AlAA-92-G439

A One-Equatlon Turbulence Model

for Aerodynamic Flows
P . R . Spalart and S. R. Allmaras
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Seattle, WA 98214-2207

30th Aerospace Sciences

Meeting & ExhlbH

January 6-9. 19921 Reno, NV

A ONE-EQUATION TURBULENCE MODEL

FOR AERODYNAMIC FLOWS
P. R. Spalart

S. R. AllmarasBoeing Commercial Airplane Group

P.O. Box 3707, MS 7H-96
Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Abstract
A traDSport equation for the turbulent viscosity was
usembled, using empiricism and arguments of dimenIIional analysis, Galilean invarianee, and selective dependence on the molecular viscosity. It has similarities
":'lith the models of Nee &: Kovasznay, Secundov et .1.,
and ~aldwin &: Barth. The equation includes a destruction term that depends on the distance to the wall, related to the one in Secundov's model and to one due
to Hunt. Unlike early one-equation models the resulting turbulence model is local (i.e . the equation at one
point does not depend on the solution at other points),
and therefore compatible with &rids of any structure
and Navier-Stokes solvers in two or three dimensions.
It is numerically forgiving, in terms of near-wall resolution and stil"ness, and yields fairly rapid convergence to
steady state. The wall and freestream bonndary conditions are trivial. The model yields relatively smooth
Iaminar-tur!rulent t_ition, at points epecified by the
user. It is powerful enough to be calibrated on 2-D mixing layers, wake&, and flat-pla~ bonndary layers, wh~h
we Itonsider to be the building blocks for aerodynanuc
lows. It yields satisfactory predictions of bonndary
layers in preaure gadients. Its Dumerical implementation in a 2-D steadY.fltate Navier-Stokes solver has
beeR completed and is discussed. The cases presented
include .bock-induced eep&ration and a blunt trailing
edge. The model locates Iihocks slightly farther forward
than the JoImsoD-King model. It perfonm well in the
near wake and appears to be a good candidate for more
complex flows such as high-lift systems or wing-body
junctions. However, _ it is not clear whether steady
soIutioc'! will or should be obtained.

Motiyation and Related Work

The aerodynamics conununity feels the need for, and

is ready to invest in, a new generation of turbulence
models, more onerous than the algebraic models but
with a wider enveloP'! in terms of flow and grid complexity. The Baldwin-Lomax model [1] made Navier-Stokes
calculations posaible in situations that are awkward for
the Cebeci-Smith model [2], because the thicknesses of
the boundary layer are not well defined. The JohnsonKing model [3] has by-and-Iarge fulfilled the demand for
more accurate prediction of shock/bonndary-Iayer interactions, compared with the Cebeci-Smith and BaldwinLomax results. However these models, even when used
in Navier-Stokes codes, are boundary-layer models in
spirit. Physically, they treat the whole boundary layer
as a single, tightly-coupled module. which becomes incorrect when detached and multiple shear layers are
preseDt. At the implementation level, they rely on surveyin, the velocity or vorticity profile on a smooth grid
line, roughly orthogonal to the surface, thus being "nonlocal". This becomes expeasive and awkward when an
unstructured grid is used [4]. Even when the only complication is that two solid bodies are present, impl<?men tin, an algebraic model requires decisions that border on artificial intelligence and cannot be fully automated. This comes in addition to the poor accuracy
expected when a bonndary-layer model is applied to a
massively-separated 8ow, for instance. Generalizations
of algebraic models to multiple thin shear layers are
quite conceivable in boundary-layer calculation met/j
ods, by combining the eddy viscOflity "sustained" by
each shear layer and confined to its vicinity. However.
in full 2-D calculations, the orientation of the grid line!'
with respect to these shear layers is not under control.
In addition, unstructured-grid methods are becoming
more common. Finally, we do not know of an alg.. hraic
model that ensures continuity of the eddy "iscosity be
tween the airfoil block and the wake block. in a C-grid
Member AlAA
Copyricht eAmerican Institut., 01 A _ t i a and AstJ'O" setting. while offering a plausible formula in the ,,ake.
We have abandoned t>lforts in that direction.
In<:: 1992. AU riPu raerv<!d.

_ics.

On the other hand, transport-equation models such

as It-f and higher models [5] are usuallr "local"' , although some have non-local near-wall terms, and have
been a~-ailable Cor years. However, they are Car from
having shown a decisive advantage for the prediction
ofshock/boundary-Iayer interactions or eeparation Crom
smooth surfaces [6). They may be superior Cor massive
eeparation, but we do not have enough data, nor powerful enougb codes, to assess that. They are also much
more difficult to use. Tbis is not so much because of tbe
extra storage, but because they require finer grids near
a wall, involve strong source terms that often degrade
the convergence, and demand non-trivial upstream and
freestream conditions for tbe turbulence variables. The
near-wall problema oCten lead to the use of wall functions (71, which are unwieldy and lose any justification
in the situation that matters most, namely, eeparation.
The new Baldwin-Barth model [8) is an attractive intermediate. It hIlS only one equation and is local, except Cor the
dependence which they plan to dispose
of in the long term. It is derived from thE; fro( model,
through some Curther assumptions. Near the wall it
does not require finer resolution than the velocity field
it5eIC. Depending on the version, it predicts adversepressure-gradient cases and shock interactions better
than Baldwin-Lomax, but not consistently as well as
Johnson-King. Its accuracy will improve in time, and it
is much more practical than two-equation models. We
make more specific remarks on this model during the
presentation of the new one.

,+

two-equation models are the simplest complete models. The Nee-Kovasznay model was not followed upon
partly because it was not affordable at the time (1969).
Tbe Secundo\' model is currently entered in the Collaborative Testing of Turbulence Models (CTTM, [13])
and Prof. Bradsbaw was kind enough to pro\'ide the
one-page description that was submitted. Dr. Secundov pro\'ided a few details in a personal communication
as well as a list of publications ranging from 19i! to
1986, but none in English. This model is presented as
an evolution of the Nee-Ko\'&Sznay model but is rich in
ilear-wall and compressibility corrections. In particular
we "reinvented" their near-wall destruction term. It is
expected for simple empirical models, developed under
roughly the same constraints (invariance, and so on).
to exhibit strong similarities. However, the leeway is
large enough to produce models with widely dift'erent
perCormance.

Presentation and CaIibration of the Mogd

Overvjew
In this section we present four nested versions of the
model Crom the simplest, applicable to Cree shear flows.
to the most complete, applicable to viscous flows past
solid bodies and with laminar regions. As each additional physical effect is considered. new terms are added
and calibrated. They are identified by a common letter
subscript in the constants and functions involved (e ..~ ..
constant cu, function f~2; note that tbe constants aie
normalized so tbat the functions are of order 1). The
new terms are passive in all tbe lower versions of tbe
model, so that the calibration proceeds in order. This
presentation may seem heavy, but should be instructiw
as it allows the reader to criticize the tbeory or the calibration layer by layer and to test the rele\-ant version
in tbe situation he or she chooses. It should also help
preserve some clarity in later alterations of tbe model.
The Appendix gives a compendium of the equations for
the complete model.

The present project was prompted by Baldwin &.:

Barth's work, and by the belief that generating a oneequation model as a simplified version of the k-c model
is not optimal. A one-equation model is simple enough
that it can be generated "from scratch" , which may lead
to better performance and certainly gives Culler control
over its mechanics. A case in point is tbe BaldwinBarth dift'usion term, which is constrained by the Iro(
ancestry and the Curther assumptions made. We also
allow a "eemi-local" near-wall term, as described below. Our calibration strategy was different. 'We expect
to show that the new model has the same properties as
that of Baldwin &: Barth in terms of compatibility witb
unstructured grids and benign near-wall behavior, and Constitutive Relation
is more accurate, especially away Crom the wall, as well
as slightly more robust. For instance, it accepts zero
The \:entral quantity is tbe eddy viscosity v,. TIJf'
values in the freetit.eam.
Reynolds stresses are given by -'IT;'iij 2V,Sij whet{
The roster of one-equation models also includes tbose S,j :: (lJU,/fJzj + lJUj/lJzj)/2 is the strain-rate tenoC Bradshaw, Ferriss, &: Atwell [9], Nee &: Kovasznay sor. Compared witb a two-equation model we naturally
[10J, Secundov and his co-workers [1 t], and Mitcheltree, miss tbe Ir term (turbulence kinetic energy). This is not
Salas, &: Hassan [121. Except for Secundov's and Bald- a major effect in thin sbear flows, and the addition of
win &: Bartb's, these models are not local, since they 2k/3 to the diagonal elements of the stress tensor is apuse length scales related to the boundary-layer thick- proximate in any case. Note that even in two-equation
ness. Tbis contributes to the common claim tbat one- models there bas been an erosion of the meaning of k
c"k~ If i,.
equation models are not "complete" (i.e., they require a it5elf [14J, and also that tbe equation II,
carefully-chosen length scale for each new flow' and tbat dearly not satisfied in the log la:rer with the true t and

"oe

c.
are basing this criticism on experimental and
direct-simulation results [15].

curvature effects, is not properly invariant. 'Ve ha\-,

used the vorticity ... ;: ~. where nij :: aL';jaXjfJUjlfJx;. The argument is that. in the flows of interest
to us, turbulence is found only where vorticity is, both
emanating from the solid boundaries. There are regions
of vorticity \7ithout turbulence behind shocks; it is normally too weak to produce much eddy viscosity. There
is a case for using the strain rate ~ or the norm
of the whole tensor
instead of IN, but we have
not yet tested the model in cases for which it would
make a difference. We normalize any candidate so that
it reduces to IU,I in a simple shear flow. Note that !r~1
is not a smooth quantity, but it does not seem to upset
the numerical methods.

In a one-equation model, or in other models (e.g.,

zero-equation) which produce ~f but not k, we could obtain a rough approximation of k as proportional to the
streues given by V,Sij, and introduce it on the diagonal.
It would certainly be consistent to make it large enough
for the Reynolds-stress tensor to be positive-<iefinite.
Usually the trace of the tensor is significantly larger
than needed for positive-<iefiniteness, with a given deviator. The eigenvalUes are roughly k13, 2kl3 and k in a
-'lear flow; none are very dose to O. We can approach
this by adding ../2vf~/(3al) to each diagonal element, where Cll is the "structure parameter" [91. This
approximation may have some value in flows other than
The production term, and in fact th~ restriction of
thin &bear layers, even though it is far from universal. the model to homogeneous turbulence, is
For iDStance, it fails on the centerline of a wake. The
diffic:ulties in introducing such a nonlinear component
DVI
(1)
Dt C61 S "1'
in the turbulent term of the momentum equation may
be anotber factor.
The subscript b stands for "basic~. The response of
the model in homogeneous turbulence is dull. but not
Free Shear Flows
grossly inaccurate. Th~ eddy viscosity is stationary in
isotropic turbulence (Dvt/ Dt 0, because S 0). It is
Turning our attention to V, itself, since there is no accepted that in such a flow the energy Ii: is proportional
exact transport equation we could approximate term to t- S / 5 Then the simplest combination that has the
by term, we take an empirical approach. We do not same dimensions as V" namely k 2 Ie where c is the diseven follow the c:lassical procedure of establishing and sipation, slowly decays like t-l/S. In anisotropic flows
calibrating the model in homogeneous turbulent flows Vt can only increase under the effect of production. in
first. This is because the model, with its single equa- a manner that depends on the choice of S. That choke
tion, is too simple to yield rich behavior in homogeneous may be re-examined later. but if we consider a shear
turbulence, and also because of our emphasis on aero- flow with S ;: 1l:,1 we observe that V, grows exponendynamic flows and our limited interest in homogeneous tially like exp(C61St). This is the "classical~ behavior
turbulence. Thus we proceed to a model equipped with for shear flow, with a growth rate in the 0.1 to 0.16 range
diffusion terms and calibrate only at that level.
according to experiments. Our calibration on inhomogeWe construct the model by gathering quantities, de- neous flows yields values of c.. between 0.13 and 0.14.
rived from the mean flow field and from v" which have Thus, we do not emphasize homogeneous turbult'nce.
Galilean invariance. For instance, the mean velocity but we are not in strong conflict with it. The BaldwillU is DOt receivable. We then invoke common notions Barth and Secundov models have rather largt' producof turbulence-for instance, related to its diffusion- tion constants, at least 0.2. Note that we have not found
to auemble dimensionally correct terms that together any plausible and invariant quantity that could constican coostitute a plausible transport equation for VI' We tute a destruction term away from walls. We return to
consider free shear flows at high Reynolds numbers, and this issue later.
accordingly the molec:ular visc:osity is not allowed in the
The search for diffusion terms naturally focuses 011
equation. The reuoaing is that in such flows the energy spatial derivatives of V" Classical diffusion operators
and information cascades flow only from the large scales areofthe type V.([vt!l1]vvI) with (T a turbulent Prandtl
to the small scales.
number. They conserve the integral of VI' save for
The left-hand side of the equation, for correct invari- boundary contributions. However there is no real'Oll
ance, is naturally the Lagrangian or material derivative why the integral of VI should be conserved. Manipofv,: Dv,lDt ;: IJv,I8t+Ui lJvr/lJz;. On the right-han ll uiations of two-equation models often bring out diffuside we provide a production term, and diffusion terms. sion terms that are not conservative, for instance crossterms between VA: and ve. By analogy we allow a nonFor the production term, the deformation tensor conservative diffusion term, involving first derivat iVe5 of
lJUillJzj presents itself. Since VI is a scalar we seek V" We arrive at the following "basic" model:
a scalar norm, denoted by S, of that tensor. SVI then
has the desired dimension. A term such as tll'I{}z (obviDVI
1 [ '\' .(v,vvr) + C62
(2)
Dt
Cu S V, +;;
ous notation). however tempting to mimic streamline-

