fine grid regions and RANS in non-fine
grid regions. But between these two a grey matter is
present which does not belong to either LES or
RANS category. A grid spacing parameter, is
introduced with RANS origin and which works
flexible in the grey region.
The simulations were incorrect through
Unsteady RANS (URANS) which was the leading
models for prediction through CFD simulations till
2005. In 2005 DES is found to be more accurate
than URANS for 3D geometry lift and drag
fluct
uations. The reason is the mesh, which doesnt
become coarser in URANS and DES makes the
mesh fine enough.
In the below mentioned figure Vorticity iso-
surfaces by a small circular cylinder are shown
with: ReD = 5 10
4
, laminar separation. Cd between
1.151.25. (1) Shear-stress transport (SST)
turbulence model steady Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS), Cd = 0.78; (2) SST 2D
unsteady RANS, Cd = 1.73; (3) SST 3D unsteady
RANS, with Cd = 1.24; (4) Spalart-Allmaras (SA)
detached-eddy simulation (DES), coarse grid, Cd =
1.16; (5) SA DES, fine grid, Cd = 1.26; (6) SST
DES, fine grid, Cd = 1.28. Figure courtesy of A.
Travin.


III. DES ON SIMPLE SPHERE

Figure IIIa

Figure IIIb

The figures shown above are flow visualizations
and pressure distributions on a simple sphere as a
bluff body.
Firufi

Figure shown above is phase averaged vorticity
contours for the same sphere as the cylinder. And
the final picture is a simulation conducted on DES
model and mockered lines are simulations done on
different models.

LES generates well at the Kolmogorov viscous
scale limitation, and wall modeling predicts the
similar viscous-sublayer scale. In its RANS mode,
DES in addition to the LES generated advantages
depicts the boundary-layer eddies of all sizes. But if
these eddies become dependent on the geomotry,
then we need to solve the eddies through LES
simulation which increase the points to more than
10
8
points which we are using right now. But this is
increased at computational cost.
IV. DISADVANTAGES
1. Modeled-Stress Depletion and Grid-Induced
Separation
2. Logarithmic-Layer Mismatch
3. Slow Large-Eddy Simulation Development
in Mixing Layers
V. APPLICATIONS
Noise is one important direction we can go to
through DES models developed by Mockett et al.
(2008) and Greschner et al. (2008): aerodynamic
noise.

The above mentioned figure depicts the
experimental noise and DES models noise depicted
by Greschner et al. in 2008. In the belo mentioned
figures in Chauvet et al. 2007 shows the
epxperimetal and computational schlieren of a
supersonic jet.

Experimental Schlieren

Comupational Schlieren through DES model.

The DES model is simple to let LES in and
robust to capture shocks. Hence by comparing the
two results one through experiment and another
through simulations we can say that we dont need
to separately use LES at all for high reynolds
numbered and high velocity flows.
VI. RECENT PROPOSALS
A. Alternative RANS Models
The original construction of DES rested on the
simple Spalart-Allmaras model and no CFD should
be restricted to only one model. Hence researches
are trying for SST models and Greschner et al.s in
2008 proposed cubic explicit algebraic stress
models.
B. Zonal Detached-Eddy Simulation
In zonal DES, we explicitly mark different
regions as RANS or as DES models proposed by
Deck in 2005. In wing buffet zonal DES worked
well for Brunet & Deck, Slimon for a Duck.
C. Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation and
Improved Delayed
The motive behind this model is not to be
specific like zonal DES and hence Menter & Kuntz
in 2002 proposed this DDES which detects
boundary layers and prolongs full RANS mode.
DDES was proved that it resolved GIS, without
hindering LES function after separation. For
example, it handled a backward-facing-step flow
perfectly, even with grids that causes severe MSD
both upstream of the step and also along the
opposite wall. DDES, because of its robustness can
be called as new DES.
Improved delayed DES (IDDES) is more
motivated yet (Shur et al. in 2008). The approach is
also non-zonal and aims at resolving log-layer
mismatch in addition to MSD.

