FINEMarine Theory Guide

THEORY GUIDE
FINE™/Marine 7.2
CONTENTS
NOMENCLATURE
CHAPTER 1. THE ISIS-CFD FLOW SOLVER

1.1 Governing Equations 7
1.2 Numerical framework 10
A. Preliminaries 12
B. Quantity on the face 14
C. Normal gradient to the face 15
D. Algorithm 32
CHAPTER 2. TURBULENCE MODELS

2.1 One-Equation Model (Spalart-Allmaras) 36
2.2 Wilcox Two-Equation Model 39
2.3 Menter Two-Equation Model (SST) 41
2.4 Reynolds-Stress Modeling 45
2.5 Explicit Reynolds-Stress Modeling 51
2.6 DES models 55
2.7 Roughness 57
2.8 Transition model 62
CHAPTER 3. CAVITATION MODELS

3.1 Notation and general relation 68
3.2 Formulation with CiCav as the liquid fraction 70
3.3 Numerical treatment 73
CHAPTER 4. FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

4.1 Rigid-body motion 75
4.2 Flexible body with modal approach 80
CHAPTER 5. AUTOMATIC GRID ADAPTATION

5.1 How to use the grid adaptation? 84
5.2 Refinement procedure and criteria 84
5.3 Free surface criteria 85
5.4 Gradient criteria 87
5.5 Pressure Hessian criteria 88
5.6 Free surface plus pressure Hessian criterion 88
CHAPTER 6. SLIDING GRIDS METHODOLOGY

6.1 Introduction 92
6.2 Implementation 93
2 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

CHAPTER 7. NUMERICAL STRATEGIES TO SPEED UP CFD COMPUTATIONS
7.1 The time-splitting procedure for the volume fraction 97
7.2 Acceleration algorithms 98
CHAPTER 8. ACTUATOR DISK
CHAPTER 9. WAVE MODELLING

9.1 Stokes waves 107
9.2 Irregular waves 110
CHAPTER 10. PROJECTION

10.1 Objectives 117
10.3 Examples 118
10.4 Limitations 119
CHAPTER 11. OVERSET

11.1 Introduction 121
11.2 Overset Domain Layout 121
11.3 Cell Status 123
11.4 Donor cell identification 126
11.5 Overset interpolation 127
CHAPTER 12. ADDITIONAL EQUATIONS

12.1 Passive scalar 129

NOMENCLATURE
The following list shows the nomenclature of the general symbols. Special symbols are not
included in this list and are explained in the context of the report.
General Symbols
Volume fraction of phase:
Distance to the nearest no-slip surface
Drag coefficient
Lift coefficient
Gravity component in the coordinate direction
Cartesian unit vector; k = 1,2,3
Turbulent kinetic energy
Characteristic length scale
Coordinate component of the unit normal vector to no-slip surface; i = 1,2,3

Static pressure
Reynolds number,
Magnitude of mean strain rate,
Mean strain rate tensor,
Time
Mean flow velocity component in the coordinate direction
Flow velocity fluctuation component in the coordinate direction
Characteristic velocity scale
Control-volume velocity displacement
$ Space coordinate component; j = 1,2,3

Greek Symbols
Kronecker second-order tensor
Turbulent dissipation rate
Alternating third-order tensor
Molecular viscosity
Turbulent eddy viscosity
Specific turbulent dissipation rate, turbulent frequency
Magnitude of mean vorticity
Mean rotation tensor ,
Density
Total stress tensor
Molecular stress tensor
Turbulent Reynolds stress tensor

CHAPTER 1.
THE ISIS-CFD FLOW SOLVER
In this section
1.1 Governing Equations 7
1.2 Numerical framework 10

1.1 GOVERNING EQUATIONS
The ISIS-CFD flow solver, developed by the EMN (Equipe Modélisation Numérique), uses the
incompressible unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes equations (RANSE). The solver is
based on the finite volume method to build the spatial discretization of the transport equations.
The face- based method is generalized to two- dimensional, rotationally- symmetric, or three-
dimensional unstructured meshes for which non-overlapping control volumes are bounded by an
arbitrary number of constitutive faces.
The velocity field is obtained from the momentum conservation equations and the pressure field is
extracted from the mass conservation constraint, or continuity equation, transformed into a
pressure-equation.
In the case of turbulent flows, additional transport equations for modeled variables are solved in a
form similar to that of the momentum equations and they can be discretized and solved using the
same principles.
Incompressible and non-miscible flow phases are modeled through the use of conservation
equations for each volume fraction of phase.
Conservation equations
The flow solver can deal with multi-phase flows and moving grids. In the multi-phase continuum,
considering incompressible flow of viscous fluid under isothermal conditions, mass, momentum
and volume fraction conservation equations can be written as (using the generalized form of
Gauss' theorem):

where is the domain of interest, or control volume, bounded by the closed surface with a unit
normal vector directed outward. where is the domain of interest, or control volume, bounded
by the closed surface moving at the velocity with a unit normal vector
directed outward. and represent, respectively ,the velocity and pressure fields. and are
the components of the viscous stress tensor and the gravity vector, whereas is a vector whose
components vanish, except for the component which is equal to unity. is the volume
fraction for fluid and is used to distinguish the presence or the absence ( ) of fluid
. Since volume fraction between 0 and 1 indicates the presence of a mixture, the value of is
selected as a definition of the interface. The effective flow physical properties (viscosity and
density) are obtained from each phase physical properties ( and with the following
constitutive relations:
When the grid is moving, the so-called "space conservation law" must also be satisfied:
A simplified form of the "" (p. 7) can be obtained when considering incompressible phases with
constant densities . From "" (p. 8) it is possible to isolate one arbitrary phase and such that
:
Substituting the"" (p. 8) into the "" (p. 7)) yields:

Then, mass conservation simplifies as
or, in a non-integral form using Divergence operator
Turbulent closure equations
The closure of the Reynolds-averaged equations requires the definition of the turbulent Reynolds
stresses, in the equation below, in terms of known quantities in a physically consistent way.
For turbulent eddy viscosity closure, the Reynolds stress tensor is proportional to the mean strain-
rate tensor. All of the commonly used Reynolds stress models in this class are based on the
Boussinesq hypothesis in terms of the eddy viscosity where it is assumed that

Considering incompressible flows, previous relations lead to the following equation below, and if
the isotropic part of the Reynolds stress tensor (2K/3) is not explicitly needed, it can be simply
absorbed into the mean pressure.
Additional turbulent-scale quantities with their respective transport equations, such as turbulent
kinetic energy and its rate of dissipation are described in detail in "Turbulence models" (p. 35).
A more sophisticated level of Reynolds stress closure for which modeled transport equations are
solved for the individual components of the Reynolds stress tensor is also described in this chapter
(see " Reynolds-Stress Modeling" (p. 45)).
1.2 NUMERICAL FRAMEWORK
Generic discretization form
A second-order accurate discretized form of the Gauss' theorem leads, for a generic flow variable
Q, excluding the pressure, to the following semi-discrete equation available for the first equations
in " Governing Equations " (p. 7)

where stands for, an isotropic or anisotropic diffusion coefficient; and are the
convective and diffusive fluxes through the face f, respectively; the source terms and Q
are related to the cell volume and cell face, respectively; is a local fictitious time variable.
Vector represents a generic unit vector . The fictitious local time term acts to
reinforce the diagonal dominance for the (Picard) linearized equations that are solved successively
in a non-coupled way.
Mass fluxes on faces are defined as:
where is the oriented surface Then, using the same kind of second-order
accurate approximation, simplified mass conservation equation " Governing Equations " (p. 7)
will be approximated as:
having defined the operator F() that provides the flux of a vector through the face by
Time derivatives being evaluated using three-level Euler second-order accurate approximations, a
general notation for time discretization can be such that:
where superscript c refers to the current time , p the previous time , and q the time anterior
to p. If the time step is constant, then and . Coefficients
are obtained from Taylor series expansion from and depend on a possibly
prescribed variable time step law .
The fictitious local time differencing is evaluated by:

where is a previous estimation of in the framework of the non-linear process. Finally, a
fully discretized form of the generic equation above reads
Centered reconstruction and gradients
Since Gaussian finite volume integration using Gauss divergence theorem, is based on summing
values on cell faces, which must be interpolated from cell centers, special attention has to be paid
to separating faces of possible discontinuity. A fully detailed and general method that concerns in
fine Gaussian integration of gradient at volume center and operator of the form for
diffusion terms in momentum equations and pressure equation in described subsequently. Generic
quantity Q represents a dependent variable of the problem: Cartesian component of the velocity
field, pressure field, or turbulence variables.
For the volumetric gradient approximation below, only face values are required but, for the
pressure equation or diffusive fluxes in momentum equations, it is sufficient to rebuild the normal
component of the gradient:
In the following parts, it is shown how explicit jump conditions can be used to access unknown
quantities on the faces.
A. Preliminaries
A first basic assumption concerns the presence of a known discontinuity for a variable and its
gradient across an interface that divides the computational domain into disjoint pieces, and
. For want of something better, one will suppose that the discrete location of discontinuity
coincides with the position of the mesh faces. The discontinuity across the interface of a generic
variable Q,