.vu::;u:.;

(,v,r"J

We break our convention for 0'. which belongs to the 1I\'eak solutions such as (3), and raises the possibility of
C6 series, because of the traditional notation of Prandtl non-unique solutions. Indeed if tbe initial condition is
numbers.
Izl, we have a weak solution in which II, behaves lih
1
0, and a smooth solution with
The diffusion term of (2) conserves the integral of the IzI /(2+< ,,) near z
c
/I,
>
0
at
% = O.
The
difference is confined to a
.,. Recall the lack of a destruction term.
quantity
This lack wu responsible for a mild inconsistency in boundary layer near % = O. In a numerical setting with
iIotropic turbulence. It could also inva1idate the model straightforward second-order centered differencing. the
in the c.... or Ihear flowl in which v, decreues (nep- weak solution will be obtained if the diffusion term is
tive Dv,/Dt) luch at an axilymmetric wake. However, written /I, V2 /1,+( 1+cu)(V 11,)2, but the smooth solution
the difruaion term can eaaily brine down the centerline will be obtained if it is written as in (2). Other forms
value or v" and the true constraint is that under (2) the tbat give the smooth solution are V2(vl/2)+Ct2(V/l1)2
intesra1 or v:+ cu cannot decrease. With tbe cl.-ical and (l+eu)V(/I, VV,)-Ct2/1r V2/11' The later addition of
exponents of the aelf-.imilar axisymmetric wake (length a term proportional to the molecular viscosity formally
scale oc 11/3, velocity oc t- 2/ 3 ), we find that the intecral resolves this non-uniqueness and leads to the smooth
increases provided tbat cn ~ 1. Even iCthe calibration solution with /I, > O. Howe\'er, particularly at high
does not include the axisymmetric wake, it is preferable Reynolds numbers, it is desirable to use a favorable form
of the diffusion term.
to satisfy this constraint.

v:+

Outside a turbulent shear flow the Reynolds stresses.

Another cODitraint may be obtained from the behavior or a turbulent front. The diffusion term admits the particularly the diagonal components, do not exactly
vanish. However, they are induced by pressure flucfollowing (weak) one-dimensional solution:
tuations and bear little relationship to the local strain
/I,(%,t) = max
A
+ A(I; (62)
(3) tensor Sij. For that reason, it is as well to have the eddy
viscosity be zero outside the turbulent region. and this
for any cODitant A. This is a linear ramp propagating is the value we recommend in the freestream. In adat the velocity -A(I +(62)/0" If cn > -I it propa,ates dition, tbe model is essentially insensitive to non-zero
into the non-turbulent region, which is physically cor- values (wbich may help some numerical solvers). prorect. The equivalent of cn is 0 in the Secundov model vided that they are much smaller than the values in the
(the diffusion term is conservative) . It equaled -2 in turbulent region. This is due to the dominance cf the
the original Baldwin-Barth model [16) and is somewhat turbulent region (/I, > 0) over the non-turbulent one, as
below -1 in the published version [8), so that under the illustrated by the ramp solution (3) . This feature adds
diffusion term alone the turbulent front recedes. We to the "black box" character of the new model and repbelieve this effect is to blame for the sensitivity of that resents a substantial advantage over the Baldwin-Barth
model to the freestream value of /I, (or RT). Note that model and many two-equation models, some of which
Baldwin & Barth are constrained in their choice of e62 are highly sensitive to freestream values-that of the
by the connection with the k-l model, in tbe original time scale for instance.
version, and by their calibration in the log layer, in all
The amplification of the eddy viscosity by the proversiODI. We avoid this constraint thanks to a near-wall
term as explained below. The weak solution shown in duction term is of interest. Note that the linearization
(3) i. of ,reat interest in practice, as it indeed gives the of (2) for small /I, preserves only the production term .
.tructure of tbe aoIution at the edge of a turbulent re- Consider the steady flow at a velocity Uoo past a body
,ion. Tbis occurs because the diffusion term dominates of size L, with thin shear- or boundary layers of thickness 6; these are orders of magnitude. Outside the th in
there (_ Fig. 6, below).
shear layers the deformation tensor is of order Uoc / L so
An approximate analysis of the turbulent front, cou- that, irrespective of the exact definition of S, the logpling the eddy viscosity and the shear rate, indicates arithm of the amplification ratio will be on the order
that the ratio (1 + en) /0' also deserves attention. If it is of Cu (a growth rate on the order of euS over a resilarger than 2 the eddy-viscosity front, whicb is a ramp, dence time on the order of L/U ) . Thus, small values
oo
is slightly ahead of the shear front, making the velocity will remain small. In contrast in the tbin shear layers
profile smootber. If it is lower than 2 the two fronts co- tbe logarithm ofthe amplification ratio under the effect
incide. If it equals 1 tbe velocity profile of a mixing layer of the production term alone would be on the order of
is exactly triangular, i.e., IU.I exhibits a step which is euL/6, and therefore large in the usual situation si'lce
unphysical. Although these considerations border on L ; 6. Thus small values of /I,. whether inherited from
tbe cosmetic they indicate that (1 + en)/O' should be the freestream , or resulting from numerical errors. or inlarger than 1 and suggest that 2 ma~' be a favorable troduced intentionally at the "trip" as described later.
value.
will cause transition in the thin shear layers onl~. By
The fact that the dependent variable v, itself is the transition we mean growth to such levels that the difdiffusion coefficient is responsible for the existence of fusion terms. which are nonlinear. become actin'. The

(0.

[Z

tD,

destruction term introduced later is also nonlinear. The

sequence of exponential srowth, followed by saturation
at levels on the order of U00 6, is consistently observed in
practice. Note also that even though the contribution of
the eu term is pOlitive the diffusion terms cannot cause
runaway IfOwth. This is so because their contribution
is neptive at a local maximum of III ' Recall also the
c:outraint on the intesral of
The eddy-viscOlity
bud,et in a weJl..developed solution always includes a
IliJeable c:oatribution (rom the production term.

structure at the edge of the turbulent region. as seen in

the mixing-layer case in FiS. 2. The centered-difference
solution cannot faithfully reproduce a weak solution at
the front. but the disturbance d:>es not propagate. Time
steps in excess of the stability limit were revealed first
by short oscillations near the centerline.

We DOW calibrate the free--shear-ftow version o( the

model by requiring correct levels of shear stress iD twodimensional mixing layers and wakes. Fair values for
the peak shear stress are 0.01(4U)2 in the mixiDg layer
aDd 0.06(4U)2 iD the wake, where 4U is the peak
velocity difference [17]. This lives two conditions for
three free cOllltants C.1> 11', and C.2, and leaves a onedimensional family of "solutions" which is .hown in
FiS. 1 parametri%ed by the Prandtl number 11' , the easiest quantity to interpret. The ranse of values of 11' we
consider plausible is at most [0.6,1]. The corresponding
values of cn are between 0.6 and 0.7 ana satisfy our
"guidelines" (-1 < cn ::; 1) with a margin. The ratio
(1+c.,)/O' varies from about 2.7 to 1.7 and also satisfies
its suideline (> 1).

O,"t---t--~t---hf4-f:,.o'~-!-----;

11:+'".

1.70

1.115
1.10 .~
1.55

I ~

UO

'----.,
10Cll1
1.30

US
0.1

~I

---0.7
11'

0.8

500

I
50

0.'

I~=~ I

0.1 +---;.+--+---t--...,~-l..-i!---ll

0.04

0.06

Based primarily on the edge beha\ior. we favor a

fairly diffusive member of our "plausible" range, namely
11'
2/3, C61 0.1355, Cl2 = 0.622, (l+c62)/O'::::: 2.4. In
the mixing layer it gives a velocity profile close to that
lUIIIociated with identical "rollers" of uniform vorticity
(see Fig. 2). Very low values of 11' would be needed to
brins it close to the hyperbolic-tangent profile, which is
a common approximation. In the wake the peak eddy
viscosity is 0.46M where AI is the momentum of the
wake, in sood asreement ""ith experiment [18]. We did
not attempt to match any axisymmetric flow, partly
because they are not pre\'8lent in our applications and
partly because, for most models, these flows conflict
with the 2-D flows. The model is not intended to be
universal.

/UhCw2

"'"
:-------

0.2 t - -- t--JJ"--t--- t-........,""!--- ! - ----;

Fisure 2: Profiles in a time-developing mixing layer.

Normalized with velocity difference and time. Velocity
profiles adjusted to the same slope at y = o.

II

\.Cb2

"'"I

U5

0.3+----+--- -f--il'i:*-+---+---+----!

0.02

i'..

