Detached-eddy simulation (DES) is well understood in thin boundary layers, with the turbulence model in its Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) mode and flattened grid cells, and in regions of massive separation, with the turbulence model in its large-eddy simulation (LES) mode and grid cells close to isotropic. However its initial formulation, denoted DES97 from here on, can exhibit an incorrect behavior in thick boundary layers and shallow separation regions. This behavior begins when the grid spacing parallel to the wall Δ∥ becomes less than the boundary-layer thickness δ, either through grid refinement or boundary-layer thickening. The grid spacing is then fine enough for the DES length scale to follow the LES branch (and therefore lower the eddy viscosity below the RANS level), but resolved Reynolds stresses deriving from velocity fluctuations (“LES content”) have not replaced the modeled Reynolds stresses. LES content may be lacking because the resolution is not fine enough to fully support it, and/or because of delays in its generation by instabilities. The depleted stresses reduce the skin friction, which can lead to premature separation.

/pdf/a-new-version-of-detached-eddy-simulation-resistant-to-yuj0rxxfha.pdf

A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities

Detached-eddy simulation (DES) was first proposed in 1997 and first used in 1999, so its full history can be surveyed. A DES community has formed, with adepts and critics, as well as new branches. The initial motivation of high–Reynolds number, massively separated flows remains, for which DES is convincingly more capable presently than either unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) or large-eddy simulation (LES). This review discusses compelling examples, noting the visual and quantitative success of DES. Its principal weakness is its response to ambiguous grids, in which the wall-parallel grid spacing is of the order of the boundary-layer thickness. In some situations, DES on a given grid is then less accurate than RANS on the same grid or DES on a coarser grid. Partial remedies have been found, yet dealing with thickening boundary layers and shallow separation bubbles is a central challenge. The nonmonotonic response of DES to grid refinement is disturbing to most observers, as is the absence of...

Detached-Eddy Simulation

The present author was asked to provide an update on the status and the more recent developments around the shear-stress transport (SST) turbulence model for this special issue of the journal. The article is therefore not intended as a comprehensive overview of the status of engineering turbulence modelling in general, nor on the overall turbulence modelling strategy for ANSYS computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in particular. It is clear from many decades of turbulence modelling that no single model-nor even a single modelling approach-can solve all engineering flows. Any successful CFD code will therefore have to offer a wide range of models from simple Eddy-viscosity models through second moment closures all the way to the variety of unsteady modelling concepts currently under development. This article is solely intended to outline the role of the concepts behind the SST model in current and future CFD simulations of engineering flows.

Review of the shear-stress transport turbulence model experience from an industrial perspective

The Scale-Adaptive Simulation (SAS) concept is based on the introduction of the von Karman length-scale into the turbulence scale equation. The information provided by the von Karman length-scale allows SAS models to dynamically adjust to resolved structures in a URANS simulation, which results in a LES-like behavior in unsteady regions of the flowfield. At the same time, the model provides standard RANS capabilities in stable flow regions. The introduction of the von Karman length-scale is based on the reformulation of Rottas’s equation for the integral length-scale. In the current paper, the term containing the von Karman length-scale is transformed to the SST turbulence model. It allows the SST model to be operated in a SAS mode.

A Scale-Adaptive Simulation Model using Two-Equation Models

The paper provides a brief introduction to the near-wall problem of LES and how it can be solved through modeling of the near-wall turbulence. The distinctions and key differences between different approaches are emphasized, both in terms of fidelity (LES, wall-modeled LES, and DES) and in terms of different wall-modeled LES approaches (hybrid LES/RANS and wall-stress-models). The focus is on approaches that model the wall-stress directly, i.e., methods for which the LES equations are formally solved all the way down to the wall. Progress over the last decade is reviewed, and the most important and promising directions for future research are discussed.

Large eddy simulation with modeled wall-stress: recent progress and future directions

Turbulence model development for aerodynamic applications has for many years concentrated on improving the capabilities of CFD methods for separation prediction. Validation studies of turbulence models in the ‘80th have clearly shown that most turbulence models were not capable of predicting the development of turbulent boundary layers under adverse pressure gradient conditions. Based on that observation, new models were developed to specifically meet this challenge, resulting in a series of models capable of capturing boundary layer separation in good agreement with experimental data (Johnson and King 1984, Menter 1993, Spalart and Allmaras 1994).

M. Kuntz

Papers

Adaptation of Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models to Unsteady Separated Flow Behind Vehicles