Jump conditions are specified along the interface from the following relations:
where a and and c are known functions. c is presumed to be continuous on each disjoint sub-
domain separated by the interface , but may be discontinuous across the interface. Then,
knowing "a priori" the gradient of Q on both sides face f from cell-centered approximations, it is
possible to build the two-state limit on the left and on the right , by retaining a second
order Taylor expansion
with the subscripts referring to Thereafter, one will identify with and with
.
Normal gradient to the face can be introduced from the arbitrary decompositions:
with the definition of vectors and :

where and are unit vectors from oriented segments [Lf] and [fR], respectively. Free
coefficients are chosen such that the second terms in the right-hand sides of previous
decompositions appear as orthogonal projections with the normal :
On arbitrary grids, these coefficients being equal to or higher than unity, one can thus qualify
the previous decompositions as over-relaxed decompositions and terms involving vectors are
treated as source terms (explicit part). From numerical tests about convergence of the iterative
procedure, the over-relaxed choice has demonstrated its superiority over other procedures for
handling non-orthogonality in the solution algorithm (such as under-relaxed decomposition with
explicit contributions parallel to and ). To conclude with preliminaries, vectors will be
qualified as explicit vectors since it is easy to demonstrate that, when the grid is orthogonal, i.e. if
, these vectors are null (an estimation of the norm of these vectors provides a simple
but effective probe to quantify the grid quality). From these decompositions, the equations QL and
QR are then reformulated as:
with the definition of distances to the face, , and also the projected distance between L and
R
B. Quantity on the face
Deduction of centered differencing reconstructions for and rests on the expansions for
Q L and Q R and discontinuity constraints. Combining "" (p. 14) makes it possible to eliminate the
normal gradients with the profit from known discontinuities a and.b

This relation and yield the linear system of rank 2:
The solution vector of this linear system provides the awaited reconstructions:
and coefficients ( ):
C. Normal gradient to the face
The method is identical to that used previously and rests on the expansions for QL and QR and the
jump conditions. Combination of the two equations makes it possible to substitute reconstructions
and to the benefit of known discontinuity a:
with explicit term:
Linear system of rank 2 for unknown vector ( ) arises from the relation
for QR-QL and the projected jump constraint:

Inversion of this system yields for the unknowns:
with such that:
and coefficients ( ):
Quantity is homogeneous to c and its denominator corresponds exactly to a face reconstruction

with weighting from normal distances. multiplies first, the equivalent of a gradient (without
discontinuity) projected along direction of cell-centered quantities and secondly, corrections
that are necessary to take discontinuities and non-orthogonalities (E=0 on orthogonal grids) into
account.
Example 1: absence of discontinuity
Quantity on the face.
For continuous variable , and , then face reconstruction is easily obtained

from the equation for :

Since the gradient is continuous, the explicit source term (jump) in this equation reduces to a
geometrical discontinuity: . At this point, since only cell- centered
gradients are supposed to be available, the following continuous linear reconstruction operator
(see equation below), can be used to estimate the unknown face values for a generic
variable A.
This operator which is only first order accurate on arbitrary grids, is obtained from equation above
after neglecting the second order terms; thus defined with the projected distances to the face
rather than the classical approach using distances between centers of cells and faces. For the sake
of clarity, if explicit distance vectors are introduced,
then, the formula for face reconstruction on arbitrary grids becomes
where the surrounded term vanishes when the grid is orthogonal.
Normal gradient to the face.
In a similar way, starting from the equation for and after some manipulations with explicit
vectors using operator , a normal gradient expression reads:

where the over-relaxed decomposition part along segment [LR] is identifiable, similar to (over-
relaxed decompositions) along segments [Lf] and [fR].
Example 2: hydrostatic type discontinuity
By hydrostatic discontinuity, one indicates a discontinuity for which the constraints of jump are
and c=1/ρ, so that
Variable Q can be read as the pressure field.
Quantity on the face.
With these jump conditions, the face reconstruction from relations above yields
Here again, the jump term degenerates into a geometrical one and, using operator on this
explicit term, it is possible to express the face reconstruction in the following form involving cell-
centered data

with quantity homogeneous with defined by:
There again, the framed term goes to zero in the case of orthogonal grid.
Normal gradient to the face.
The continuous term through the face is the gradient normal to the face but normalized by:
. It is obtained either from the equation for ,
with quantity resulting from the equation for Q f , and the explicit term from the equation for
. Since the numerical framework is the finite-volume method, left and right face
gradients( ) from explicit term E can be approximated with left and right cell-centered gradients
(L,R) so that, for second order approximation on the variable, the use of constant gradient value
over the control volume is justified. The approximation for the continuous normalized projected
gradient is then:
recalling that explicit geometrical vectors are defined (equation for ). Once again, the
framed term goes to zero when the grid becomes orthogonal.
Illustration.
An hydrostatic test case is illustrated with figure below. One supposes that the face coincides with
the horizontal discontinuity. The known cell-centered data are as follows,

where p represents the pressure, is the gravity intensity with direction according to :
.
FIGURE 1.1
Hydrostatic test case
The straightforward application of the equation for Qf and relation for the continuous normalized
projected gradient confirms the values expected on the face that agree with the exact hydrostatic
equilibrium
Upwind differencing
The convective fluxes in the generic equation are obtained by two kinds of upwind schemes. A
first scheme available in the flow solver, (HD) for Hybrid differencing, is a combination of
upwind (UD) and centered (CD) schemes. Contrary to a practical approach [2] and [3], where
CD/UD blending is fixed with a global blending factor for all faces of the mesh, the HD scheme
results from a local blending factor based on the signed Peclet number at the face,
Thereby, the blending factor B between the left and right cell quantities is determined from the
exponential scheme where the boxed term is treated explicitly:

Although the boxed correction (equation just above) brings second- order accuracy, the
boundedness of the solution is not guaranteed. In order to assume face bounded reconstructions
and to avoid unrealistic oscillations, the search for an acceptable compromise between accuracy
and boundedness is a key point([4] and [5]). Then, the first scheme implemented in ISIS-CFD
was the Gamma Differencing Scheme (GDS)([1]): through a Normalized Variable Diagram
(NVD) analysis ([6]), this scheme enforces local monotonicity and convection boundedness
criterion (CBC)([7]). A normalized variable is defined as
where points U, C and D are selected according to the flow direction on the face, (see the figure
below), and represent the downwind, central, and upwind positions.
FIGURE 1.2
1D Variation of Q in the physical domain

On arbitrary unstructured grids, the far upstream node U is not known but an imaginary nodal
quantity can be defined by the use of the gradient projection method in such a way that
FIGURE 1.3
Far imaginary upstream node U for NVD construction
The CBC criterion (see [7]) corresponds to the shade area and the line associated with the first-
order upwind differencing scheme (UDS) in the NVD diagram, Figure. This implies that the only
scheme which unconditionally satisfies the boundedness criterion is the first- order upwind
differencing scheme (UDS) and the second-order centered differencing scheme (CDS) is only
useful in the range .

FIGURE 1.4
UDS and CDS Schemes in NVD diagram
In order to provide a continuous switch between UDS and CDS, the GDS scheme illustrated into
the NVD diagram by the figure above fulfills the necessary criteria. It defines as a function of
and establishes a smooth blending between UDS and CDS over the interval
.
FIGURE 1.5
Gamma Scheme (GDS) in NVD diagram

With the newly defined upstream quantity, can be re-evaluated as:
However, when the quantity Q is nearly constant, the equation above is ill- defined. From
l'Hôpital's rule, we have adopted the following limit,
where Q ref is used as a fixed reference value for quantity Q in order to define a correct order of
magnitude for the right-hand sides inequalities. Coefficient is usually around 1/6 (see [7]),
and to achieve an accurate resolution of sharp profiles, the default value is set to 0.1 in the flow
solver. Thus, the proposed form for this scheme is summarized in the table below where the
interpolation factor , that accounts for non-uniform grids, is defined as the ratio:
TABLE 1.1 GDS scheme implementation
Note
UDS
Blending
CDS
UDS
The Gamma scheme retains the following linear variation for the blending coefficient so that
corresponds to the UD scheme, and corresponds to the CD scheme.