1.50

--- --

o.5T-~-""----r---..,..--.....,.-..,-"'_-....,

1.0

Fisure 1: Calibrated model constants. - locus of solutiOlll; +, x, point selected for the calculations.
~ar-wall Region. high Reynolds Number
In a boundary layer the blocking effect of a wall is
felt at a distance through the pressure term, which acts
as the main dest ruction term for tbe Reynolds shear
stress. This susgests a destruction term in the transport
equation for the eddy viscosity. Dimensional analysis
leads to a combination -CVJ I(IIr/d)2 , witb d the distance
to the wall. The subscript It' stands for 'walr . This

The solutions were obtained numerically using a

stretched srid, centered second-order finite differences,
Runse-Kutta fourth-order time intesration, and zero
values in the freestream . This artless treatment would
rapidly reveal poor numerical properties in the model.
The srowth of the layers was followed until a self-similar
Itate was attained. The solutions exhibit the ramp

term will be passive in free shear flows (d -> oc) and

therefore does not interfere with our calibration up to
this point. The Secundov model includes this type of
term (however their term differs from ours in the viscous
and the outer regions). The idea of a near-wall, but not
ViICOUl, "blocking" 'erm is also in Hunt [19]. It is also
related to the algebraic models, which take the smaller
of two eddy viscOllities. The outer eddy viscosity scales
with the boundary-layer thicknell, and the inner eddy
vilcOllity is pven by the mixing length, I oc d.
In a claaical log layer with friction velocity u.. we
have S = U.,f(IC4) and "I = u.,lCd. Equilibrium between
the production and diffusion terms (all positive) and the
deltruction term is pOIIIible provided
C",I
cU/,,2 + (1 + cu)/tT.
'Ielta show that the model, when equipped with the
deltruction term, can produce an accurate log layer.
This relis OIl th'! treatment of the vilcous regiOll, d~
ICribed below. On the other hand it produces too low
a Rin-friction coefficient in a flat-plate boundary layer.
This shows that the destruction term 8. formulated decays too slowly in the outer region of the boundary layer.
To address this deficiency and allow a new calibration
we multiply it by a non-dimensional function ItIJ, which
equals 1 in the log layer. Note that C",I is not negotiable
(i.e., we would not adjust the C, at the expense of the
log-law constants), and also that \II"e were not able to
obtain an accurate skin friction just by using the freedom left by the free-shear-flow calibration (Fig. I). The
model becomes

1.0

~I! V

0.1

1'--j'LOQ
1\ I layer

[II

I",

I
i

0.6

/'
F_

....

8hlar

0.2

,
j

HIe,..."
FPG

I/V

0.0
0.0

/ 'V

I",

,.rt

0uIIr

olBL

I,

0.

Figure 3:
see (4-6).

0.8

1.2

function involved in the destruction term.

fact that S may vanish . The region r > 1 is exercised

only in adverse pressure gradients, and then rarely beyond r 1.1. Having 1",(0) 0 is not essential, because
in free shear flo~s ~he destru.ction term vanishes on account o~ the cP. m Its den~lI!lDator. A reasonable value
for C",3 IS 2. \\e then cahbrate C.. ~ to match the skinfriction coefficient in a flat-plate boundary layer. We
2
adopt the value ofth~ CTTM.' namely C,
DVI =CtlSVI+.!. [V.(VI VVI)+Ct2(VVI)2]-C",l/w
0.00262
Dt
u
d at R4 = 104 [13]" which requires C",2 = 0.3. All the
T

(4) boundary-layer tests relied on a code written by Mr. D.

Note that Secundov et .1. did not foUow the I", route. Darmofal, ofM.I.T .. during a short stay at Boeing.
The choice of an adequate argument for I", was inFigure 4 shows the velocity, eddy-viscosity. and shearspired by algebraic models, in which the mixing length stress profiles in a flat plate boundary layer at R, :::: 10 4 .
plays a major role near the wall. This length can be At 104, C, = 0.00262 and H
1.31. The Clauser
defined by I;: VI/tiS and we use the square of I/"d as
shape factor G;: J2/C,(H - 1)/H is settled at 6.6.
a convenient nOll-dimensional argument:
and the shape of the profile is satisfactory. Notice
V,
again the ramp structure of V, at the edge of the shear
(5)
r;: Sf( 2 d2.
flow. The peak value of V, is O.021Uoo f., compared witl.
Both r and ItIJ equal 1 in the log layer, and decrease in 0.0168Uoo 6 in the Cebeci-Smith model [2]. Conversely.
the outer region. Note that any dimensionally conect the Cebeci-Smith eddy viscosity is higher near 11/6 1.
The .hear-stress profile approaches the wall with a fifunction oC(v"d,S) that reduces to -CtIJl,,:lU~ in a log
layer would be as eligible as the one we are choOlling (.f). nite slope, rapidly turning to zero slope at the wall a5
diICusaed in the context of direct-simulation results [15].
A satisfactory I", function is

[!.i)

Figure 5 shows the velocity profile in wall coordinates, illustrating the log layer and the smooth depar[
ture in the wake. Again, the shape of the outer region
appears good, showing that the destruction term and
This function is shown in Fig. 3. The results are the !'" function are fair approximations, at least in thi5
most sensitive to the slope of Iv. at r
1, which is flow. The arrival at the freestream velocity is a little too
controlled by C",2. The step from 9 to /", is merely a abrupt, as it 1\'as in the mixing layer, in Fig. 2. This belimiter that prevents large values of I"" which could up- havior cannot be corrected except by making the model
set the code and give an undeserved importance to the very diffusive (low u) .

I.,(r)

=, 9 ++c",3
1

/I ] 1/6
3
C'6
,

= r + C.,2 (r

r). (6)

'rr~ff.

1\

I
,
!
I

'\""- .---

r---- ~. r"

,I

'\

I>"<-

-1

7
fo.t
-4
I

!
I

!
I
i
I

,
I
I

I
o

yW

y/S"

Figure 4: Profiles in a flat-plate boundary layer at

R, s:t: 10, outer coordinates. U normalized with Uoo ' r
with rOIl..", and v, with 0.025Uoo 6".

Jj
V"'I ,
"

"

"

,I

,
i

'I

I;

Ii
I:

U+

Ii

I,

i
i

i
i

I Ii I
i

I
I

Ii

'I

I:
I!

I:

II
Ii

,I I

Figure 6: Eddy-viscosity budget in a flat-plate boundary layer. Normalized with rIVal/.

ble for the advance of the turbulent front. in qualitative agreement with the budgets of "legitimate" turbulence quantities such as the kinetic energy. Near the
wall the dift'usion again makes a strong positive contribution, balanced by the destruction. The ideal near
wall budget is. in the units of the figure. production
1, dift'usion
,,2(1 + e.2)/u /eu ~ 3. destruction
-1 - K2(1 + et2)/u /eu ~ -4. Note that it is not maintained far up into the layer at all; correspondingly. Vt
does not follow its ideal linear log-layer behavior ("Yu T )
far up either (see Fig. 4). However this does not prevent
a log layer from forming.

This completes the calibration of the model save for

viscous eft'ects. \\'e later examine the performance of the
model in what is probably the most sensitive situation.
the outer region of a boundary layer in adverse pressure
gradient.

I
I

Near-wall Region. finite Reynolds Number

y+
In the buft'er layer and viscous sublayer. additional
Figure 5: Velocity profile in a flat-plate boundary layer
notation is needed. Besides the wall units, y+ and so
at R, s:t: 10", inner coordinates. - model; - - -log law.
on, we introduce v which will equal v, except in the
viscous region, and X == v/v. This is in analogy with
Mellor
&.: Herring's notation [20], because from the wall
The budget of Vt is shown in Fig. 6. The sum (i.e.,
to
the
log
layer we have X KY+ .
Dv';Vi) is positive throughout. It is 0 at the wall,
1000

10000

then roughly follows a ramp up to the edge of the turbulent region. Its outer part is representative of the
outer part of either one of the free shear flows, including the vanishing contribution of the destruction
term. The production is equal to the shear stress.
In the outer part the dift'usion is primarily responsi.

We follow Baldwin .\: Barth [8] in choosing a transported quantity which behaves linearly near the wall.
This is beneficial for numerical solutions: ;; is actually
easier to resolve than U itself, in contrast with (, for
instance. Therefore. the model will not require a finer
grid than an algebraic model would. To arrive at this

cODIider the c1aaical log layer and de\'ise near-wall made of the momentum equation and (9), as it has been
"damping functions~ that are compatible with known obtained starting with a wide range of initial conditions.
results. These functions are distinct from the I. near- This includes the results of Figs. 4 and 5; in particular
Fig. 5 displays the viscous and buffer layers.
wall inv"lCid destruction term.
we

Fine effects of pressure gradients or transpiration are

The eddy viKOCIity /I, equals "yu. in the los layer,
but not in the buffer layer. We define v10 that it equals likely to strain the accuracy of the model, although we
expect the trends to be correct and the database is far .
,,"',. all the way to the wall. This leads to
from definitive. Note that the traditional tools for in
X3
(7) serting these effects into the algebraic models are ruled
1~1 = .,..-:-r.
X~ + t;;)
out, because they are not local.
The 1,,1 fWKtion is borrowed from Mellor k Herring.
The subKript tI stands for "viscous". We prefer the
value c,,1 = 7.1 to Mellor & Herring's 6.9, which we
helieve yields a low intercept for the log law. Other I~)
fuJldioas could be used, for instance the one compatible
with the Van-Drieat damping is I,,) = ("1 + 41+2 1)/2X, where t+
X[I - exp(-xllCA+)] and A+ is the
familiar 2G [2]. We have not encountered cases b which
the choice of I .. ) mllde a difference. Note that there is
DO basis for (7) to apply at the edge of the turbulent
region, where X is &lao of order 1 and smaller. However,
the eddy ViK06ity has little inftuence there, because of
the absence of steep gradients.

Lamjnar &CioD aDd Trjppjnc

The final set of terms provides control over the laminar resions of the sbear layers, a control which has
two aspects: keeping the 8011' laminar where desired .
and obtaining transition where desired. Navier-Stokes
codeiJ with &Igebraic models usually have crude "off-on"
devices or short ramps hued on the grid index along the
wall. These do not help the convergence of the codes. In
addition we require a device that is useable on unstructured grids. The subscript t will stand for "trip". We
i.Jse this word to mean that the transition point is im
p06ed by an actual trip, or natural but obtained from a
The production term also needs attention. III it S is separate method. 0"
scco."t do,d' tAt t.rhlt"cf
replaced with S, given by
mollel 6( tM/std to prellict tAt transition location. Tbis
is true of all the models we kno,,. Some models. in
X
(8) c1uding Ir-(, predict relaminarization. In situations tbat
/~2 1 - 1 + xl,,)
should induce relaminarization, this one tends to drop
The function /,,2 is constructed, just like /01> 110 that the eddy viscOCIity to low levels, but without "snapping"
S would maintain its log-layer behavior (S
/(KY to O. We may be able to improve on tbis using the f'2
all the way to the wall. S is singular at the wall, but function below.
ii is 0 there, 10 that the production is well-behaved '
We delCribed how transition was expected only in
Note that there is a range of X in which S is _ than thin shear layers. The linearized version of (9) for small
S and may become negative. This should DOt upset v only contains the production term: DvlDt cuSii;
the Dumerial salven. Other quantities involved in the therefore,
0 is an unstable IOlution of (9) (going
"inviKid" model are redefined in terms of if iDst.ead of in the direction of DIDt). In a boundary-layer code
the uro solution is easily maintained, but in a Na\'ier/I" for instance r == ii/(SK 2tP).
We fiwly add a viscous diffusion term, cOMistent Stokes code exactly-aero values are rarely preserved, so
with a Dirichlet boundary condition at the wall, if O. that the model is "primed" by numerical errors upThis term too is based on an analogy, rather tbaa a rig- stream of the trip. It then transitions at a rate that
oroua equation. In addition ii behaves linearly, 110 that depends on numerical details and has little to do wit h
its Laplacian will be small in an established dution. the boundary layer's true propensity to transition, as
Accordin&ly, we insert the molecular viscOCIity ia a con- controlled by pressure gradient, suction, and so on. We
venient place and pay little attention to a factor of tT . verified this behavior, and it is not acceptable.

