TURBULENCE SIMULATION AND MODELING

What is Simulation?
Numerical solution of equations for instantaneous or fluctuating ve-
locity field, or an approximation of it.
What is Modeling?
Solving equations for some averaged or probabilistic quantity, after
assumptions or approximations used to address the closure problem.

1. Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS)

• exact instantaneous N-S, representing all the scales
• massive detail, in simplified geometries
• a grand challenge in high-performance computing
2. Large-eddy Simulation (LES)
• compute large scales only, model effect of small scales
• mix of physics and numerics: see Pope Chap 13.
• often assume local isotropy: harder near walls
3. Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)
• If solving for mean flow: eddy viscosity hypothesis (Chap 10)
• Or closures for Reynolds stress tensor (Chap 11)
4. PDF Methods and stochastic modeling
• Derive equation for PDF, which can give us all the moments
• Or model fluctuations as random process in time. (Chap 12).

In this course, we mainly consider RANS and eddy viscosity.

AE 6080 (Spring 2022): Reynolds stress models, PDF, LES + more.
1
Criteria for assessing different approaches (Pope Sec. 8.3)

Two extremes: DNS and eddy viscosity model with −uv = νT ∂U /∂y

1. Level of Description
DNS is (numerically) exact. Can provide almost any statistic
from data on the fluctuations. EVM: mean velocity field at most
2. Completeness
DNS: no additional unknown parameters (NS is known)
EVM by mixing length (`m): νT = `2m|∂U /∂y|, where `m has to
be prescribed or calculated from something.
3. Cost and ease of use
DNS: high cost, but effective tool for understanding
EVM: easy to use, but quality of results may be uncertain.
4. Range of applicability
DNS: numerical methods and domain geometry often coupled
EVM: applicability of model may be geometry-dependent too.
5. Accuracy (most important!)
Results from models must be tested vs reliable expt or DNS data,
Improvement possible only if cause of discrepancies is known.
(a) inaccurate physics in the model. (examine analytically?)
(b) errors in numerical schemes (any bugs hiding in the code?)
(c) uncertainties in the data (within some tolerance?)
(d) discrepancies between model and expt/DNS in IC, BC
No model will be perfect. But always want to do better.
2
 EDDY VISCOSITY MODELING

For plane wakes, νT = const and −uv = νT ∂U /∂y were not too
bad. But there are flows with stronger inhomogeneity. −uv can be
nonzero even if S ij = 0 (think separation). Need a closer look, in
tensor form. Two key components:

1. The turbulent viscosity hypothesis:

 
2 ∂U i ∂U j
huiuj i = Kδij − νT +
3 ∂xj ∂xi
(Symmetric and same trace on both sides)
2. Specification/calculation of νT as (in general) a function of space
and time, with many variants.

The turbulent viscosity hypothesis: 2 major assumptions

(A) Deviatoric/anisotropic part of Reynolds stress tensor treated

as a function of local mean strain rate only.
This is the same behavior as we know for viscous stress tensor.
In the above, LHS = RHS for all i, j in isotropic turbulence.
Turbulence passing through an axisymmetric contraction:

No mean strain rate on centerline, but anisotropy can persist.

3
(B) That the relationship is linear: Reynolds stress and mean
strain rate tensors are linked via a single scalar, for all i, j.
Seems unlikely except for “simple”shear flows with only one dom-
inant off-diagonal huiuj i, and one dominant ∂U i/∂xj .
If all mean normal strain rates are zero, locally:
Predicts hu21i = hu22i = hu23i but that is clearly not correct on
centerline centerline of fully-developed channel.
In near-wall region mean normal strains are weak but strong
anisotropy is clear, hu21i > hu23i > hu22i
A nonlinear model can, say involve something of the form
2
uiuj − (2/3)Kδij = −2νT S ij − 2ν2[Sik Skj − (1/3)Skk δij ]
which allows a given strain-rate component to potentially influ-
ence Reynolds stress tensor in all components.

SPECIFICATION/CALCULATION OF EDDY VISCOSITY

The (kinematic) eddy viscosity has the dimensions of L2T−1.

In principle, this can be (i) the product of a velocity and a length, (ii)
the product of the square of a length and the inverse of a time scale,
or (iii) some other quantities that provide the correct dimensions.

Usually there are some “semi-empirical” coefficients whose values

are conventionally based on computer optimizations of comparisons
with experimental data in a class of flows deemed relevant to typical
geometries in engineering applications.