Many other schemes have been derived by adopting the normalized variable formulation. The
second scheme implemented for the discretisation of the convective fluxes in both the momentum
equations and the equations for turbulence modelling is the AVLSMART ([5]). It has been
implemented following the methodology[8], and it was demonstrated to have an
improved convergence behaviour without loss of accuracy in many situations ( [9] ). The
AVLSMART scheme in NVD diagram is illustrated with the figure below.
FIGURE 1.6
AVLSMART Scheme in NVD diagram
The implementation of AVLSLMART for non-uniform grids, is detailed in the table below: if the
base scheme for the GDS scheme is the second-order Central Differencing scheme (CD), the base
scheme for AVLSMART is the third-order QUICK scheme[10].
TABLE 1.2 AVLSMART scheme implementation
Note
UDS
UDS to QUICK

QUICK scheme
QUICK to UDS
UDS
Discretization schemes for the equation of concentration
The GDS scheme is based on upwind or centered discretizations and is not appropriate for
maintaining the sharpness of an interface convected by the transport equation since the use of
some upwind-differencing produces numerical diffusion, which results in a very strong smearing
of the interface. If the Central-differencing preserves the sharpness of the interface, it introduces
unfortunately non-physical oscillations around the interface and produces values of the volume
fraction which are outside the physically meaningful bounds [0,1]. On the other hand, the GDS
scheme does not suffer from any cell Courant-Friedrich-Lewy (CFL) number limitation and could
be used without any time step limitation. This cell CFL number is defined as
where Fc is the total (positive) flux out of the cell, V is the volume of the cell, and Δt is the time
increment.
An alternate treatment of the numerical diffusion problem for an interface capturing method is to
use the donor- acceptor cell concept [11] . An extensive and detailed study of existing
methodologies with the derivation of a new sophisticated compressive interface capturing scheme
(CICSAM), is described [12] : a compressive differencing scheme introduces downwind
information and changes any smooth gradient into a step function. However, as a first step, one
simply starts with the GDS scheme by introducing downwind differencing (DDS) to build the
Inter-Gamma scheme [13], figure below, since compressive characteristics are absolutely required
to build an accurate sharp interface capturing scheme.

FIGURE 1.7
Inter-Gamma Scheme (IGDS)
The main disadvantage of the IGDS scheme is a cell CFL number limitation: C<0.3 in
multidimensional cases. To overcome that difficulty, the following correction equation is used
which proved satisfactory in most applications using the HRIC scheme [14]. Then, the adopted
scheme for interface capturing called MGDS, results from the Courant number limited scheme
IGDS summarized in the table below with corrections for the normalized face variable :
TABLE 1.3 IGDS scheme implementation
Note
UDS
Blending
1 DDS
UDS

To improve the blending between schemes, we introduced the BICS scheme for Blended
Interface Capturing Scheme. It is based on assuming C matching on slope and exponential
blending of matching point in NVD diagram, between the non-limited GDS scheme and the
IGDS limited version. For small Courant number in the figure below, it behaves like the IGDS
scheme, and for high Courant number (figure below too), it recovers the GDS scheme.
FIGURE 1.8
small Courant number and high Courant number
One of the difficulties with arbitrary unstructured grids is to rebuilt the far upstream node, see
figure below. A last improvement of the scheme is to avoid extrapolation based on gradient
approximation of the quantity, and to privilegiate a reconstruction of the quantity based on the
available neighbors. A search path algorithm from faces-to-faces has been implemented that
provides a better approximation of the upstream node U, figure below. The resulting scheme,
BRICS = (BICS + Reconstruction), generates less unbounded values for the mass fraction for a
same given reduction level on non-linearities.

FIGURE 1.9
Search path algorithm to upstream point
Pressure-Velocity coupling
A pressure equation can be derived from the integrated conservation equation where volumetric
fluxes reconstruction involves pressure gradient and velocity coupling at faces. If the
methodology rests on the Rhie and Chow [15], special attention is given (i) to the pressure
equation formulation in presence of a density discontinuity, (ii) the way unsteady terms ,
and (iii) pseudo-unsteady terms are interpolated so that, when an overall steady solution is
expected the solution does not depend on the time step Δt and on the local fictitious time step .
The principal originality of the proposed method is to take into account pressure gradient
discontinuity by using a pressure equation based on rather than itself in the context of
the [15]. A more straightforward approach using Chorin projection method [16] but for Cartesian
based grid is proposed in [17] together with the GFM method to deal with discontinuities.

For the sake of clarity, but not as a restriction, the presented method uses hydrostatic discontinuity
hypothesis for the pressure(equation below) and a continuous velocity field assumption so that
viscous effects and surface tension jumps are neglected across the interface г. For multi-phase
incompressible flows, general and well detailed jump conditions at an interface moving with the
local fluid velocity can be found in [17]. Taking such general jump conditions into account
requires only ad-hoc right hand-side terms in the equation below such as those used symbolically
in the jump conditions.
Semi-continuous form of the momentum equations.
After having isolated pressure gradient together with gravity acceleration in the ( generic
discretized equation ), the semi- discretized momentum equation available for any Cartesian
velocity component reads:
where
are the matrix coefficients from the implicit part of the diffusive and convective terms;
is a source term containing all explicit remaining contributions and external force fields except
gravity and pressure. A compact and useful form is introduced to express the velocity at the cell-
center:

where the discretized vector , homogeneous to gravity acceleration, includes part of the
diffusion, convection and source terms. Unsteady and pseudo- unsteady contributions are
explicitly kept and not transferred into this intermediate vector for consistency purpose mentioned
earlier in this section.
Reconstruction of volumetric fluxes.
Contrary to the CPI method (see [18] and [19]) where a compact finite differencing scheme is
used to rebuild unknown quantities, the velocity vector on the cell face is expressed as the face
interpolation for the velocity in the cell center
Except the pressure gradient, all terms in the previous equation are simply interpolated from the
available cell quantities (L,R) on both sides of the face from operator . For instance,
Then, the reconstruction of volumetric fluxes reads:
Pressure equation.
When the velocity reconstruction (equation below) is substituted into the continuity equation, the
pressure equation can be interpreted as

Consequently, provided that the pressure equation is satisfied, the volumetric flux defined
by the interpolation (see the reconstruction of the volume fluxes ) is guaranteed to be
conservative. Using classical Gaussian integration with adequate differencing for normal gradient
to the face, as worked out previously, the approximation for the continuous normalized projected
gradient yields the synthesized discretization over the current control volume
where the term involving Ep represents the explicit part of the pressure gradient flux. Unsteady
and pseudo-unsteady fluxes are gathered into the flux Ft. The matrix assembled from all control
volumes is sparse, symmetric, and positive definite so that conjugate gradient based iterative
solvers can be used.
D. Algorithm
The outcome of the discretization of previous mass and momentum conservation equations yields
a set of algebraic equations: one for each control volume and for each transport/ conservation
equation. These non-linear and coupled equations are solved by the segregated algorithm:
1. Initialize flow field quantities Q0 at .
2. New time step .
3. Start iterative procedure with .
4. If needed, compute the phase concentration for each fluid phase and update global fluid
properties.
5. If needed, compute the turbulent quantities from field of step reference.
6. Solve the momentum equations to obtain a new prediction of the velocities.
7. Solve the pressure equation to obtain a new pressure field.
8. Update the velocity face fluxes and correct the velocity components with new pressure field.
9. If the nonlinear residuals are not low enough, go to step 3 and update the iteration counter
within the time step.
10. Go to step 2 and update the time t.

Concerning the linear solver used for phase concentration, turbulent quantities, and velocity
components, respectively, about 20 Gauss- Seidel iterations are enough to converge when
diagonal dominance is increased by 50% with the help of the local time stepping artifact.
If this point-wise solver works perfectly on linear system arising from a transport equation
discretization, its efficiency is dramatically reduced on the pressure operator. This operator is
singular in nature, having an infinite number of solutions (to a constant pressure). Moreover, the
corresponding linear system is ill-conditioned for highly stretched grids. This is why the flow
solver uses an efficient PGMRES algorithm [20] with a Krylov subspace of dimension 5 and an
Incomplete LU(k) pre-conditionning with two levels of filling (k=2). In any case, the Compressed
Sparse Row (CSR) format is the basic format of linear systems adopted in ISIS-CFD.
When running the code on parallel machines, the computational domain is split into multiple-
connected domains having approximately the same number of unknowns. This is done with the
help of the M TiS [21] and [21] partitioning algorithm. Communication of faces data between
domains is performed according to the Message Passing Interface standard [23].
References
[1] H. Jasak, Error Analysis and Estimation for the Finite Volume Method with Applications to
Fluid Flows. PhD thesis, University of London, 1996.
[2] I. Demirdžic and S. Muzaferija, “Numerical method for coupled fluid flow, heat transfert and
stress analysis using unstructured moving meshes with cells of arbitrary topology,” Computer
Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 125, pp. 235–255, 1995.
[3] J. H. Ferziger and M. Peric, Computational methods for fluid dynamics. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag, 1996.
[4] H. Jasak, H. G. Weller, and A. D. Gosman, “High resolution nvd differencing scheme for
arbitrarily unstructured meshes,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 31,
pp. 431–449,1999.
[5] V. Pržulj and B. Basara, “Bounded convection schemes for unstructured grids,” in 15th
AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA paper 2001-2593, (Anaheim, CA), 11-
14 June 2001.
[6] B. P. Leonard, “Simple high- accuracy resolution program for convective modelling of
discontinuities,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 8, pp. 1291–1318,
1988.
[7] P. H. Gaskell and A. K. C. Lau, “Curvature compensated convective transport: SMART, a
new boundedness preserving transport algorithm,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in
Fluids, vol. 8, pp. 617–641, 1988.
[8] M. Darwish and F. Moukalled, “The -schemes: a new consistent high-resolution formulation
based on the normalized variable methodology,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, vol. 192, pp. 1711–1730, 2003.