"0

=...

v=

A solution is to alter the production term so that

The transport equation has become

Dv
-_ 1 [
Dt =c61 S/I+; V./I+V)VV)+C.2(VV)
-c",t!tIJ

v= 0 is a stable solution, albeit with a small basin of

2]

[~r

attraction. For this we take the convention that in the

laminar region v is of order /I at ID06t , and recall the
argument x. Note that if 'V ::; /I, then /II <: /I. because of
the damping by I,,). We multiply the production term
by 1 -/,2, where

(9)

Tbis equation now yields equilibrium (D'VI Dt

0) all
(10)
the way to d
0 in a classical law-of-the-wan situation. Furthermore, the numerical evidence shows that In order for 0 to attract ii down from values on the
1.1.
tbis clusital solution is a stable IOlution of the system order of /1/5 , the following values are fair : Ct3

C'4
2. In any case c,3 must be larger than 1. As
for Ct. it could be decreased several-fold , if a code still m=CbJ
D"V
[1 - f 12 J S- 11+;;
- 1 [....
- \ . ((1I+1I)\"V)+Cb
2 (\"vf"]
yielded premature transition. The cross-over point of
1- / 12, i.e., the bound of the basin of attraction), is at
X=
og CI3 C,.. However, 2 was small enough in our
- [cu,du - 112]
+ III AU 2. (11)
code. Values much smaller than 1 would start affecting
the results in the turbulent region.
with

~;

In order to still balance the budget near the wall we

offset the change in the production term with an opposite change in the destruction term, involving /12, Again
we take an empirical approach, and have numerical evidence that it yields a stable system. A user that is doing
boundary-layer calculations can leave the /'2 term out
(i.e., let C'3 0).

The task ill now to obtain transition. We refer to

transition points, in 2-D, and transition lines, in 3D.
We address only boundary-layer transition, but a generalization to free shear 60ws will be easy. Usually each
2-D body hu two transition points. We wish to initiate transition near these points in a smooth manner,
and compatible with any grid . For this a source term
is added that will be nonzero only in a small domain of
influence. This domain should not extend outside the
boundary layer. Not wanting to find this edge, nor violate in\'Ilriance principles, we invoke the quantities I1U
and Wt. Il.U is the norm of the difference between the
velocity at the trip (i.e., usually zero since the wall is
not moving) and that at the field point we are considering. Wt is the vorticity at the 1\'all at the trip point.
Upstream ofthe trip in a boundary-layer code, it is fair
to take 101 at the wall at the current station, since 101
at the trip ill not available yet. The thickness of the
boundary layer is on the order of U./WI, where U. is
the edge velocity. Recall that it is still laminar. We
also introduce d" the distance from the field point to
the trip point or line.
Storing, or repeatedly computing, dt for esch field
point ill a penalty, but it would not be difficult to keep
a list of the points that are within a r~asonable distance
of the trip and to compute the trip term only for thOlie.
The Uler may also watch for the following peculiar situation: the body could be so thin that the trip on one
side causes transition on the other side. A definition of
d l as the length of the shortest line that links the field
point to the trip while not crossing the body would solve
the problem, but in an expensive manner. It is simpler
just to override d, (Le., set it to a large value) for field
points and trips that are known to be on oppOllitt: sides
of the body. The angle between the line from the trip
to the field point and the normal to the wall may be
useful.

111

=CII gl

[~r

exp (-CI2 :.J2

[d 2 +9~d;1) ,

(12)

and 9, == min(O.I, taU /w,AZ) ",here Il.z is the grid spacing along the wall at the trip. This equation specifies
the two I, terms, and the trip term is the last in (11).
The Gaussian in 111 confines the domain of influence of
the trip terms as needed ; it is roughly a semi-ellipse.
The magnitude is adjusted so that the integrated contribution for a particle crossing the domain of influencl"
is on the order or U.6, 6 the boundary-layer thickness,
as is ensured by typical algebraic models [2]. The odd
factor 91 is passive in a situation with an extremely fine
grid, but is quite active il.nd necessary in practice. This
is because the domain ofinfluence Dfthe trip scales with
the boundary layer thickness, which is very small in the
laminar part. As a result, that domain easily falls between two streamwise grid points, so that the trip is not
felt at all. The 9, factor guarantees that the trip term
will be nonzero over a few streamwise sta(ions.

The value C'2

2 reflects typical values of 6""dU.
in laminar boundary layers and is not a candidate for
much adjustment. Tests indicate a range of at I'!ast
two decades for CII between values so low that transition miscarries, and values so high that;; Ilnd the skinfriction overshoot. The value Ctl 1 is well within that
range; successful transition was obtained with 0.1 and
with 10. It is possible that at very low Reynolds llum
bers CII would require more attention. In any case. we
recommend that the user check for transition on both
surfaces. To start with, the two trips should bracket the
.tagnation point. Except at very low Reynolds numbers
the skin-friction coefficient is enough of a criterion. Note
that the trips are often near the leading edge, in a region where the skin friction has violent variations due
to the pressure gradients. Therefore, it is advisable to
check the skin-friction coefficient a little downstream. in
a weak pressure gradient.

Note that the grov.th of ;; to nonlinear levels under the effect of the production term occurs in a few
boundary-layer thicknesses (C6I being roughly 0.13) .
This is consistent with the idea that the trip term mimics the secondary instabilities invoked by recent transi
tion theories, which have growth rates on the order of
1/6. However since the streamwise grid is often much
coarser than 6, transition will still appear very steep to
that grid . The contribution of the trip source term is
Dimensional analysis points to AU 2 as a proper rapidly overwhelmed by the exponential amplification
scale for the source term. and we arrive at due to production . Thus. we have a formal ad\"antag'

over the "off-on" models in that transition is a smooth

process, but in practice it is debatable. Naturally, an
adaptive gid will focus points at transition, and approach the ideal situation .
InjtW apd

fmstream C9nditjons

Note that T and D(v) are aiways positive or zero. and

P(V'} is positive as long as S is positive.
Care should be used in interpreting our notation. For
example, the complete production 9perator is P(ii)V
rather than P(ii) alone. The n9tation is intended to
simplify the foll9wing matrix theory analysis.

The turbulence transport equati"n is discretized on a

Fair rsuIts have been obtained by initially letting ii
grid with v the vector of unknowns at all gid points.
uniformly to iw freeetream value. The turbulent viscatity emanatea at the tripe and IIpreads without no- The solution is integrated in time using an implicit
backward-Euler scheme of the form,
ticeably dqrading the cODvergeDCe of the code. In the
freestre&m the ideal value ill zer9. Some solvers may
[1- At (!d(v") + rr(v") - tr(v")} Av n
(18)
have trouble with thill, either because of round-olf errors
n) - D(vn)] v n + AtT
At
[M(v")
+
P(v
or 80IJle cODvergence teats dividing by ii. Fr_tream val_ ofil up &0 roughly ~/IO are easily t9lerable with the
where the nonlinear matrix operat9rs M, P, D and T
CUrreDt CI3 and C'4 COIUItants. Recall that the
factor
are the discrete analogues of AI, P, D and T, respecin (7) theD maltea ~f much Ilmal1er than v, 119 that the
tively; !d, V, J) are implicit matrices; At is the time
laminar boundary layers are not disturbed .
step; and Av is the solution change,

',,1

(19)

Numerica! Solution Procedure

We expand 9n the approach of Baldwin & Barth (8]
for solution of the turbulence transport model within a
Navier-Stokea solver. The model is advanced in time using an implicit IOlution procedure deaigned to achieve a
patitive turbulence field for all transient IOlution states,
as weD as a fast cODvergence ratl' to steady-state. \\'e
have incorporated the turbulence-model solution module into a modified version of Martinelli &.: Jameson's
FLOI03 (21], where the updates of the velocity field and
the turbulence are decoupled at each time step. The
turbulence is updated at the start of each multistage
Runge-Kutta time IItep on the finest grid of the multigid cycle; on coarser grids the turbulence is frozen.

The exact solution of the turbulence transport equation cannot become negative. It can be shown that if
ii 0 at some location and the surrounding values are
non-negative, then 8v/8t ~ O. An underlying goal of
tbe solver is to reproduce this analytic behavior-a nonnegative turbulence field-throughout the solution process (i.e. ii ~ 0 at all grid points and at all time steps).

We athieve this goal ofa non-negative turbulence field

through the use of positive discret ... operators and Mtype matrices. A positive operator. when applied to a
vector of non-negative elements, will produce a vector
with n9n-negative elements. An M-t.ype matrix is diagonally dominant with positive diagonal elements and
We begin by rewriting the one-equation model (11) neptive (or zero) off-diagonal elements. A key property of an M-type matrix is that its inverse contains
in a form more convenient for numerical analysis,
only non-negative elements; hence, the inverse of an ~f
type matrix is a positive operator. Our goal can be
M(V)v+ P(ii)iI- D(ii)ii+ T
(13) accomplished by careful discretization and construction
of the implicit operators !d, rr and Ii'.
where M(V)ii is the c9mbined advection/diffusion
Rearrangement of (18) gives v n + I directly a~ a fUII~
terlDli,
tiOD ofv n ,

':: =

M(V)ii=

-(ii .V)v+;' [V. [(v+ V)Vii] +

c., (VV)2] ,
(14)

the production IOUfCe term is

P(V)V = cull -

1121 S V,

(15)

the wall destruction source term is

D(V)v

= [coud.. -

eu

v_]2
[

,,2/t2] d '

(16)

=IIIAU 2

[1+ At (M - Jd) + (P - Ji") - (D -

(17)
10

(20)

J)} 'I n + AlT.

Assuming v n ill non-negative, then non-Ilegativity of

v n +1 is guaranteed if the right-hand-siele operator is
positive and the left-hand-side operator forms an Mtype matrix. Thus, sufficient constraint~ on the discret e
operators are given by,
-!d is M-type
- rr is M-type
+ J) is M-type

and the trip function is

[1_ At{fd + rr -IJ V,,+I =

(218)
(21 b)

(2Ic)

[M -

KIJ v ~ 0

[p - JS] v ~ 0
[D -I>] v:S 0

for all v

for all v?.:

are discretized using second-order-accurate central differencing.

0

(22a)
(22b)

1 + Cb2 1 [(
;";\
ii.+ 1 - V.
[M(V)V]\2) = - - - - v+ vIHl/2-"-'""--"':'

(22c)

forallv~O

Baldwin k Barth show, for their model, that similar

constraints on the implicit and explicit operators in the
backward-Euler scheme guarantee positivity of the discrete solution. They also show that these constraints
give unconditional stability of the numerical solutionprocedure.

CT

Ax.

A.r.+I/2

_ (v

+ ii)i-l/2 ii! I.JI. X

Vi_I] ,

(27)

i-I/2

cn
1
[M(V)VW') :: - -(v
+ ii)i--"
Ax.

CT

iii - Vi-I]
[ AXi+I/2 - AXi-l/2 .

iii+! - Vi

(28)

Description of the discretization and construction of The diffusion coefficients (V+V)i+I/2 and (v+ ii).-1/2 at
implicit matrices will be given in detail for I-D, where cell faces are taken as averages of adjacent cell-centered
the notation is simpler. Extension to 2-D and 3-D is values,
straightforward because there are no cross derivatives
in the one-equation model.
(v + ii)i:H/2 = ~ [(v + iI). + (v + ii).:i:Il,
(29)
The model is discretized using a cell-centered finiteand AXi+I/2 and Ari_l/2 are distances between cell
difference scheme.
centers.
.
J acob'lans """,2)
Th e approXimate
M
an d """'M 3) are 0 I)Advection Operators
tained by freezing the diffusion coefficients.
The advection terms are discretized using f:rst-order
...,{2)
1 + C62
_
1
accurate upwinding.
Mi,i_1
+ ---(V+V)i_l/2 "A

[M(v)v]ll) = - [ut ('ii ~;:-l) + U.- C'i~; iii)] ,

Ui-

= 1_ (Ui -

lUi/).

(24)

M,
','

CT

1 + Cb"
_
1
- - - - -(v + 11).+1/2--":-'-CT

""{2)

M i.i+ 1

The Jacobian of the advection operator is.

1 + Cb2
+ ---(v

CT

""",3)

t.t-

M!~Ll

= -- (-Un/AXi,
= -. (+ut - Un/AXi,
fV(~i~1 = - (+Un/AXi.
Note that _}i;fl) is M-type and (M - IVI)(1lv
satisfying the positivity constraints.

cb2

(f

~Zi~J't-1/2

1
= + ""::'(v+ ii)i--':""-AXi~.ri_l/

...,{.3,l

C6"

Mi,.