“All models are wrong” — so we need some healthy skepticism, even

regarding some very common practices.
4
Mixing Length Model

Let νT = `2m ∂U /∂y

(note the dimensions of ∂U /∂y) where `m is some typical length
scale, of the large eddies perhaps, but not well-defined. If no single
velocity gradient is dominant:
νT = `2m|S| (Smagorinsky 1963)
νT = `2m|Ω| (Baldwin − Lomax 1978)
where S and Ω are effective strain or rotation rates, such that
2S ij S ij = S 2 ; 2Ωij Ωij = Ω2

What are the criticisms and issues?

Idea of mixing length is inherently ambiguous, since there is no pre-

cise definition. In a channel or BL, can take distance from the wall.

But, in more general geometries, e.g. “backward-facing step” or a

square cavity, meaning of “distance to the wall” is not always clear.

Since `m needs to be prescribed by other means, this model is “in-

complete”. Called a zero-equation model in contrast to next two.

But there are also extensive studies or refinements in AE-oriented

applications, mainly for attached BLs. (Separated flows are harder!)
5
One-equation model: ν and TKE
Shouldn’t νT depend on the intensity of the turbulence? The simplest
would be, for dimensional reasons
νT ∝ K 1/2`m
which is > 0 everywhere. Obtain the TKE by solving a modeled
form of the TKE equation. The usual form consistent with the idea
of “gradient transport’ is
 
DK νT
=∇· ∇K + P − 
Dt σK
where σK is called a “turbulent Prandtl number”, usually taken as
1.0, P is closed (in terms of νT for uiuj , and  = CD k 3/2/`m where
CD is another semi-empirical coefficient.

But, still need to prescribe `m: can we not have `m at all? While
transport terms are treated crudely (almost like molecular diffusion).

Two-equation models: the K − model

The TKE only includes info. on intensity of velocity fluctuations.
Some length scale info, can be obtained, through dissipation rate:
νT = CµK 2/ where Cµ = 0.09
“Complete”, with no need for flow-dependent mixing length

Probably the most commonly used RANS turbulence model, incorpo-

rated in commercial CFD codes originating from a group (Launder,
Spalding ,..) at Imperial College, UK, in the early 1970.

Semi-empirical coefficients in part from computer optimization.

6
Besides the RANS equations for conservation of mass and momen-
tum, solve two additional (modeled) PDEs for K and 

One principle: if a turbulence model is to work with more complex

flows, it needs to perform well for simpler flows first.

Value of Cµ

In a “simple” shear flow (where ∂U /∂y = S is the only non-trivial

mean velocity gradient), Ex. 10.5 in Pope leads to Eq. 10.48 (there
is a misprint in the book)
 1/2
|huvi| P
= Cµ1/2
K 
(Get this by expressing both uv and P in terms of K, , S and Cµ.)
Expts: |uv|K ∼ 0.3 when P/ ∼ 1. This gives Cµ = (0.3)2 = 0.09.

Modeled equation of 

Exact equation is complex, but just like TKE equation, consists of

unsteady, advection, transport, production , dissipation terms, etc.
The form used in K − modeling is usually like
2
 
D νT 
=∇· ∇ + C1P − C2
Dt σ K K
analogous to the modeled K equation. We are assuming proportion-
ality between production of K and , i.e.
Production of  
∝
Production of K K
and likewise for dissipation of : (/K) = 2/K. Clearly, this is, at
best, only a very rough representation of the true flow physics.

Common choices: σK = 1.0, σ = 1.3, C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92.

7
 How does the model perform in some simple flows?

Homogeneous turbulence: issues with transport terms need not hurt.

1. Decaying isotropic turbulence

dK/dt = − ; d/dt = −C2(2/K)

Recall in expts and DNS K ∝ t−n,  ∝ nt−n−1.

HW 9, Q.4: we can find a relationship between n and C2, and check

if the “common” choice of C2 seems to be in the right ballpark as
far as values of n are concerned.

2. Homogeneous shear flow

dK d  2
=P − ; = C1P − C2
dt dt K K
Only mean velocity gradient is ∂U/∂y = S. Expts and DNS suggest
a self-similar state of constant K/ is possible when P/ ∼ 1.7.
d(K/)/dt = (1/)(dK/dt) − (K/2)d/dt
= (1/)(P − ) − (K/2)[C1P/K − C22/K]
= P/ − 1 − P/ C1 + C2
RHS vanishes (required if K/ become constant in time even if both
K and  continue to change) when
C2 − 1
P/ =
C1 − 1
which is 2.1 if we use the “standard” values C1 = 1.44, C2 = 1.92.
Of course, 2.1 is different from 1.7. Is the discrepancy acceptable, or
not acceptable??
8