[9] K. C. Ng, M. Z. Yusoff, and E. Y. K. Ng, “Higher-order bounded differencing schemes for
compressible and incompressible flows,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids, vol. 53, pp. 57–80, 2007.
[10] B. P. Leonard, “A stable and accurate convective modeling procedure based on quadratic
upstream interpolation,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol. 19, pp.
59–98, 1979
[11] C. W. Hirt and B. D. Nichols, “Volume of fluid (vof) method for the dynamics of free
boundaries,”Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 39, pp. 449–468, 1981.
[12] O. Ubbink, Numerical predictions of two fluid systems with sharp interfaces. PhD thesis,
Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine. University of London., January 1997. 14
[13] H. Jasak and H. G. Weller, “Interface tracking capabilities of the inter-gamma differencing
scheme..”Internal Report, Mechanical Engineering Department, Imperial College of Science,
London, February 1995. 14
[14] S. Muzaferija and M. Peric, Nonlinear Water Wave Interaction, ch. Computation of free
surface flows using interface tracking and interface- capturing methods, pp. 59– 100.
Computational Mechanics Publications, WIT Press, O. Mahrenholtz and M. Markiewicz ed.,
1998. 14
[15] C. Rhie and W. L. Chow, “A numerical study of the turbulent flow past an isolated airfoil
with trailing edge separation,” AIAA Journal, vol. 17, pp. 1525–1532, 1983.
[16] A. J. Chorin, “Numerical solution of the navier-stokes equations.,” Math. Comput., vol. 22,
pp. 745– 762, 1968.
[17] M. Kang, R. P. Fedkiw, and X.-D. Liu, “A boundary condition capturing method for
multiphase incompressible flow,” J. Sci. Comput., vol. 15, pp. 323–360, October 24 2000.
[18] G. B. Deng, J. Piquet, P. Queutey, and M. Visonneau, “Incompressible flow calculations
with a consistent physical interpolation using the CPI method,” Computers & Fluids, vol. 23-8,
pp. 1020–1047, 1994.
[19] G. B. Deng, E. Guilmineau, J. Piquet, P. Queutey, and M. Visonneau, “Computation of
unsteady laminar viscous flow past an airfoil using the CPI method.,” International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 19, no. 9, pp. 765–794, 1994.
[20] SPARSKIT, “A basic tool- kit for sparse matrix computations.” http://www-
users.cs.umn.edu/~saad/software/SPARSKIT/sparskit.html.
[21] G. Karypis and V. Kumar, “A fast and high quality multilevel scheme for partitioning
irregular graphs,” Tech. Rep. 95-035, University of Minnesota, Department of Computer Science,
Minneapolis, MN 55455, 1995. Last updated on March 27 1998. 18
[22] MTiS, “Family of Multilevel Partitionning Algorithms.” http://www-
users.cs.umn.edu/~karypis/metis/. 18
[23] MPI, “The Message Passing Interface (MPI) standard.” http://www-unix.mcs.anl.gov/mpi.
18

CHAPTER 2.
TURBULENCE MODELS
In this section
2.1 One-Equation Model (Spalart-Allmaras) 36
2.2 Wilcox Two-Equation Model 39
2.3 Menter Two-Equation Model (SST) 41
2.4 Reynolds-Stress Modeling 45
2.5 Explicit Reynolds-Stress Modeling 51
2.6 DES models 55
2.7 Roughness 57
2.8 Transition model 62

2.1 ONE-EQUATION MODEL (SPALART-
ALLMARAS)
The Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model ([1]) is a model with integration to wall based on a
transport equation for the turbulent viscosity. It is inspired from an earlier model developed by
Baldwin and Barth ([2]). Its formulation and coefficients were defined using dimensional analysis,
Galilean invariance, and selected empirical results such as two-dimensional mixing layers, wakes
and flat-plate boundary layer flows.
The aim of this model is to improve the predictions obtained with algebraic mixing-length models
to develop a local model for complex flows, and to provide a simpler alternative to two-equation
turbulence models.
The model uses distance to the nearest wall in its formulation, and provides smooth laminar-
turbulent transition capabilities, provided that the location of the start of transition is given. It does
not require as fine a grid resolution in wall-bounded flows as two-equation turbulence models,
and it shows good convergence in simpler flows.
This model does not provide good predictions in jet flows, but gives reasonably good predictions
of bidimensional mixing layers, wake flows, and flat- plane boundary layers and shows
improvements in the prediction of flows with adverse pressure gradients compared with the k-
epsilon and k-omega models, although not as much as the SST model.
Equation
The eddy viscosity is defined in terms of an eddy viscosity variable, , and a wall function, ,
as follows:
Far from wall boundaries, the function is equal to one and

where the right-hand-side terms represent turbulence eddy viscosity production, conservative
diffusion, non-conservative diffusion, near-wall turbulence destruction, transition damping of
production, and transition source of turbulence. Subscripts b stands for "basic", stands for
"wall", stands for "viscous", and t stands for "trip" (start of transition).
The model constants and auxiliary functions are defined in terms of the basic model for free-shear
flows, the wall model for boundary layers, the viscous model for integration to the wall, and the
transition model for laminar-turbulent transition.
Basic model constants for free-shear flows to control the production and diffusion of turbulent
eddy viscosity are:
The additional model constants and auxiliary functions for the destruction of turbulent eddy
viscosity in the boundary layer zone are:
The auxiliary functions allow the model to predict the log layer, although the particular budget of
the Reynolds shear stress is not in quantitative agreement with experimental data.
Modeling functions and constants for the near wall flow regions are given by:
The auxiliary functions and model constants to control the laminar region of the shear layers and
transition to turbulence are defined with a source term controlled with the function and a
reduction of production controlled with the function

where is the vorticity at the boundary layer trip point, is the norm of the difference
between the velocity at the field point and the velocity at the trip point, is the grid spacing
along the wall at the trip and d is the distance from the wall.
Boundary conditions
In order to avoid possible numerical trouble with zero free-stream values, default far field value
for is fixed to . Small free-stream values smaller than have been recommended for
free-shear flows; otherwise, the solutions show free-stream dependence in velocity profiles and
spreading rates. At wall boundaries the eddy viscosity is zero.
Implementation in ISIS
Auxiliary functions and model constants to control transition to turbulence are not taken into
account so that the "trip terms" are not acting. In order to increase numerical stability of the
discretization scheme, we decided to treat implicitly all negative (destruction D) terms and
explicitly all positive (production P) right-hand-side terms. This classical procedure leads to an
increase in the diagonal dominance of the implicit portion of the scheme and thereby enhances its
stability. The following representation of the approximate linearization n for the source terms of
the turbulent viscosity equation is indicative of the method employed here.
References
[1] P. R. Spalart and S. R. Allmaras, “A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows,”
in AIAA 30th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 92-0439, (Reno, NV), 1992.
[2] B. S. Baldwin and T. J. Barth, “A one-equation turbulence transport model for high reynolds
number wall-bounded flows,” in AIAA 29th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA Paper 91-
0610, (Reno, NV),

2.2 WILCOX TWO-EQUATION MODEL
The model, (see references [1] and [2]), is a widely tested two-equation eddy viscosity
model with integration to the wall. The main reference to this model is given by Wilcox [2], and
his formulation is used into the ISIS-CFD code and the model will be referred here as the
Wilcox turbulence model. The roots of this model can be traced to Kolmogorov, Prandtl,
Saffman, and Wilcox in collaboration with other scientists.
This model was originated at about the same time and was developed in parallel with the
model as an alternative to define the eddy viscosity function. Convective transport equations are
solved for the turbulent kinetic energy K, and its specific dissipation rate .
The model of Wilcox has proven to be superior in numerical stability to the model
primarily in the viscous sublayer near the wall. This model does not require explicit wall-damping
functions as do the model and other two-equation models due to the large values of in
the wall regions . The numerical wall boundary conditions require the specification of the distance
from the wall to the first point off the wall. In the logarithmic region, the model gives good
agreement with experimental results for mild adverse pressure gradient flows.
In free-shear layer and adverse-pressure-gradient boundary layer flows, the results of the
model are sensitive to small free-stream values of [1] and [3]. In complex Navier-Stokes
computations it is difficult to exercise enough control over the local free-stream turbulence to
avoid small free-stream values and ambiguities in the predicted results.
Equations
The Reynolds stresses are modeled in terms of the eddy viscosity as follows:
For incompressible flows, the equation above reduces to
The eddy viscosity is defined as a function of the turbulent kinetic energy, K, and the specific
dissipation rate of turbulent frequency, , as follows:
The two transport model equations for the K and scalar turbulence scales are defined below.