(25)

(30)

~.r'~X'+1/2
1
+ ii)'+I/2"',,-.,-... .r ...... .rHln

-(V+ii)i

M; I:: -

K(~/

~x.~r'_l/2

CT

:-:{2)

(23)
where the advection velocities U+ and U- are defined.

ut = ~(Ui + IUil).

=
1
= - -1 +-Cb2
( v + ii)i-I/2 ~ ~
Xi x._I/~

CT
Cb2

1-

+ -(v+ ii)i

(31)
,

AXiA.r.+I/2
1
-(v + ii)i
.
CT
Ax.Axi+l/2
CT

""{3)

= 0,

Mi,i+l

=-

C62

These operators satisfy constraint (22a), since

Diffusion Operators

[M -

We have found that positive operators are more easily

constructed if the diffusion terms are rearranged into the
form,

where liberties have been taken with differentiation of

the molecular viscosity v. The form of (26) avoids discretization of the term (V'ii)2, which does not easily lend
itself to positive discrete operators, The diffusion terms
11

M](2) v

=0,

i71(3)
[M-M J
:-:{2)

v::O,

(32)

:-:{3)

When negated, the sum M

+M forms an !\I-typt
matrix. This can be shown by considering individual
matrix elements. For example, the sum of the matrix
elements above the diagonal becomes.
Kf'2)

',i+1

+ Kr 3 )

',HI - CT~XiA.r'+1/2

[(1 +

Cb2)(V

+ ii),+1/2 -

Cb2( II

+ ii).]

(3:3)

t 'pon substitution of (29) for the diffusion coefficient at

the right cell face. then the sum b~omes.

possible strategies and explain why they are dE;ficient

before discussing the strategy we actually employ

M'2)

The obvious choice of setting thE' implicit op",rator~

equal to their true Jacobians does not satisfy th .. po~
itivity constraints. F'J r examplE'. [P - Plv ~ 0 b not
met ifP' > o.

i"+l

K(3 )

i.i+l

[0 +
:s

= 20'aZ,aZi + 1/ 2

Ct2)(V

+ ii)i+l + (1-

Cb2)(V

+ ii)i] ' (34)

:s

A second strategy, which always satisfies the M-type

C.2
I, these elements are always pOliitive.
For -1
Similarly, the elements below the diagonal are always matrix constraints, is to take the negative part of the
poIitive, and thOle on the diagonal are always negative. production Jacobian and the positive part of the deAlso, the macnitude of the diagonal elements are equal struction Jacobian,
to the 10m of the off-diagonal elementf-. Hence, the
If
-pos [-P - P'Y] ,
(3ia)
lurn JJ<2) +JJ<3) it a negated M-type matrix, ..tiBfying
I)
pos[D+D'v].
(3ib)
constraint (21a).
Baldwin &: Barth noted that the steady-state dis- This strategy is also defective and must be discarded
cretization of the diffusion terms in their model must because the other two positivity constraints may not be
be modified on coarse grids to obtain a non-negative met, For example. ifD > 0 and D' < O. then D - If < 0
turbulence solution. When ""ritten in the form of (26). will not be satisfied.
the diffusion terms of the Baldwin-Barth model give an
A third strategy is to use only the negative parts of
effective value of C62 below -1. Because of this, they P and P' in (35a) to form P, and the positive parts of
must limit the averaging of the diffusion coefficients to D and D' in (35b) to form D.
cell faces to ensure their equivalent of KJ<2) + KJ<3) is
p
-pos[-P]- pos[-P']v.
(38a)
a negated M-type matrix. This limiting procedure reD
pos[D] + pos[D'lv.
(3i'b)
duces spatial accuracy. As shown by the above construction, discretization of the present model's diffusion
terms does not require similar modification. The con- This is a viable strategy: the four source term positivity constraints are satisfied for all po~<ible sign combistraint (62 > -1 , derived on physical grounds. also plays
nations of P . P' , D and D'. However. we dis('ard thi~
a crucial role in the numerical context.
strategy because of its slow convergence rate.

=
=

=
=

In a typical fiow situation, both production and destruction increase in magnitude as v is increased (i.e ..
p, D and their derivatives are all positive) . In this case
our third strategy chooses,

Source Operators

The production. wall destruction, and transition trip

source terms all produce diagonal matrix operators,
so grid indices are ignored in the following analysis.
p=O.
D = D + D'v = [D(v)v]'.
(39 )
Though vector notation is used, all equalities and inThis is equivalent to integrating the production term
equalities apph: on a cell-by-cell basis.
The starting point for construction of the implicit explicitly and the destruction term implicitly: thi~ tee 11source terms J> and I) is the true Jacobians for the nique has often been used for solution of k-( modE;ls. Altbough this strategy guarantees positivity. it can result
production and destruction operators,
in extremely slow convergence in regions where produc[P(v)v)'
P(v) + P'(v)v.
(35a) tion and destruction are large and dominate the equa[D(v)v]' = D(y) + D'(v)v,
(35b) tion budget. In these regions, the Jacobians [P(v)"j'
and [D(v)vJ' will be individually large but ",;ill tend to
where we use ( )' for convenience to denote differentia- cancel. No"" if only [D(v)vl' is used to update the sotion with respect to v. Also for convenience we define lution, then the contribution to the diagonal element
of the matrix will be excessive; the resalting solution
the following operator:
change A.v will be correspondingly small e\'en when th o;
residuals are not close to zero.
Z ifz>O
(36)
pos(.r) =
{
This possible analytic cancellation of the individually
.
0 if z < O.
large Jacobians motivates our final strategy for choo;.illg
the implicit source terms. Ratber than concentraling Oil
Our objective is to choose If and I) close to the true the individual production and destruction Jacobians w ",
Jacobians. namely [P(Y)vl' and [D(v)vl'. 110 that rapid consider the source terms combined together and u.,e a
convergence is obtained when the residuals are small , variation of (38).
while retaining strict adherence to the positivity con( 1(1 I
D - P pos[D - P ] + pos[D' - P']v
straints for all possible solution states . We give three

12

With the _ree term6 taken ""ether. only two posit h'ity coutramts are required.
1) -

[1>-D]-lP'-P]

P' ~ 0,

(41a)

= [1>-P}-[D-P] ~ O.(4Ib)

Eumin!!!J the four poaibJe sip combinations for ~D

PJ and [D - P}. the.e poritivity coostraints are always

.w.&ed by (40). Furthermore. aaalytic caoeellation of
productioD and delltructioD is relec&ed in (40). resultins
in nperior cOD~pDCe compared to (38).
We evaluate the Jacobians P' ar.d D' analytically usinS the chain rule. The differentiation is stmptforward. except for the wall delltructioo term I.. Since
evaluation and difl'erentiatioo of I. involves terr.lS like
r- s and r12 I care must be taken for r small or larse.
lest ODe'. computer besina to complain. Tbe form of
(6) ciws acceptable numerical behavior for r - O. For
larse r, the functiOD ItIl asymptotes to [1 + c!31 1/t1 , so
~ eome cutoff' (say r
10). the derh-ative (I",)' is
8et to aero.

subiterations of an approximate factorization scheme at

each time step . .-hich will r~cover the update of the
original unsplit I~'stem at con\'ersenee (of the subiteration process). We use th'e lubiteration proces!! of
Steinthorsson &.: Shih [22]. where the splitt in,; error is
simply Iaged one subiteraticlD. The objeeth'e of the
approximate factorization is then to minimize splitting
error for rapid conversence. alld to minimize the number of .ubiterations where th.! candidate updated field
contains neptive points.
In 2-D we have tried conventional ADI .-ith aD additional factor due to the SOUtel! terms,

[1- ~tUd [1- ~tt;J"J [1- ~t(F -1i)J.t\,"

=~tRY". (45)
where R is the residual or risht-band-side operator in
(18). We have aI.o tried the approximate factorization
developed by Shih &.: Ch}'u [23J for finite-rate chemistry.

[N - ~tUd N-I [N -

.1tU,,] = ..1tR," ,

N:: 1- ~t(p' -1).

(46a)

(46b)

As disc.-ed in {23]. this second form bas Iml'er splittint:

error and con"erses much faster to the unsplit update
With the implicit and explicit operators properly de- than conventional ADI. Howe~'er. even this second form
fined. the backward Euler solution procedure (18) suar- requires several subiterations at start up to achie"e a
antees a positive turbulence field at each update. It non-nesative updated turbulence field: for example. apdoes. howe~er. require expensive inversion of a larse proximately 30 subiterations are needed for a time step
sparse matrix in 2-D or 3-D. Approrimate factoriza- of ~t 10 (baaed on chord and freestream density and
tion of the implicit operator will reduce the cost of an preaure) to eliminate all nepth'e updated points.
update, but unconditioaal positivity is lost . To see this
\\'e use an approximate factorization that outperetrect consider a 2-D flow with zero IOUrce terms. The forn be '.ll (45) and (46). Prior to splittin,;. we di~' ide
uusplit implicit system is,
tJtrousb by the diqonal mment of tbe implicit operator. then use a conventional approximate factorization.
[1- ~t (R( + R.,)] ~y" ~t (M( + M,,) y". (42) Denotins the diqonal elements of the implicit ad,'~
the scbeme
where M( and M" are finite ditrerences in tbe ( and tion/ditrusion operators .. ~"J and
"coordiDate directions, respectively, and U( and U" becomes.
Approximate FI&Wiation

ti,,"',

satis!'y tbe positivity coutrainu (21a) and (22a). If the

implicit operator is approximately factorized. tben the
system becomes.
[1- ~tU(]

[1- ~ttr(J [1- ~ttr~] ~y" =~tRvn,

(4i)

where

(1- ~tU,,) ~y" =~t(M( + M.,)y".

(43)

R.earraqing this system to i80Iate

(1-~tUd (1-~tU.,]y"+1

y .. +l

pves.

= [1+~t(M(-Ud

+ ~t(M., - U.,) + ~t2U(UIj) v".

(4E-)

(44)

We incorporate this approximate faetorizatioll

The splittins error results in the term ~t2JJ'(t;J.,y, ICherne into a aubileration proce5ti in the fashion of
which may DOt be positive. For small enou,h ~t the SteinlhorMon &:: Shih (22]. .-here the splitting error
apliuinS error wiD DOt ruin positivity, but the constraint
.t\t2U(U,,~y is law<! one subiteration.
equatioo on ~t is a nonline"r matrix equation in it&elf
and is quite difficult to solve.
.1v(t) ~tRvn - ~tn( (..1,.- _ ..1~.)' t_ l.
We conclude that there appearll to be DO approximate
factorization of(18) that retainll
unconditional pos. d . We propose usin~
itivity of the orisinal unllplit ,.

t"

13

[1- ..1ttr(]
=
[1- ..1tU.,J ..1y(tl = ~v ( i

The second .tep equation bas been used to rewrite the o.ooa
eplittiq error 011 the ri&ht-band side in the first ,tep;
~
~v- is a coovenieat definition.
0.0021

In practice this 'plittin& perfOl'111& quite well. Usin&

a coutant ~t throupout the field, we have yet to enCOUDter a lituatioa where a oeptive turbulence update
ocean eYeD on the first subitentioo. This iDcludes tests
wltere ~t .... varied over 1e1r2l"aI orden between 0.001
aDd 1000
.
From numerical experimentation. we chooee ~t
10 aDd Mop IUbiteratin& wbeo the normalized cban&e
1f4V/(1f + ~Ib is reduced below O.O!. Typically. 10 to
20 .biteratioae are aeeded for initialilatioa transients
aDd approximately 30 are required wbeo tile traDllitiOll
trip fuaction "waRs up". Within a few time steps only
one eubit.eration ill Deeded.
Tbis procedure d dividin, tbroup by the diapaaI elements at.o improYei the scheme', reaistance to
1OUIld-oft" error in the inviKid rqion where v is ,maD.
The eoIutioa module wiD still function properly if the
rr-tream Voo or the initial suees for ii is eet to zero.
In c:omparison. round-oft" errors may cause De&ative updates, even at cOllver,ence of tbe ,ubiteratiOlll, if either
(45) or (46) is used .