VII. CONCLUDING REMARKS
We can say that DES in more preferable
compared to RANS or LES models but we still have
a lot to achieve as we not yet predicted 10%
accurately each of Drag and Lift. And yet we take
conduct the simulations at a very high
computational cost.
VIII. FUTURE WORK
1. Resolution between geometries needs to be
improved and a better grid is to be generated.
2. Link between DES and DNS flow is to be
time-honored.
IX. COPYRIGHT FORMS
Some of the material used in this paper is
copyright information and hence cant be revealed
completely. But sufficient details are mentioned to
understand the intended material.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I would like to thank Philippe R. Spalart, Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Seattle,Washington 98124;
email: philippe.r.spalart@boeing.com for his
insightful books and articles in these related issues.
His article is on DES is an astute understanding
material of the same.
REFERENCES
1. Forsythe JR, Hoffmann KA, Squires KD.
2002. Detached-eddy simulation with
compressibility corrections applied to a
supersonic axisymmetric base flow.
Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet.
Exhib., 40th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2002-
0586
2. Forsythe JR, Strang WZ, Squires KD. 2006.
Six degree of freedom computation of the F-
15E entering a spin. Presented at AIAA
Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 44th, Reno, Pap.
No. AIAA-2006-0858
3. Forsythe JR, Squires KD, Wurtzler E, Spalart
PR. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation of the
F-15E at high alpha. J. Aircraft 41:193200
4. Frolich J, von Terzi D. 2008. Hybrid
LES/RANS methods for the simulation of
turbulent flows. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 44:34977
5. Fu S, Xiao Z, Chen H, Zhang Y, Huang J.
2007. Simulation of wing-body junction
flows with hybrid RANS/LES methods. Int.
J. Heat Fluid Flow 28:137990
6. Greschner B, Jacob MC, Casalino D, Thiele
F. 2008. Prediction of sound generated by a
rod-airfoil configuration using EASM DES
and the generalised Lighthill/FW-H analogy.
Comp. Fluids 37:40213
7. Hamed A, Basu D, Das K. 2003. Detached
eddy simulation of supersonic flow over
cavity. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet.
Exhib., 41st, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-
0549
8. Hedges LS, Travin A, Spalart PR. 2002.
Detached-eddy simulations over a simplified
landing gear. J. Fluids Eng. 124:41323
9. Hou Y, Mahesh K. 2004. A robust, colocated,
implicit algorithm for direct numerical
simulation of compressible, turbulent flows.
J. Comp. Phys. 205:20521
10. Kapadia S, Roy S, Wurtzler K. 2003.
Detached-eddy simulation over a reference
Ahmed car model. Presented at Thermophys.
Conf., 36th, Orlando, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-
0857
11. Krishnan V, Squires KD, Forsythe JR. 2004.
Prediction of separated flow characteristics
over a hump using RANS and DES.
Presented at AIAA Flow Control Conf., 2nd,
Portland, Pap. No. AIAA-2004-2224
12. Langtry RB, Spalart PR. 2007. Detached-
eddy simulation of a nose landing-gear
cavity. Presented at. IUTAM Symp.
Unsteady Separated Flows and Their
Control, Corfu, Greece
13. Maddox S, Squires KD, Wurtzler KE,
Forsythe JR. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation
of the ground transportation system.
McCallen et al. 2004, pp. 89104
14. Allen R, Mendonca F, Kirkham D. 2005.
RANS and DES turbulence model
predictions of noise on the M219 cavity at M
= 0.85. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 4:13551
15. Breuer M, Jovicic N, Mazaev K. 2003.
Comparison of DES, RANS and LES for the
separated flow around a flat plate at high
incidence. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids
41:35788
16. Brunet V, Deck SF. 2008. Zonal-detached
eddy simulation of transonic buffet on a civil
aircraft type configuration. Peng & Haase
2008, pp. 18291
17. Bunge U, Mockett C, Thiele F. 2007.
Guidelines for implementing detached-eddy
simulation using different models. Aerosp.
Sci. Technol. 11:37685
18. Caruelle B, Ducros F. 2003. Detached-eddy
simulations of attached and detached
boundary layers. Int. J. CFD 17:43351
19. Chalot F, Levasseur V, Mallet M, Petit G,
Reau N. 2007. LES and DES simulations for
aircraft design. Presented at AIAA Aerosp.
Sci. Meet. Exhib., 45th, Reno, Pap. No.
AIAA-2007-0723
20. Chauvet N, Deck S, Jacquin L. 2007. Zonal
detached eddy simulation of a controlled
propulsive jet. AIAA J. 45:245873
21. Constantinescu GS, Pacheco R, Squires KD.
2002. Detached-eddy simulation of flow over
a sphere. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci.
Meet. Exhib., 40th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-
2002-0425
22. Constantinides Y, Oakley OH. 2006.
Numerical prediction of bare and straked
cylinder VIV. Proc. 25th Int. Conf. Offshore
Mech. Artic Eng., Pap. No. OMAE2006-
92334. New York: ASME Int.
23. Cummings RM, Morton SA, Forsythe JR.
2004. Detached-eddy simulation of slat and