Following Wilcox [2], the model constants are defined as
Boundary conditions
In ISIS-CFD the choice of default free-stream values is
where L and are, respectively, a characteristic length and a characteristic velocity of the
simulation. According to Menter's paper, the factor of proportionality can be chosen between 1
and 10. Default value in the flow solver is .
These values are compatible with values recommended for boundary layer flows although
was recommended. It should be noticed that free-shear layers are more sensitive to small
free-stream values of and larger values of are needed in the free-stream: at least
for mixing layers, increasing up to > for round jets.
Wall boundary conditions are given by the following relationships:
where is the distance of the first point away from the
wall and such that .
The numerical implementation of the Wilcox model equations is similar to that described in
" One-Equation Model (Spalart-Allmaras) " (p. 36) and the following representation of the
approximate linearization n for the source terms of the turbulent kinetic energy equation is
indicative of the method employed here.
And identically, for the source term of the dissipation rate

References
[1] D. C. Wilcox, “Reassessment of the scale-determining equation for advanced turbulence

models,”AIAA Journal, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1299–1310, 1988.
[2] D. C. Wilcox, “Turbulence modeling for CFD,” tech. rep., DCW Industries, Inc., 5354 Palm
Drive,La Cañada, Calif., 1993.
[3] F. R. Menter, “Influence of freestream values on k ! turbulence model predictions,” AIAA,
1992.
2.3 MENTER TWO-EQUATION MODEL (SST)
The SST (SST for shear-stress transport) model, refs. [1], [2], [4] and [5] combines several
desirable elements of existing two-equation models. The two major features of this model are a
zonal blending of model coefficients and a limitation on the growth of the eddy viscosity in
rapidly strained flows. The zonal modeling uses Wilcox's , model near solid walls and the
standard model, in a formulation, near boundary layer edges and in free-shear
layers. This switching is achieved with a blending function of the model coefficients. The shear
stress transport modeling also modifies the eddy viscosity by forcing the turbulent shear stress to
be bounded by a constant times the turbulent kinetic energy inside boundary layers (a realizability
constraint). This modification improves the prediction of flows with strong adverse pressure
gradients and separation.
In order to blend the and the model, the latter is transformed into a
formulations. The differences between this formulation and the original model are that an
additional cross-diffusion term appears in the -equation and that the modeling constants are
different. The original model is then multiplied by a function and the transformed
by the function and the corresponding equations of each model are added together. The
function is designed to be a value of one in the half inner part of the boundary layer (where
the model behaves like the original model) and decreases to vanish far from the wall.
At this point of blending, and with the definition of the turbulence viscosity derived from the
original model, the BSL turbulence model (BSL for baseline model) is obtained
[5].

Going further, the SST model also modifies the turbulent eddy viscosity function to
improve the prediction of separated flows and to avoid invariably overestimated Reynolds stresses
with the and models in adverse pressure gradients. This modification is done on
the basis of a Townsend-Lighthill design for the specification of turbulent eddy viscosity [6].
Two-equation models generally under-predict the retardation and separation of the boundary layer
due to adverse pressure gradients. This is a serious deficiency, leading to an underestimation of
the effects of viscous-inviscid interaction which generally results in too optimistic performance
estimates for aerodynamic bodies. The reason of this deficiency is that two-equation models do
not account for the important effects of transport of the turbulent stresses. The Johnson-King
model [7] has demonstrated that significantly improved results can be obtained with algebraic
models by modeling the transport of the shear stress as being proportional to that of the turbulent
kinetic energy. A similar effect is achieved in the present model by a modification in the
formulation of the eddy viscosity using a blending function in boundary layer flows.
A systematic application of the SST model to airfoil flows with separation has been
performed successfully with success [8]. However, three-dimensional calculations on other flows
do not seem to always confirm a superiority of the SST version with respect to the BSL form.
Equations
The eddy viscosity is defined as the following function of the turbulent kinetic energy, K, and
specific dissipation rate of turbulent frequency, :
In turbulent boundary layers the maximum value of the eddy viscosity is limited by forcing the
turbulent shear stress to be bounded by the turbulent kinetic energy times . This effect is
achieved with an auxiliary function and the absolute value of the vorticity, . The auxiliary
function, , is defined as a function of wall distance d as
The two transport equations of the model are defined below with a blending function for the
model coefficients of the original and model equations.

where the last source term of equation above represents the cross-diffusion term that appears in
the transformed -equation from the original -equation. The production term of is sometimes
approximated as proportional to the absolute value of vorticity [9]
The auxiliary blending function , designed to blend the model coefficients of the original
model in boundary layer zones with the transformed model in free-shear layer and
free-stream zones, is defined as
where stands for cross-diffusion in the model.

The constants of the SST model are
The model coefficients , , , and denoted with the generic symbol are defined by
blending the coefficients of the original model, denoted as , with those of the
transformed model, denoted as .
with the coefficients of the original models defined as

l Inner model constants
l Outer model constants
Boundary conditions
Boundary conditions on the SST model equations are the same as those described in "
Wilcox Two-Equation Model " (p. 39)for the model.
The numerical implementation of the Wilcox model equations is similar to that described in
" Wilcox Two-Equation Model " (p. 39).
If the production term of is written as a function of the mean strain rate tensor , contrary to a
function of the absolute vorticity (equation above), a limiter function is added on the production
term of K as suggested in [9]. The procedure can help to prevent unrealistic buildup of eddy
viscosity in the stagnation point of airfoils [8] and can help to suppress numerical oscillations near
turbulent and non-turbulent interfaces. The limiter recommended on the production of turbulent
kinetic energy bounds the production of turbulent kinetic energy to a value not larger than 20
times the dissipation of turbulent kinetic energy:
References
[1] F. R. Menter, “Influence of freestream values on k-omega ! turbulence model predictions,”

AIAA, 1992.
[2] F. R. Menter, “Zonal two-equation k-omega ! turbulence models for aerodynamic flows,” in
AIAA 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 93-2906, (Orlando, FL), 1993.

[3] H. Schlichting, Boundary layer theory. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book
Company Inc., Verlag G. Braun, Karlsruhe, 1960.
[4] F. R. Menter, “Performances of popular turbulence models for attached and separated adverse
pressure gradient flows,” AIAA Journal, vol. 30, pp. 2066–2072,
[5] F. R. Menter, “Two-equation eddy viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications,”
AIAA Journal, vol. 32, pp. 1299–1310, 1994.
[6] J. Piquet, Turbulent Flows: Models and Physics. Berlin, Heilderberg, New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1999.
[7] D. A. Johonson and L. S. King, “A mathematically simple turbulence closure model for
attached and separated turbulent boundary layers,” AIAA Journal, vol. 23, pp. 1684–1692,
[8] E. Guilmineau, J. Piquet, and P. Queutey, “Two- dimensional turbulent viscous flow
simulation past airfoils at fixed incidence,” Computers and Fluids, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 135–162
[9] F. R. Menter and L. . Rumsey, “Assessment of two-equation turbulence models for transonoc
flows,” in AIAA 25th Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 94-2343, (Colorado Springs,
CO), June
[10] G. B. Deng and M. Visonneau, “Evaluation of eddy- viscosity and second- moment
turbulence closures for steady flows around ships,” in 21st ONR Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, (Trondheim, Norway), pp. 453–469, June 1996.
[11] T. Kawamura, Numerical simulation of 3D turbulent free-surface flows. PhD thesis, ICCH,
International Research Centre for Computational Hydrodynamics, Hørsholm, Denmark, 1998.
2.4 REYNOLDS-STRESS MODELING
Although the model developed by Wilcox and its variants due to Menter [1], [2], [4] and
[5] bring noteworthy improvements in the simulation of the near-wake flow [10] and confirmed
recently [11], they cannot be considered as a fully satisfactory answer. A recent computation of a
wing-body junction flow performed by the authors show that both and models are
not able to predict accurately the intensity of the horse-shoe vortex [12]. In addition to the inability
to simulate turbulence anisotropy, the limitations of eddy-viscosity models for modeling complex
flows are related to models' inability to account for the selective amplification or attenuation of
Reynolds stresses by curvature-related strain components, which explains their bad performances
on flows characterized by intense longitudinal vortices.