0.11024

D~

00022

I
I

.
0.0031
0.001'

o~

E~\ I!o- Model

0.0014

----l

0.0001

f\

0.0010

!
!
I
i
0 I'

0.000& 1

Fisu re 7: Ski-friction coefficient in Samuel-Joubert flow,

based 011 Uooo. z in meters.
0.024

0;
0.022

0.020

I
Mode/_

,~7

O.ClOl
0.005
0.004

0.002

/
V

E"'~

Boundary-Lug Calculatjons

'\

0.0012

for the Baldwin-Lomax aJ&ebraic model. This may be o . o~. I

6"
due to the ah.ence or "blinkin," pbenomenoo in the 0.016
I
present model. In aJ&ebraic models, conver,ence to
lteady-tltate may be adversely affected by dilcontinu- 0 .014 !
(lUI behavior. For example, the poIitioo _here the eddy
I
viKosity switches hetween inner and outer formulations 0 .012
may _aDder back and fortb between adjacent cells. slow- 0.010
in, cODver,ence or causin, a limit cycle.

Results

C}

= 0.0015

The model shows promisin, conver,ence to steady8ta&e wbeo coupled to the solver for the velocity field.
Cooversence is typically as ,000 or hetter than tbat

I
I

....r
~

...- V

/'

,
I
!

j..-I

Only iDcompreaible boundary layers have been conIidered. With zero prel5ure padient, the model obeys
the accepted ReyuoId..number Kalin" 10 tbe results
IhowD at R.
104 enlUre apeement with the curmat tIaeories. The model &ives satisfactory results in
attadaed boundary layers with preeaure padients, typical of tille Stanford lQ68 cues. We only present reault.
for the .mk low aDd the Samuel-Joubert low [24] as
tile other CUllS with moderate &r&dients Ihow the same
tread. Darmofal's code was used asain.

Fisure 8: Momentum and displacement thicknesses in

Samuel-Joubert flow. in meters.

[0.0050.0.0057] for C" [1 .35.1 .42J for H. and [700. S00}

for R.. The eddy-viscoaity profile is atypical. Because
of the lack or entrainment in the sink flo"., it does not
show a front at the edse of the boundary layer. Instead.
it extends iDto the freestream re,iOll. This did not di~
turb tbe veloc:ity profile. which is satisfactor~ bot h ill
In the sink flow. with an acceleration parameter
terms or thicknea and shape.
K == v/U;,(dUoo/dz) equal to 1.5 x 10-', we obtain
In the Samuel-Joubert flo" the .sreement i5 rath ~ r
C, 0.00535, H 1.35, and R. 760. T~ results
are weD within the experimental raDse, which is about Soad for the skiD friction, fig. 7, and the thiclmes-~~.

14

---,--,---,.---,----

0.12'
1-~!:---,:

1.65

1.10

0.1'
0

--!-----;--+--+---.1--+---,..--

.!

O.'Or-+--+--1r---t--+--+----i-~~

i--+--+--+-+----if---+--.;...!~~
i JIt::
0.08 +---f---+--If--+---;---+--i--J-

1.515

J...

0.08

II

1.80
Exp' -4::

OJ
0

1.45

c
0

1.40
0

.f1

O.07+--+_+_-+--t-~--I--+JSoL-1

0.06+-_+_+_-+--t-~-_1-"-"4---i

~~I

O.05+-_+_+_-+_-t__

"/

"i~odel !

_+--+_+--+.-.<-..j,4'7-+_~' _:

1
0.03+-

"/

0.02+-_+_+_-+--;;"..q-r~--1--+----.;

0.01

,./

i--1.35

Exp.....

~_--:!!~~~L_

!
O.04+--+--+---1:..---t--+'<----o,.q:.=~--

V :

II

,,"/

t---t--r--::lI!F;.,-&--+--r--+--f----'
~v

0.00 ~_....-_~:....JL-.J--..L-__1_--.J----"
0.2
0..
0.6
0.11
' .0

Figure 9: Shape factor in Samuel-Joubert flow .

Figure 10: Velocity profile at z

304m in SamuelJoubert flow. U normalized with edge \elocity. y in
meters.

Fig. 8. The model produces slightly higher skin friction, but lower thicknesses. The shape factors (Fig. 9) 0.'2
are in disa&reement even before the pressure gradient is 0."
I
applied, and are the root of the disagreement in thickI
nesses. With an adverse gradient, the skin-Criction term 0.'0
loses its authority in the momentum equation. The ex- 0.08
perimental values for z between 1 and 2m, H ~ 1.39,
I
are surprisingly high considering the weak pressure gra- 0.011
dient and the Reynolds number, R, ~ 6500. Interest- 0.07 !
ingly, the calculated shape factor is catching up with Y
0.06
the experimental one Cor z > 3m.

"

.
i

~ "
.............
!

..............

""k

-.........

"-......

jlAodeI !

,
Figure 10 shows the velocity at z = 3.4m. The posi- 0.05
tion oC the boundary-layer edge is good, but the com- 0.04
~ ,
Exp. ~~i
puted profile is Cuner than the experimental profile. The
shear-stress profiles in Fig. 11 show good agreement for 0.03
7)
the outer values, but the near-wan agreement may be 0.02
,..
poor enough to partly explain the differences in the ve~ I
locity profiles. Stress disagreements can of course be 0.01
P
t--,
l-i
compounded by the convection and pressure terms. Cu- 0.00
0.0016
0.0000
0.0004
0.0008
0.0020
0.00'2
riously Dr. F. Menter, who was kind enough to test the
r
model in his Navier-Stokes code [25], obtained similar
a&reement Cor the stress profiles, but better agreement Figure 11: Shear-stress profile at :r = 3.39m in SamuelJoubert flow . T normalized with edge velocity. y in
for the velocity.
meters.
The Samuel-Joubert results suggest a mild but genuine tendency to underpredict the shape factor and
thickneMeI in adverse pressure sradients. This may this type of 80w. Neverthl!less, the behavior of the
make the model a little more resilient to separation than new mod~l is not disappointing and vindicates the noit would ideally be. The tendency is not as strong as tion that a model calibrated Cor mixing layers, wakes.
with the Cebeci-Smith, Baldwin-Lomax, and IN mod- and zero-gradient boundary layers has a gooa chance in
els, but our comparison with experiment is not quite adverse-gradent boundary layers, which are an interas Sood as that obtained by Menter \II-ith the Johnson- mediate sit'Jation. In addition, an improvement of the
King and Ir-w models [25J. Both models have been dt'<;truction !erm 1"Iay yet be found sufficient to obtain
finely tuned over years. with an emphasis on precisely resuits 011 <i ;"! .... ith the best models.
~

15

~avier-Stokes

Calculations

'1.4

We present three cues or the RAE 2822 airfoil; the

first two have a sharp trailing edge but shock interactiooa or different strengths. and the tbird has a blunt
trailing edge.

'1.2

..

I
~I-

".0

--

~
L..-" ~

xperl~t
ptesent~ :

- - - . a.tdwi".lomu
- . - . .IcIhNon-KJng

-0.1

\..
\;\

Navier-Stoke8 calculations for- Cues 6 and 10 OIl the

RAE 2822 airfoil [26] were performed using the present -0.6
model, &I well u the Baldwin-Lomax and Johnson-King -CI'
turbulence models. The John80n-King results were ob- -0.4
tained Uling the Navier-Stokes code or Swanson [27].
Results for- each model were computed on 384 x 80 and -0.2
768 )( 160 grids to minimize numerieal errors. These
grids were generated by the elliptic method of Wig- 0.0
ton r23]. The medium and fine grids contain 257 and
0.2
513 points on the airfoil. respectively.

V'
~

l.r' ~

i
I

I !
!

,I

'

'"

~ .:J,

I
AU calculations for Case 6 were performed at tbe same 0.4
0.4
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.8
1.0
conditions: M
0.725. He
6.5 X 106 a prescribed
z/c
lift coefficient of Cl
0.743. and transition trips at
Figure
12:
Pressure
distribution
for Case 6, RAE 2822
3% chord. Results on the 768 x 160 grid are shown in
Figs. 12 and 13. AU models converged solidly on both airfoil.
grids.

0.007,..,..-....---.--,..-....--....----,r-------_

Figure 12 sbows a comparison of surface pretlllures

- - pteNnt model
for- Cue 6 obtained with the three turbulence models
- - - lIaIdwin-L......
and experiment [26]. The shock for- tbe present model
_. - . ..Ic>hrcon-K"'I!
is about 1.5% chord farther forward than in the experiment or- as predicted with the Baldwin-Lomax and 0.005 ,!
.:~_
I
' . -::'~ ""___-'-.....
Johnson-King models. but well within the acatter of various models as reported at the Viscous Transonic Airfoil 0.004 TI~j~~_+---~'~~~---~~~-~-~~~--+_~~--"~~
!I
Wor-kshop (VTAW) [6]. The new model is farther from
!
the experiment near tbe leading edge on the upper sur- 0.003 +-'---<~_+--+--+---+*_I--_+--+--~__I
face. but cloeer to the experiment near the trailing edge C,
on the lower surface. All the calculations reveal small
pressure glitches near the trailing edge. With the new
model on the fine grid. the angle of attack was 2.37.
the drag coefficient 0.0121. and the moment coefficient
-0.091, compared with 2.9~. 0.0127. and -0.095 in the
experiment, re8pectively.

Figure 13 shows the upper-surface skin-friction coefficient for the same case. Between the three models there
is a difference or up to 10% upstream of the shock. and
similar but reversed differences downstream of it. The
new model d0e8 not predict wall-shear reversal. The
other two predict reversal at the foot of the shock, but
only on the finest grid (768 x 160). Reversal was never
predieted at the VTAW, where the finest grid used was
369 x 65. It appears that with current codes the simple
qUe8tion of whether reversal occurs is not firmly answered even at grid resolutions that are considered very
fine. At the shock. the new model produces a larger
step up for the boundary-layer thicknesses than with
Baldwin-Lomax, resulting in a mor-e for~'ard position.
Intere8tingly, the size or the displacement effect is not
correlated with the occurrence of reversal at the wall.

-O.OO,+--~-4--L-+---L---<~~-+-~--

16

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

' .0

z/c
Figure 13: Skin-friction coefficient on upper surface for
Case 6, RAE 2822 airfoil. C, based on (;at:.

Flow conditions for the RAE 2822 Case 10 are M

0.75, Re = 6.5 X 106 , a prescribed lift coefficient of
Cl = 0.743, and trips at 3% chord . The new modd
obtained a 8teady solution on the 384 x 80 grid. but
produced a limit cycle on the finer 768 x 160 grid . All
the cyclic variation was in the separation bubble. The
new model also produced a limit cycle on the 384 x 8(1
grid when the artificial dissipation in the ~a\ier-Stokes
solver ~' as cut in half. Baldwin-Lomax and Johnson-

-.

-'.4
-1.2

f'

+- j

--

-,.0 ~.
-, .... :;'
-aa

'-

...

~~

.--1

~'

~\
.

~;.-

trailing edge. lower surface. All the models fail to agree

with experiment for ric> 0.7. upper surface. The new
model predicts a flattening pressure for ric> 0.9. upper surface, in qualitative disagreement ..... ith the experiment. The Johnson-King model has shown the &ame
trend, but not as strongly and only in Coakley's implementation (6). The Baldwin-Barth model also produces
the flattening (8) .