flap aerodynamics for a high-lift wing.
Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet.
Exhib., 42nd, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2004-
1233
24. Deck S. 2005. Zonal detached-eddy
simulation of the flow around a high-lift
configuration with deployed slat and flap.
AIAA J. 43:237284
25. Deck S, Thorigny P. 2007. Unsteadiness of
an axisymmetric separating-reattaching flow.
Phys. Fluids 19:065103
26. Egorov Y, Menter F. 2008. Development and
application of SST-SAS turbulence model in
the DESider project. Peng & Haase 2008, pp.
26170
27. McCallen R, Browand F, Ross J, eds. 2004.
The Aerodynamics of Heavy Vehicles:
Trucks, Buses, and Trains. New York:
Springer
28. Mellen CP, Fr olich J, Rodi W. 2003.
Lessons from LESFOIL project on large-
eddy simulation of flow around an airfoil.
AIAA J. 41:57381
29. Mendonca F, Allen R, de Charentenay J,
Kirkham D. 2003. CFD prediction of
narrowband and broadband cavity acoustics
atM = 0.85. Presented at AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoust. Conf. Exhib., Hilton Head,
South Carolina, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-3303
30. Mendonca F, Allen R, de Charentenay
J, Lewis M. 2002. Towards
understanding LES and DES for
industrial aeroacoustic predictions.
Presented at Int.Workshop LES Acoust.,
Gottingen
31. Menter FR, Kuntz M. 2002. Adaptation
of eddy-viscosity turbulence models to
unsteady separated flow behind
vehicles. See McCallen et al. 2004, pp.
33952
32. Menter FR, Kuntz M, Bender R. 2003.
A scale-adaptive simulation model for
turbulent flow predictions. Presented at
AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 41st,
Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-0767
33. Mitchell AM, Molton P, Berberis D,
Delery J. 2000. Oscillation of vortex
breakdown location and control of the
time-averaged location by blowing.
AIAA J. 38:793803
34. Mockett C, Greschner B, Knacke T,
Perrin R, Yan J, Thiele F. 2008.
Demonstration of improved DES
methods for generic and industrial
applications. See Peng & Haase 2008,
pp. 22231
35. Mockett C, Thiele F. 2007. Overview of
detached-eddy simulation for external
and internal turbulent flow applications.
Presented at Int. Conf. Fluid Mech., 5th,
Shanghai, China
36. Morton SA. 2003. High Reynolds
numberDESsimulations of vortex
breakdown over a 70 degree delta wing.
Presented at Appl. Aerodyn. Conf., 21st,
Orlando, Pap. No. AIAA-2003-4217
37. Simon F, Deck S, Guillen P, Sagaut P,
Merlen A. 2007. Numerical simulation
of the compressible mixing layer past an
axisymmetric trailing edge. J. Fluid
Mech. 591:21553
38. Slimon S. 2003. Computation of internal
separated flows using a zonal detached
eddy simulation approach. Proc. ASME
Int. Mech. Eng. Congr., Pap. No.
IMECE2003-43881. New York: ASME
Int.
39. Spalart PR. 2000. Strategies for
turbulence modelling and simulations.
Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 21:25263
Spalart PR. 2001. Young persons guide
to detached-eddy simulation grids. Tech.
Rep. NASA CR-2001-211032.
40. Langley Res. Center, Hampton,Va.
http://techreports.larc.nasa.gov/ltrs/PDF/
2001/cr/NASA-2001-cr211032.pdf
41. Sagaut P, Deck S, Terracol M. 2006.
Multiscale and Multiresolution
Approaches to Turbulence. London:
Imp. Coll.Press
42. Shieh CM, Morris PJ. 2001.
Comparison of two- and three-
dimensional cavity flows. Presented at
AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 39th,
Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2001-0511
43. Shur ML, Spalart PR, Squires KD,
Strelets M, Travin A. 2005a. Three-
dimensionality in unsteady Reynolds
averaged Navier-Stokes simulations of
two-dimensional geometries. AIAA J.
43:123042
44. Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh.
2005b. Noise prediction for increasingly
complex jets. Part I: methods and tests.
Int J. Aeroacoust. 4:21346
45. ShurML,Spalart PR,
StreletsMKh.2005c. Noise prediction for
increasingly complex jets. Part II:
applications. Int J. Aeroacoust. 4:247
66
46. Travin AK, Shur ML, Spalart PR,
Strelets MKh. 2004. On URANS
solutions with LES-like behaviour.
Presented at Eur. Cong. Comput.
Methods Appl. Sci. Eng., Jyvaskyla,
Finland
47. Travin AK, Shur ML, Spalart PR,
Strelets MKh. 2006. Improvement of
Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation for
LES with wall modelling. Presented at
Eur. Conf. CFD, ECCOMAS CDF
2006. Delft, Neth.
48. Wilcox DC. 1998. Turbulence Modeling
for CFD. La Ca nada, CA: DCW Ind.
49. Wilson RP, Haupt SE, Peltier LJ, Kunz
RF. 2006. Detached Eddy Simulation of
a surface mounted cube at high
Reynolds number. Proc. ASME Joint
U.S. Eur. Fluids Eng. Summer Meet.
New York: ASME Int.
50. Yan J, Tawackolian K, Michel U, Thiele
F. 2007. Computation of jet noise using
a hybrid approach. Presented at
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoust. Conf., 13th,
Pap. No. AIAA-2007-3621
51. Ziefle J, Kleiser L. 2008.
Compressibility effects on turbulent
separated flow in streamwise-periodic
hill channel, part 2. See Peng & Haase
2008, pp. 31625