Whereas second-order closures using Reynolds stress transport model (RSTM) are based on the
solution of a modeled form of the full Reynolds stress transport equations, the explicit algebraic
stress models (EASM) are derived from equilibrium hypotheses imposed on the convective and
diffusive terms in the RST equations. Both models are able to provide an anisotropic description
of the turbulence but the RSTM closures include additional physical terms such as the convection
and the turbulent diffusion of the Reynolds stresses which makes possible a more accurate
description of turbulent complex flows. However, the current generation of RSTM closures does
not perform outstandingly well on flows far from equilibrium.
Although successful prediction of ship flow with the low Reynolds number Reynolds stress
model proposed by Shima [13] has been performed, our personal experience with the Shima
model was not so positive since our implementation of this closure was systematically unable to
give a satisfactory prediction because of stability problems [10]. Attempts were made to stabilize
the Shima model by replacing the -equation with an -equation (Deng [14]). Unfortunately, the
proposed model was also unable to give a stable prediction for the ship flow. This is the reason
why a completely new near wall model is proposed in the present study. Without modifying the
numerical method, a stable solution is obtained with the new near wall model. Although it is
calibrated only on a simple boundary layer flow, a good agreement between the computations and
the experiments is observed for the flow around the HSVA tanker.
Equations
The Reynolds stress transport equation of the model for the cross-correlation
component can be written:
The convection and production terms are exact and do not require any modeling assumptions.
The third-order diffusion correlation is typically modeled using a gradient transport hypothesis
and the retained closure is that proposed by Daly [15] and is given as
The production terms of stresses are given by:

An isotropic model for the dissipation rate is used
A linear model with wall reflection terms is retained in the present study for the pressure-strain
term. When using the IP model, the tensor can be simplified as
where is the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor defined as
and P is the production of kinetic energy:
The third term in the equation above represents the redistribution due to the effects of rigid
boundaries. The modeling of this wall reflection term follows the form proposed by Gibson &
Launder:
Remaining constants are defined as

and
The turbulent dissipation is determined from a turbulent frequency equation rather than from
a turbulent dissipation equation. far from the wall the equation is decoupled from any other
equations. Consequently, it is less stiff compared with the equation. In addition, a near wall
model for is easier to implement than for . The transport equation for used is given below.
where
The coefficients , , and are calibrated for different pressure-strain model by using
the experimental data for a boundary layer under zero pressure gradient.
The turbulent dissipation is obtained from the turbulent frequency with

Away from the wall, the equation returns to the classical equation with the constants and
given with the equations above. Unlike in a near wall model for where a damping
function is often used to change the order of the dissipation term, the damping function in the
above model is used to change the value of the coefficient as well as to cancel the cross
diffusion term in the near wall region. Therefore, such a model is more universal.
Boundary conditions
In order to avoid possible numerical trouble with zero free-stream values, default far field value
for is fixed to . Second-order correlations are zero. At wall
boundaries all the second-order velocity correlations are zero.
Implementation of Reynolds stress transport model in a non-staggered layout is not

straightforward. Due to the absence of numerically stabilizing eddy viscosity and the predominant
influence in the momentum transport equations of the equilibrium between several strong and
opposite source terms, namely the pressure and Reynolds stress gradients, a special numerical
stabilizing technique has to be implemented. The main characteristics are listed below:
l To build the mass flux at the interface such that the equilibrium between the pressure and the
Reynolds stress gradients is preserved.
l To keep the relaxation of the pressure field consistent with that of Reynolds stress so that the
balance between them is maintained.
l To design an appropriate procedure to solve the coupling between the velocity, the pressure
and the Reynolds stresses.
Details of the implementation have been given in Deng & Visonneau [10] and [6].
References
[1] F. R. Menter, “Influence of freestream values on k ! turbulence model predictions,” AIAA,

1992.
[2] F. R. Menter, “Zonal two-equation k ! turbulence models for aerodynamic flows,” in AIAA
24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 93-2906, (Orlando, FL), 1993.
[3] H. Schlichting, Boundary layer theory. New York, Toronto, London: McGraw-Hill Book
Company Inc., Verlag G. Braun, Karlsruhe, 1960. 23
[4] F. R. Menter, “Performances of popular turbulence models for attached and separated adverse
pressure gradient flows,” AIAA Journal, vol. 30, pp. 2066–2072, 1992.

[5] F. R. Menter, “Two-equation eddy viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications,”
AIAA Journal, vol. 32, pp. 1299–1310, 1994.
[6] J. Piquet, Turbulent Flows: Models and Physics. Berlin, Heilderberg, New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1999. 23
[7] D. A. Johonson and L. S. King, “A mathematically simple turbulence closure model for
attached and separated turbulent boundary layers,” AIAA Journal, vol. 23, pp. 1684–1692, Nov.
1985.
[8] E. Guilmineau, J. Piquet, and P. Queutey, “Two- dimensional turbulent viscous flow
simulation past airfoils at fixed incidence,” Computers and Fluids, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 135–162,
1997.
[9] F. R. Menter and L. . Rumsey, “Assessment of two-equation turbulence models for transonoc
flows,” in AIAA 25th Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 94-2343, (Colorado Springs,
CO), June
[10] G. B. Deng and M. Visonneau, “Evaluation of eddy- viscosity and second- moment
turbulence closures for steady flows around ships,” in 21st ONR Symposium on Naval
Hydrodynamics, (Trondheim, Norway), pp. 453–469, June 1996.
[11] T. Kawamura, Numerical simulation of 3D turbulent free-surface flows. PhD thesis, ICCH,
International Research Centre for Computational Hydrodynamics, Hørsholm, Denmark, 1998.
[12] G. B. Deng and M. Visonneau, “Computation of a wing-body junction flow with a reynolds
stress model,” in 22nd ONR Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics, (Washington D.C.), pp.
691–707, August 1998.
[13] F. Sotiropoulos and V. C. Patel, “Turbulence anisotropy and near- wall modeling in
predicting threedimensional shear-flows,” AIAA Journal, vol. 33, pp. 504–514, 1995.
[14] G. B. Deng and M. Visonneau, “Near-wall modelization for dissipation in second-moment
closures,” in 11th Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, vol. 2, (Grenoble, France), pp. P2–
101–P2–106, September 1997.
[15] B. J. Daly and F. H. Harlow, “A mathematically simple turbulence closure model for
attached and separated turbulent boundary layers,” Physics of Fluids, vol. 13, pp. 2634–2649,
1970.
[16] G. B. Deng and M. Visonneau, “Comparison of explicit algebraic stress models and second-
order turbulence closures for steady flow around ships,” in 7th Symposium on Numerical Ship
Hydrodynamics, (Nantes, France), pp. 4.4–1–4.4–15, July 1999.

2.5 EXPLICIT REYNOLDS-STRESS MODELING
A quadratic Explicit Algebraic Stress Model (EASM ) that takes into account the variation
of production-to-dissipation rate ratio is also available. A new implementation of ASM model
where the turbulent eddy viscosity provided by the explicit solution is employed is found to be
robust. It has been validated for ship flows at model and full scale of different models. If RSM
model provides better prediction in the region dominated by convex curvature, however, no much
improvement is observed near the concave surface.
Equations
The Reynolds stress transport equations can be written as:
Where is the Reynolds stress tensor, is the production terms given by:
An isotropic model is employed for the dissipation rate tensor . The term
combining the effect of turbulent transport and viscous diffusion is modelized with the Daly and
Harlow model:
where =0.22. We adopt the quasi-linear SSG model for the pressure-strain rate correlation
[1]:
where , , , , .

The quadratic term in the original SSG model is omitted in the present study, since it introduces
much more complexities when deriving the explicit solution to the algebraic stress equation. Other
commonly used pressure-strain rate correlation models such as the IP and the LRR model can also
be represented by the above formulation. But only the quasi-linear SSG model is employed in the
present study. and appearing above are the strain rate and rotation rate tensors defined
respectively as:
and is the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor defined as . The RSM model
is implemented with a low Reynolds number formulation combined with a resolution of a

transport equation for the turbulence frequency . To deduce the transport equation for the
Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor , the turbulent kinetic energy equation is
required. It can be easily obtained from the contraction of the Reynolds stress transport equation
([2]) using the fact that the pressure-strain rate tensor is traceless ( ). The result reads:
where P is the turbulent production , and .
From the expressions for and , the following transport equation for the Reynolds stress
anisotropy tensor can be deduced:
To obtain an algebraic equation for , approximation must be made on the left land side of the
equation above. In the present study, the first term is assumed to be zero using the so-
called weak-equilibrium assumption. A better approximation can be obtained with the curvature
correction approach as proposed by Girimaji [3]. But this approach will not be considered in the
present study for the reason mentioned in the above section. The following approximation
described by Gatski and Jongen in [4] is applied to the second term,
The term
is assumed to be zero. is evaluated by using equation above,
Here, an equilibrium assumption D(k/ɛ)/Dt=0 is applied to obtain the approximation for Dk/Dt by
using the transport equation for k and ɛ for homogeneous flow [1] . With the above
approximation, the following algebraic equation for the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor can
be obtained:
In the ASM approach, the above equation is solved numerically. The nonlinear term is
treated explicitly in an iterative procedure using the value obtained at the previous iteration. The
symmetry of the Reynolds stress anisotropy tensor is taken into account, but not the property of
traceless. Thus a matrix is inverted at each point to obtain the solution for the Reynolds
stress anisotropy tensor.
In the EASM approach, an explicit analytic solution of equation above is derived. Mathematical
background and detailed derivation of the EASM model can be found in [4][5][6][7]. The final
result of the explicit solution of the above equation for two-dimensional flow is detailed in [8]
which is briefly repeated here for completeness. The Reynolds stress tensor is given by:
The turbulent eddy viscosity is determined from:
where α is obtained from the solution to the following cubic equation:
where is the turbulence time scale, and