--~_'

----8eldwi~Lomu

-'-"~King

-aa
-C.,

~\.\1'

This behavior of the C., is corr~lated with that of

the akin-friction coefficient, Fig. 15. Downstream of
44
the shock, the experiment and our Johnson-King reIUlta ahow the akin friction returning to .trong posiJ
~
-o.z
tive values. The flow reattaches firmly. The BaldwinLomax results show weakly positive skin friction over
.rJ
0.0
,"""'I
a short stretch. With the new model th~ skin friction
~
gazes zero before again taking moderate negati\'e \'al,J
~
G.2
ues. There is no reattachment, and the flattening pres......... -.'"'
lUre distribution reflects it. Note that a similar be0.4
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.1
0.0
' .0 havior has been observed with algebraic models: if the
:rIc
skin friction approaches zero smoothly enough the VanFipr~ 14: Pressure distribution for Case 10, RAE 2822 Driest damping can, erroneously, "shut dO"'n" th~ eddy
viscosity across the whole layer. This is not what is
airfoiL
happening here.

I\~,~

"

V ~

V"

"\

,. .

"

"

0.007

O.CIIII

~I

- - - '

8eIdwi~.

-'- " ~King

The apparent failure to reattach is not a favorable

result,
and this behavior "'as also observed in another
I
f
~ -,
separated case (B. Paul, personal communication). The
,I
~
.'.,:
I
.1
0.004
IOlutions show a very 10'" eddy \'iscosity near the wall.
\
'- .
:
I
A run with a more diffusive model (i.e . lower u) that
~
could have helped the eddy viscosity diffuse towards the
.\
~ ,
wall failed to show much difference. However we do not
\ ,
. I
believe
there is a structural reason for the failure to reat 0.002
tach, baaed on two tests. The first is a cakulation of
.....
reattachment on our boundary-layer code, modified to
0.001
, , a time-developing code; a layer of reversed ftov. near the
I
wall was eliminated as could be expected . The second
,0.000
is
an unpublished calculation by Menter of a. separation
-\
~~
bubble; again the skin friction returned to positive ""l' .'
ues without hesitation. Numerical errors in our current
-0.00'0.0
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.2
' .0 Navier-StolEes/turbulence-model solver may be playing
:rIc
a role.
Fipre 15: Skin-friction coeflkient on upper surface for
For Case 10. with the ne",' model on the 384 x 80
Cue 10. RAE 2822 airfoil. C, based on U"".
gid, the angle of attack was 2.52. the drag coefficient
0.0238, and the moment coefficient -0.104. compared
Kin~ produced steady solutions on both gids. Results with 3.19", 0.0242, and -0.106 in the experiment , refor Cue 10 ar~ preaented in Fip. 14 and 15 for aU three spectively.
turb~nce models on the 384 x 80 grid .
The blunt-trailing edge airfoil is RAE 2822, truncated
As uaual, Case 10 produces larger differences than at 94% ofthe original chord (hue height 1.14~ chord) .
Cue 6. With our policy of matchin~ the Mach number Our objective is to explore the behavior of the model
and lift coefficient the new model ~ives a better answer and ofthe numerics at corner-induced separation. with
than Baldwin-Lomax, and slightly better than Johnson- high-lift applications in mind . Accordingly we chos~
0.6i6, Re =
King (see Fig 14). This is in terms oCahock location Case 1 (29) which is 8ubcritical: !of
and pressures near the leading edge. upper surface, and 5.4 x 106 , and lift coefficient CI 0.451 . Calculatiom
0.005

'.

,~

1I

---- .-

\\ .
\\

The limit cycle behavior of the new model on the fine

grid shows an oscillation between slightly negative and
slightly positive skin friction near ric 0.8.

--prwent~

,.

.-

Ii

:I

ylC

UminIU.dg.
0.6
I

0.5

....

..,..V

0.4

)'

0.3

0.2

0.0

.. '""
..- - - ...~.----.,..,
.o:-,-----:,""
02::---x-IC--:-'' -.,:-----:--..,..

Figure 16: Velocity contours near the trailing edge for

Case 1. blunt RAE 2822 airfoil. Levels: -0.007 (small
island), 0., 0.007. ..

-D.1

. ,
~
:

II

0.1

...OIL-_----------------

1/

0Y

1.00

!
I

1.02

1.0<1

1.06

1.08

1.10

zlc
Figure 17: Minimum velocity in wake for Case 1, blunt
RAE 2622 airfoil. 0 experiment, - - - 768 x 160 grid,
- - - 384 x 80 grid.

were performed on medium and fine two-block grids.

The fine grid consists of a 768 x 160 C-grid block around
the airfoil and a 128 x 64 block downstream of the blunt
trailing edge. The grid contains 513 points on the airfoil
and 65 points across the blunt base. The medium grid y/c
contains blocks of 384 x 80 and 64 x 32. Results for Case
1 are presented for the fine grid.
Strong convergence was obtained, and solution
glitches are less severe than with the sharp trailing edge.
The angle of attack for Case 1 is 2.035, the drag coefficient 0.0097, and the moment coefficient -0.061, compared with 2.450 , 0.0098, and -0.060 in the experiment,
respectively.
In another example of slow convergence of the detail
features in the flow. the amplitude of the backflow doubles between the 384 x 80 grid and the 768 x 160 grid.
The region with negative velocities extends a little over
one step hei&bt (i.e., 1.35% on the fine grid, the step being 1:14% chord) beyond the trailing edge. The report
on the experiment also shows about 1.2 step heights,
but the interpolation is debatable in that the U
0
line is shown with an apex, probably due to the understandable sparsity of the measurements. The region of
reversed flow should not be confused with the displacement body invoked in integral boundary-layer methods,
which tends to be much longer (2.5 to 5 step heights) .
Figure 16 shows velocity contours, with the expected
wedge-shaped region of low velocity. Figure 17 sholl's
the minimum velocity in the wake, which is in fair agreement with the experiment [29]. The computed curve is
shifted by about 0.5% chord downstream. This suggests

18

Xlc

103

Figure 18: Streamlines near the trailing edge for Case

I, blunt RAE 2822 airfoil.
that the model not only gives an accurate growth rate
for a fully-developed wake (per its calibration), but is
also fairly accurate for a "youngfl, asymmetric one. The
wake of a wing, which is combined with a mixing layer.
is stiD s different problem; nevertheless, we expect the
model should also be able to treat it well .
Figure 18 shows streamlines (but not equally-spaced
stream-function contours). Their pattern is unexpected.
being rather uymmetric and indicating "reattachment"
of an upper-surface streamline near the mid-point of the
base. There are three half-saddles, one saddle, and two
nodes. This differs from the "educated guess~ made, for
instance, in [30]. That guess assumes that the streamlines connected to the three half-saddles meet at the full

...

O'Olf===:-~~==~~~g::~~~~~~~~~~~~
::
:

....

eddy
blends
boundary-layer
behavior
(as
in fig.visc06ity
4) into its
wakeitsbehavior
(a bell-shaped
distribution). There is little basis to judge its level in the
recirculation region.
Finall)' Fig. 20 shows the pressure distribution. The
agreement is good, especially considering the 0.415' difference in angle ofattack, except that the calculated Cp
is shifted down. This was also observed by Drela for his
numerical method (31). We also ran Case 4 to measure
the Reynold&-number effect. In the experiment, Case 4
had the same angle of attack as Case 1, but a Reynolds
number of only 1.9 x 106 , resulting in a 1066 of 0.036 in
C/. We ran Case 4 with imposed C/ 0.415, and the
angle of attack settled at 1.940 The lift-curve slope is
about 0.155 per degree. This implies that the C/ I06S
due to the lower Reynolds number is about 0.022. This
is only about 60% of the lift I06S observed in the experiment .

L--------:=====

01
...

..... .~-~--:~-~-==---=---=-~--:-:
.
1.00
1.0'
1.at
XIC
1.04
l.OJ

Figure 19: Eddy-viscosity contours near the trailing

edge for Case 1, blunt RAE 2822 airfoil.
-1.0

-O.s

,
.....

,I

ElOP

'-,.- o.t.!.:

-0.11

!!!: ~

-Cp

;Y

-0.2

lY

'j

0.4
0.0

0.2

0.11

0.4

ric

'''\

1I

0.0

0.2

"f\

-o.~

I! !
I

,"
~

~xl,.J

0.'

1.0

Figure 20: Pressure distribution for Case 1, blunt RAE

2822 airfoil.

saddle, isolating the two nodes. There is no reason for

such a pattern to occur in the absence of symmetry, and
it is not stable. The saddle and the lower node could also
eliminate each other under other conditions. Streamline
patterns can overstate the importance of regions with
10\\' velocity and little dynamical significance.
Figure 19 shows eddy-viscosity contours. Continuity between the grid blocks, "'hich is hard to achieve
with algebraic models, is of course observed. The

19

Summary of the results

We have exercised the model outside its domain of
calibration and with the full Na"ier-Stokes equations.
instead of just the boundary-layer equations. Its compatibility with unstructured grids has yet to be used.
but there is no need to demonstrate it. In a few cases
with shock-induced separation the new model yielded
a limit cycle, with a pulsation of the bubble. when the
algebraic models yielded steady solutions. Since timeaccurate solutions Ilfe very expensive, steady solutions
may be greeted as successes whether they are ph~' si
cally correct or not. Outright divergence ofthe iterative
process has never occurred, and the model seems to be
reasonably "friendly" to the relaxation process, without
any attention being paid to the initial condition . Thus.
the model appears robust enough to be implemented by
independent users, in a variety of codes and physical
situations, and it should be particularly attractive to
unstructured-grid \lIers.
The accuracy 10 rar is consistent with our expectations. The model's response to grad ual or steep pressure
gradients, and to the removal of the blocking effect of
the wall, is encouraging. The post-shnck reattachment
in an adverse pressure gradient has proven to be difficult
for the model. Menter also reported somewhat disappointing results over a backward-facing step. traced to
an excessively-rapid build-up of the shear stress (perIOnal communication). This weakness also afHicts the
k- model, and may respond to a modification of the
/", function. The quality of our results with the blunt
trailing edge indicate that this problem cannot be very
severe. It appears that the calibration cases are indeed representative enough of the flows of interest to
ensure decent performance in non-trivial situations, and
to warrant extensive applications and tests ofthe model
in its present form.

Outlook
The development of the model will nevertheless continue. It will praerve the basic favorable features of
the model: ainpe trauport equation, local formulation,
moderate resolution requirements, good numericalltability, iD8eDlitivity to the freestream value, ready control of trauition. The invariance principles wiII allO be
upheld. Additional tests will be made, notably in three
dimelllioal. No additional difficulties are anticipated.
Tests in more Itronpy stimulated Oows such a massive
IeparatioD, wakes in pressure gradients, or free vortices,
are likely to reveal weak_ in the model. They will
aIIo aue. the current Navier-Stokea codes, in two respects. The first .. the detai1accuracy, for instance the
cooaervatioo of momentum in boundary layers, which
is far from perfect in our experience. This problem haa
been ot.tructed by the difficulty in computing the thicknellel6 and IJ in Navier-Stokes codes, but it must now
be addreased, if only on a flat plate at low Mach number.

of order UooR in the recirculation region. A Reynolds

number based on tbat viscosity would be finite, which
shows that there is no immediate lCaJing argument that
can predict whether a steady solution can be stable.
This question must await extensive tests. The pressure
to produce time-accurate Navier-Stokes codes will only
increase, even if the steady-state codes have not reached
perfection.

Even when unsteady solutions of the modeled equations are obtained, their meaning will need scrutiny.
Many of the properties of Reynolds-averaging hold approximately if there is a separation of scales (i.e., a spectral gap) hetween the resolved motions and those that
are left to the turbulence model. We have little evidence
in that domain. An example of legitimate decomposition would be a mixing layer that wanders on a time
scale much longer that its internal time scale which, after modeling, is 6/AU (with 6 the thickness, and A(,
the velocity difference). Note that what we envision
here is different from Large-Eddy Simulation. As the
The other aspect is the question of steady solutions grid is refined the model does not change, the way it
in Oows with medium- or large-scale separation. An does in LES (through a narrowing of the filter, so that
classic example is the flow past a circular cylinder; a the limit is direct simulation). The difficulty of LES is
pressing industrial example is the Oow past a staDed the filtering without spectral gap. Instead, v..e converge
airfoil, near its maximum lift coefficient C"mazo. Except to a smooth solution of the modeled equations .
at very low Reynolds number the Oow is unsteady and
Some of the near-future directions have been hinted
three-dimensional. On the other hand, provided the ge- at above. There is the choice of S, between the vorticometry is time-independent, it is legitimate to define its ity, the strain rate, or another scalar norm of the detime-average and to hope for a code that would com- formation tensor. There is the use of an approximation
pute it as a ateady solution. It is .Iso legitimate to re- of the turbulent kinetic energy Ii: to give the Reynoldsquest the low-frequency component (i.e., with Strouhal stress tensor a plausible trace (or set of eigen\lllues).
number of order 1) of the solution, particularly the Oue- There is a modification of the /", function in the region
tuating loads for Itructural purposes. The ideal turbu- r > 1, that would alter the results only on adverse preslence would include a Iwitch between these two options. lure gradients. The third modification could be assessed
We do not know, in general, whether the exact solu- in the Samuel-Joubert or airfoil flows, but obvious test
tion of the Navier-Stokes/turbulence-model system in cases for the first two are not at hand.
its pretent form is steady. In the design of some models,
The current model has no compressibilit~ terms. Emdecisions have been made solely on the basis of a preferpirical terms baaed on the turbulent Mach number, such
ence for the candidate that yielded steady solutions. We
as the one in the Secundov model, or on the quantity
are far from having the capability of routinely performVp.V;; are available. The former may be calibrated
ing time-accurate calculations to explore the issue. All
in supersonic mixing layers. The latter may assist the
the routine calculations aim at Iteady solutions. Failure
model in shock/boundary-layer interactions if a consisto converge, and the generation of a limit cycle,
be
tent trend is found that shows an erroneous shock loa lign that the exact solution is unsteady. It may allo
cation, and we can extricate that trend from numer ibe just a numerical problem.
cal concerns (e.g., artificial dissipation) and from the
Enviaioo a ateady solution, say past a cylinder. An endIeaa corrections of tranlOnic airfoil testing. In that
aJebraic modelluch as, for instance, Baldwin-Lomax range of density variations it may be enough to write
would be UIed out of its range, but this does not stop ea- the transport equation in terms of p instead of ii. takger UIetI. In the recirculating re&ion it would yield eddy ing advantage of the flexibility in placing p inside or
viscosities on the order of U00 R, with U00 the freestream outside various derivatives. This is consistent ",ith the
velocity and R the cylinder radius. We presume here spirit in which the model was devised. To tJ .:s date.
that the Baldwin-Lomax fmn condition would occur efforts to devise a curvature term with the required inin the wake, and not near the wall. A balance be- variance pr(\perties and no d.dependence have failed.
tween production, on one side, and diffusion and de- Note that curvature effects have been obsef\ed in free
struction, on the other, suggests that the new model shear flows. Three-dimensional effects in boundary layalso could produce a IOlution with an eddy vilCOIiity ers (Le., pressure-gradient vector at an angle to the ve

m.,

20

locity vector) are also delicate to introduce even empirThe trip function III is as follows: d, is the distance
ically without violating the in~-ariance principles. No from the field point to the trip. which is on a wall. ,,:, is
plana have been made to depart (rom a acalar eddy vis- the wall vorticity at the trip, and ~U is the difference
c05ity.
between the velocity at the field point and that at the
trip. Then" == min(O.I.~U/IoII~Z) where ~.r is th.,
grid spaein, along the wall at the trip. and

Acknowled,ements

:J%

g~d;]

III Cn " exp ( -C,2

[d +
) .
(A6)
The initial work was performed by the first author while an employee of NASA Ames Reeearch Center. Dr. L. Wilton reviewed the manuscript and ran
The constants are Cu = 0.1355, tf 2/3, cn 0.622,
2
lOme 0( the cues.
Mr. W. F. NoU8S reviewed the It
0.41. C",l
Ctt!lt + (1 + cn)/tf. c .. 2
0.3,
maDUKript. Ms. W. Wilkinson provided some of the Ctl/3 2, Ct.l = 7.1, Cn
1, C,' 2. C'l! = 1.1, Cf4 2.
rue.. We have benefited from comments by Drs. Bald- Turbulent heat tranlfer obeys.a turbulent Prandtl numwin. Barth, Birch, Bradabaw, Jou, Menter. Speziale, her (not to be confused witb tf) equal to 0.9.
and Vandromme. Theae comments do not constitute
endonemeata.

=
=

=
=

References

Appendix; Summary of the Model. Version I

We solve the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equatiODS and a transport equation (or the turbulence model.
The ReyncJds atreues are given by -1ijlij = 2VI Sij
where Sij :: (lJUi/lJZ j + lJUj/8zi )/2. The eddy visc05ity v. is pven by
"1

=ii 1,,1.

1~1

=X

X3
3

3'
+C.,1

ii

X:: -.
If

(AI)

v is the molecular visc05ity. ii is the working variable

and obeys the transport equation
Dj;
Di
=cn [I-I.,] S-_11+;1 [V. (If + ii)Vii) + cn (Vii) 2]

- [C.,tltI/ - :: 112]

[~r + In ~U2

I.,

(A3)

[5] Launder. B. E . &: Tselepidakis, D. P., "Direction!!

in eecond-moment modelling of near-wall turbulence" AIAA-91-0219.

[6] Holst, T. L., "Viscous transonic airfoil workshop.

Compendium of results". AIAA-S7-1460.

is

1+ I ] 1/'
I.,=.?
, ,=,,+cw,(,,6_,,). ,,:.....!--.
[ +)3
tl/3
S,,2d2
(A4)

For wse " I. reaches a cooatant, so lar,e values of "

can be truncated to 10 or so.

The wall boundary condition is if = o. In the

freestream 0 is beat. provided numerical errors do not
push ;; to negative values near the edge of the boundary layer (the exact solution can't go negative) . Values
below ,,/10 will be acceptable. The Ame applies to the
initial condition. The /12 function is
1,2

=C,3 exp(-Cr4 :.\').

[3] Jobnson, D. A., &: King. L. S., "A mathematically simple turbulence closure model for attached and separated turbulent boundary layer5~,
AIAA JoUrnal. Vol. 23, No. 11. 1985, pp. 16841692.
[4] Mavriplis, D. J . "Algebraic Turbulence Modeling
for Unstructured and Adaptive Meshes", AIAA-901653.

and d is the distance to the closest wall.

The function

[2] Cebeci, T ., &: Smitb, A. M. O ....A finite-difference

method for calculating compressible laminar
and turbulent boundary layers~, Journal of Basic
Engineering, Vol. 92, No.3, pp. 523-535.

(A2)

Here S is the magnitude of the vorticity,

ii
S == S + 242 1"2,

[1] Baldwin, B. S,' &: Lomax, H., "Thin layer approximation and algebraic model for separated turbulent
flows". AIAA-7S-257.

(A5)

21

[7] Viegas. J. R., Rubesin, M. W., &: Horstman, C.

C., "On tbe use of wall functions as boundary conditions for tw~dimensional separated compressible
ROWIS", AIAA-85-OISO.
[S] Baldwin, B. S., &: Bartb. T. J . "A one-equation
turbulence traoaport model for high Reynolds num
her wall-bounded flows". AJAA-9I-061O.
[9] Bradshaw. P. Ferriss. D. H., &: Atwell . N. P..
"Calculation of boundary-layer de\'e1opment us
ing the turbulent energy equation", J. fluid ~' t'ch .
Vol. 2S, 3, 1967, pp. 593-616.

[10] Nee, V. W., &: Kovuznay, L. S. G., "Simple phe- [24] Samuel, A. E., &: Joubert, P. N. "A boundar~'layer
developing in an increasingly ad\'erse pressure granomenological theory of turbulent ahear flows",
Physics of Fluids, Vol, 12, No.3, 1969, pp. 473dient", J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 66, 3, 19i4, pp. 4$1484.
505.

[11] Secundov, Smirnova, Koclov, &: Gulyaev, "One- [25] Menter, F. R., "Performance of popular turbulence
equation eddy vileosity model (modified L, S. J.
Kovumay model)". Short aummary of the equatioaa. Personal communication, 1990.

models for attached and separated adverse pressure

gradient flows", AIAA-91-1784.

[26] Cook, P. H., McDonald, M. A., &: Firmin, M.

[12] MitcJaeltree, R. A., Salas, M. D., &: Husan, H. A.,

"One-equation turbulence model for transonic airfoil lows", AlAA Journal, Vol. 28. No.9, 1990, pp.
1625-1632.
[27]

[13J Bradshaw, P., Launder, B. E., &: Lumley, J.

L., "Collaborative teating of turbulence models",
AlAA-91-0215.
[14] Wilcox, D. C., "Reassessment of the scaledetermining equation for advanced turbulence
models", AIAA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 11, 1988, pp.
1299-1310.
[15] Spataft, P. R., "Direct simulation of a turbulent
boundary layer up to R, 1410", J. Fluid Mech ..
Vol. 187, 1988, pp. 61-98.

C. P., "Aerofoil RAE 2822 - Pressure distributions, and boundary layer and wake measurements", AGARD-AR-138, 1979.
Swanson, R. C., &: Turkel. E., "Artificial Dissipation and Central Difference Schemes for the Euler and Navier-Stokes Equations", AIAA-Si-llOi,
1987.

[28] Wigton, L. B., "High Quality Grid Generation Using Laplacian Sweeps", Fourth International Symposium on Computational Fluid Dynamics, U .C.
Da\'is.Sep. 1991, pp. 1222-1228.

[29] Cook, P. H., &: McDonald, M. A., "Wind tunnel measurements in the boundary layer and wake
of 6.n airfoil with a blunt base at high subsonic
speeds", RAE Tech. Rept. 84002. 1984.

[16] Baldwin, B. S., &: Barth, T. J., "A one-equation [30J Henne, P. A., &: Gregg, R. D., "A new airfoil design
turbulence transport model for high Reynolds numconcept", AIAA-89-2201-CP
ber waIl-bounded flows", NASA TM 102847, 1990.
[31] Orela, M., "Integral boundary layer formulation for
[171 Townsend, A. A. The structure of turbulent shear
blunt trailing edges", AIAA-89-2200.
flow. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1976.
[18] Schlichting, H. Boundary-layer theory. McGrawHill, New York, 1979.
[19] Hunt, J. C. R. "Turbulence structure in thermal convection and shear-free boundary layers".
J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 138, 1984, pp. 161-184.

[2OJ Mellor, G. L., &: Herring, H. J., "Two methods

of calculating turbulent boundary layer behavior
hued on numerical solution of tbe equations of
motion". Proc. Conf. Turb. Boundary Layer Pred.,
Stanford, 1968.

[21] Martinelli, L., &: Jameson, A.. "Validation of

a Multigrid Method for the Reynolds Averaged
Equations". AIAA-88-0414.

[22J Steintboruon, E., &: Shih, T. I.-P., "A Method

of Reducing Approximate Factorization Errors in
Two- and Three-Factored Schemes", submitted to
SIAM J. of Statistical and Scientific Computing.

[23] Shih, T. I.-P., &: Chyu, W. J., "Approximate Factorisation with Source Terms" , AIAA Journal, Vol.
29, No. 10, October 1991, pp. 1759-1760.
22

..j