The root of the equation above may be real or complex. The correct root is the root with the
lowest real part [9]. Rumsey and Gatski have presented a very convenient way for numerical
computation to obtain the correct root for the equation above using only real number calculation.
Details can be found in [8] . Other parameters are given by
. The coefficients to are the coefficients for the quasi-linear SSG model
for the pressure-strain rate correlation already given previously.
To implement the EASM model and ASM model, two transport equations must be solved to
provide the turbulent velocity and length scales. Any existing two-equation model can be used for
this purpose. However, model recalibration may be necessary in order to obtain optimum results,
especially when the model is integrated down to the wall without using wall function. No attempt
to model recalibration is made. An existing model is employed, namely the k- . Compared with
the original model, only two natural modifications are introduced. Firstly, the turbulent eddy
viscosity is replaced by the value given by the expression for υt. Secondly, the contribution of the
nonlinear part of the Reynolds stress to turbulence production is taken into account in three-
dimensional flow computation. This modification is not needed in 2D because the contribution is
zero. The EASM model thus implemented can be integrated down to the wall and gives correct
log law behaviors without any recalibration. The present implementation of the ASM model
differs from the previous one by the fact that cubic equation for α is also solved to obtain a
turbulent eddy viscosity given by the expression for υ t . The turbulent eddy thus obtained is
employed in the scale-determining two-equation model. In addition, it is used to decompose the
Reynolds stress into a linear part and a residual part according to
with where is
obtained from the numerical solution to the algebraic stress equation. The linear part is treated
implicitly in the momentum equations as for a linear eddy viscosity model, while the contribution
of residue term is added explicitly in the source term in the momentum equation as it is done
for the higher order nonlinear terms for the EASM model. Occasionally, the solution of the
algebraic Reynolds stress equation becomes singular. In this case, it is replaced by the result
provided by the EASM model. With this implementation, the ASM model gives identical results
within numerical discretization accuracy for two-dimensional flow as the EASM model. It has
been found that computation with the ASM model is as stable as the EASM model, even for
three-dimensional flow where the two models no longer provide identical result.
Boundary conditions
The boundary conditions for the EASM model equations are the same as those described
in the section " Wilcox Two-Equation Model " (p. 39) for the model.

References
[1] C. G. Speziale, S. Sarkar, and T. B. Gatski, “Modeling the pressure-strain correlation of

turbulence: An invariant dynamical systems approach,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 227, pp.
245–272, 1991.
[2] G. B. Deng and M. Visonneau, “Comparison of explicit algebraic stress models and second-
order turbulence closures for steady flows around ships,” in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. on Numerical
Ship Hydrodynamics, 1999.
[3] S. S. Girimaji, “A galilean invariant explicit algebraic reynolds stress model,” Physics of
Fluids, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 1067–1077, 1997.
[4] T. B. Gatski and T. Jongen, “Nonlinear eddy viscosity and algebraic stress models for solving
complex turbulent flows,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 36, pp. 655–682, 2000.
[5] T. B. Gatski and C. L. Rumsey, Linear and Nonlinear Edy Viscosity Modelling. in Closure
Strategies for Turbulent and Transitional Flows, B. Launder and N. Sandham eds., Camgridge
University Press, 2002.
[6] T. B. Gatski and C. G. Speziale, “On explicit algebraic stress models for complex turbulent
flows,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 254, pp. 59–78, 1993.
[7] T. Jongen and T. B. Gatski, “General explicit algebraic stress relations and best approximation
for three-dimensional flows,” Int. Journal of Engineering Science, vol. 36, pp. 739–763, 1998.
[8] C. L. Rumsey and T. B. Gatski, “Recent turbulence model advances applied to multielement
airfoil computations,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 904–910, 2001.
[9] T. Jongen and T. B. Gatski, “A unified analysis of planar homogeneous turbulence using
single-point closure equations,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 399, pp. 117–150, 1999.
2.6 DES MODELS
The DES approach is based on a implicit splitting of the computational domain into two zones. In
the first region near solid walls, the conventional RANS equations are solved. Within the second
region, the governing equations are the filtered Navier-Stokes equations of the LES approach.
The DES model was originally based on the Spalart-Allmaras one equation RANS turbulence
model [2]. The hybrid nature of DES is not linked to any specific turbulence model [3] and the
model employed in the present study is a variant based on the SST turbulence model [1].
Equations
The DES modification in the SST model is applied to the dissipation term in the k transport

equation. In the original model, the dissipation term is written as:
where is the dissipation rate, is a constant of the SST model. For the SST-DES, this term is
written now as:
with
where is the maximum local grid spacing ( = ), is the turbulent

length scale, = and is a constant. In the initial version of the DES-SST
[4] , was 0.61. In ISIS- CFD solver, we prefer to use the value
recommended by Menter & Kuntz [5]. recovers the Strelets model [3]. and are
the two blending functions of the SST model [1]. These blending functions have been
designed to be one in the near wall region and zero away from the surface. The function takes
place in the wake region of the boundary layer while the function extends further out into the
boundary layer than . The function is defined as follows:
with
where = 0.856, y is the distance to the next surface and is the cross-diffusion term of
the equation:
The function is defined as follows:

with
Boundary conditions
Boundary conditions on the DES models are the same as those described in " Menter Two-
Equation Model (SST) " (p. 41)for the SST model.
References
[1] F. R. Menter, “Zonal two-equation k-omega turbulence models for aerodynamic flows,” in
AIAA 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 93-2906, (Orlando, FL), 1993.
[2] P. R. Spalart, W. H. Jou, M. Strelets, and S. R. Allmaras, “Comments on the feasibility of
LES for wings and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach,” in 1st AFOSR International Conference
on DNS/LES (C. . Z. Liu, ed.), Advances in DNS/LES, Greyden Press, 1997.
[3] M. Strelets, “Detached eddy simulation of massively separated flows.” AIAA Paper 2001-
0879, 2001.
[4] F. R. Menter, M. Kuntz, and R. Langtry, “Ten years of industrial experience with the SST
turbulence model,” in Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer 4 (K. Hanjalic, Y. Nagano, and M.
Tummers, eds.), vol. 19, pp. 339–352, Begell House, Inc., 2003.
[5] F. R. Menter and M. Kuntz, “A zonal SST-DES formulation.” DES Workshop, 2003. St
Petersburg.
2.7 ROUGHNESS
In the present implementation, effect of wall roughness is taken into account into turbulence
model by using the equivalent sand grain roughness . Computation is always performed with a
smooth wall. The equivalent sand grain roughness is deduced from Dirling's correlation
which links the sand grain roughness to the mean roughness height h as

where
l h is the mean roughness height
l L is the mean distance between roughness elements, i.e. if there are N roughness elements on
an area S, then L=
l is the surface of the roughness projected on a plane normal to the flow direction
l is the wetted surface of the roughness directly exposed to the upstream flow.
Implementation with wall function
Law of wall with wall roughness reads [1]
where [2]
where = 0.41, C = 5.1 and

The values and depend on the roughness geometry characteristics. For sand grain
roughness, Ligrani and Moffat [2] propose = 2.25 and = 90.0. Those values are
employed in the present implementation. is the sand-grain height to be specified by the user.
The law of wall can be written as
From which we obtain
The coefficient 9.8/8.09 is employed to adjust the E coefficient so that it matches the value for a
smooth wall. In fact, for a smooth wall, E = = 8.09. But E = 9.8 is used for standard
wall function. Friction velocity is defined as
where wall shear stress in case of a smooth wall.
There are two different ways to compute the friction velocity when using wall function. The
first one is to use turbulent kinetic energy k computed at the first cell away from the wall, noted as
The second one is to compute it from the law of wall which gives
Wall shear stress is then computed by using the product of and , namely
Here,

Compared with smooth wall function implementation, only the value E needs to be changed.
Boundary condition for turbulent kinetic energy k is
which is the same as for wall function for smooth wall.

For turbulent frequency , we employer the same boundary condition as proposed by Knopp et
al.[3]] for low Reynolds number model
with
Boundary condition for k and is applied to center of first cell next to the wall.
Implementation with low Reynolds number
Model proposed by Knopp et al. [3] is implemented for low Reynolds number k- type model.
Compared to low Reynolds number model for smooth wall, only boundary condition is changed.
At the wall, boundary condition for k and is given by
with

and
is a modification introduced in the present implementation so that better result can be obtained
for transitional regime. Turbulent eddy viscosity is not equal to zero at the wall. This non-zero
value must be taken into account when we compute wall shear stress, namely
at the wall with wall roughness.
Limitations
Wall roughness model is implemented only for turbulence models solving k- equation, such as
SST and EASM model. Both wall function and low Reynolds number are supported. It is not
possible to be used with Spalart-Allmaras model and k- model.
Sand-grain height is a global parameter applied to all wall surfaces. It is not possible to use
different sand-grain height for different surface.
References
[1] F. H. Clauser, Adavance in applied mechanics, vol. 4, ch. The turbulent boundary layer, pp.
1–51. H.L. Drydek and Th. von Karmac, academic press inc. ed., 1956. 32
[2] P. M. Ligrani and R. J. Moffat, “Structure of transionally rough and fully rough turbulent
boundary layers,” Journal of FLuid Mechanics, vol. 162, pp. 69–98, 1986. 32
[3] T. Knopp, B. Eisfeld, and J. B. Calvo, “A new extension for k-! turbulence models to account
for wall roughness,” International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 54–65,
2009.

2.8 TRANSITION MODEL
The transition model is the model proposed by Menter et al. (2015) [1]. It is based on the LCTM
("Local Correlation-based Transition Model") concept. The starting point for the model is the γ-
Reθ model [2]. Some of the deficiencies of this model, like the lack of Galilean invariance have
been removed. Furthermore, the Reθ equation was avoided and the correlations for transition
onset prediction have been significantly simplified.
Equations
The transport equation for the intermittency, γ, is formulated as follows:
The transition source term is defined as:
where S is the strain rate magnitude. This term is designed to be equal to zero, due to the
function, in the laminar boundary layer upstream of transition and active everywhere the local
Reynolds number exceeds the local transition onset criteria. The magnitude of this source term is
controlled by the transition length function, , which used to be a correlation, but has been
changed to a constant. The density and strain are present in order to achieve the correct units for
the source term.
The destruction/ relaminarization source is defined as follows:
where is the magnitude of the absolute vorticity rate.

The formulation of the function contains the ratio of the local vorticity Reynolds number
to the critical Reynolds number . However, is not computed from a transport
equation but algebraically, using k and other variables. The transition onset is controlled by the
following functions:

The model constants are:
In these equations, is the wall distance and is the turbulence frequency, obtained from the
-equation.
A local formulation which provides levels in the middle of the boundary layer similar to the
freestream turbulence intensity, , is expressed as:
where is the wall distance and the combination provides a velocity scale inside the
boundary layer, replacing the freestream velocity U used in the γ-Reθ model:
This formulation of ensures that in the middle of the boundary layer, defined by the
equation above, approximately equals the freestream turbulence values.
The pressure gradient parameter typically used in empirical correlations is defined as follows:
where is the acceleration/ deceleration in the streamwise direction at the edge of the
boundary layer.
For a flat plate, one can write:

where V and y are the wall-normal velocity and coordinate in the free stream, respectively. For a
general geometry case, can be computed as follows:
Strictly speaking, the two relations for are only correct outside the boundary layer. However,
the quantity can also used inside the boundary layer as an indicator of the pressure
gradients imposed from the free stream. In order to providing a local approximation of , the
momentum thickness θ is replaced with the wall distance . Note that the transition model is
activated near the center of the boundary layer. At that location one has = , δ being
the boundary layer thickness, meaning that provides the proper scaling when replacing θ. The
final formula for reads as:
For numerical robustness was bounded as follows:
The constant 0.0128 accounts for the fact that in the middle of the boundary layer the velocity
gradient is not zero pressure gradients flows, due to the growth of the boundary layer.
A simpler formulation for the correlation is developed:
The function ) is introduced to sensitise the transition onset to the stream wise pressure
gradient. This function is purely empirical and is calibrated using Falkner-Skan series of profiles.
The formula for ) entering into the correlation of the equation above reads as:

A limiter is then applied to in order to avoid negative values:
The transition model interacts with the SST turbulence models as follows:
where and are the production and destruction terms from the turbulent kinetic energy
equation in the original SST turbulence model.
The term is computed using Kato-Launder formulation: where denotes the
magnitude of the absolute vorticity rate.
An additional production term has been introduced into the k-equation to ensure proper
generation of k at transition points for arbitrary low, down to zero, levels. The expression for
the reads as:

Boundary conditions
The boundary condition for γ at a wall is zero normal flux while at an inlet the value of γ is equal
to 1. Note that the current γ equation does not enforce γ = 1 through the entire turbulent boundary
layer, but has a limit of γ= 1/ at the wall.
References
[1] F. R. Menter, P. E. Smirnov, T. Liu, and R. Avancha, “A one-equation local correlation-

based transition model,” Flow, Turbulence and Combustion, vol. 95, no. 4, pp. 583–619, 2015.
34
[2] F. R. Menter and R. B. Langtry, “Transition modelling for turbomachinery flows,” in Low
Reynolds Number Aerodynamics and Transition (D. M. S. Genc, ed.), ch. 2, InTech, 2012. 34

CHAPTER 3.
CAVITATION MODELS
In this section
3.1 Notation and general relation 68
3.2 Formulation with CiCav as the liquid fraction 70
3.3 Numerical treatment 73

3.1 NOTATION AND GENERAL RELATION
In ISIS-CFD, the numerical modeling of cavitation is based on the resolution of a transport

equation similarly to what is done for free surface. But, in this case, there is source terms to model
vaporization and condensation of the phases liquid/ vapor.
The implementation has been done to make possible the computation of free surface too. We keep
the volume fraction (Ci) to compute the evolution of the free surface. We consider that
gives the volume fraction of air.
A new variable CiCav is used when dealing with cavitating flows. CiCav represent either the
vapor fraction or the liquid fraction.
We have the relation:
where , and denote respectively the volume fraction of air, vapor and liquid.
To compute the physical properties of the fluid, we use the relation:
The conservation of mass gives ( means the density, the velocity field):
Formulation with CiCav as the vapor fraction
CiCav is equal to the vapor fraction .

represents the volume fraction of both liquid and vapor.
The volume fraction of liquid is given by .

Using the equation for ρ and the relation and , we obtain,
The conservation of the mass of air leads to the following equation:
We deduce from the relation that:
Considering the relation:
We deduce the conservative form for the evolution of Ci:
Cavitation is modeled by the following formulation:
With the equation for , the equation for Ci and the equation for CiCav we find again:
This is the same relation which is obtained without free surface.

3.2 FORMULATION WITH CICAV AS THE LIQUID
FRACTION
represents the vapor fraction .
represents the volume fraction of both liquid and vapor.

The volume fraction of liquid is given by .
Using the equations from section " Notation and general relation " (p. 68) and the relation
and , we obtain with algebraic manipulations similar to
section " Notation and general relation " (p. 68):
Cavitation models
Three models have been implemented. All of them are based on a model of transfer between
the phase liquid and vapor.
Similarly, we can obtain the model of evolution for the vapor fraction:
We have:
Merkle model
The first one is due to the work of Merkle ([1][2]):

Then, we deduce the volume fraction of vapor:
and are parameters of the model. Default values are fixed to respectively 10. and
100.
Kunz model
The Kunz model which differs from the first one main for the production term (where the pressure
is not present) has also been implemented.
Following the optimization work of [3] , default values for the parameter coefficients are fixed as
follows: 4100 for the liquid destruction term and 455 for the liquid production term. In the
literature, very different values for these coefficients are found: 100 for both of them [3][4], and
9e5 and 3e4 respectively for and ([2][5]).
Sauer model
The third one, based on a very simplified form of the Rayleigh-Plesset equation is also available.
with

with
We then have:
The main difference with the Merkle model is that the term occurs under a square root.
As a consequence, the implication is less easy since the term is not linear. The parameter is the
value . Default is fixed to .
References
[1] C. L. Merkle, J. Feng, and P. E. O. Buelow, “Computational modeling of the dynamics of

sheet cavitation,” in 3rd International Symposium on Cavitation, Grenoble, France, 1998.
[2] I. Senocak and W. Shyy, “Interfacial dynamics-based modelling of turbulent cavitating flows,
part-1: Model development and steady-state computations,” International journal for numerical
methods in fluids, vol. 44, no. 9, pp. 975–995, 2004.
[3] M. Morgut, E. Nobile, and I. Bilus, “Comparison of mass transfer models for the numerical
prediction of sheet cavitation around a hydrofoil,” International Journal of Multiphase Flow,
2011.
[4] J. W. Lindau, R. F. Kunz, and H. J. Gibeling, “Validation of high reynolds number, unsteady
multiphase cfd modeling for naval applications,” in 23rd Symposium on Naval Hydrodynamics,
Val de Reuil, France, 2000.
[5] R. F. Kunz, D. A. Boger, D. R. Stinebring, T. S. Chyczewski, J. W. Lindau, H. J. Gibeling,
S. Venkateswaran, and T. R. Govindan, “A preconditioned navier-stokes method for two-phase
flows with application to cavitation prediction,” Computers and Fluids, vol. 29, no. 8, pp. 849–
875, 2000.

3.3 NUMERICAL TREATMENT
As previously described, the variable CiCav can be used to compute the vapor fraction or the
liquid fraction.Even if both formulations are formally equivalent, it has some numerical effects:
First of all, the terms which can be implicited are not similar, according to the cavitating model.
Secondly, there is a factor between the two formulations in the source term of the transport
equation of CiCav (source term larger for the vapor formulation). Even if solution is the same
when the computation converges, robustness may thus be impacted by this two items. Lastly, the
numerical behaviour in the non-cavitating conditions can be impacted: when dealing with CiCav
as the vapor fraction , the field CiCav is identically equal to zero, and remains equal to zero
during the resolution of the transport equation, even if the sum of the velocity fluxes in each cell
are not purely equal to zero (it may be the case, since we do not converge the pressure equation
up to the zero machine). On the contrary, in non- cavitating conditions, the field CiCav is
identically equal to one, when considering CiCav as the liquid fraction . As a consequence, it is
difficult to keep this pure value when solving the transport equation for CiCav since the
divergence of the velocity may slightly differ from zero. It may lead to some numerical pressure
oscillations. On the contrary, the resolution of the vapor volume fraction also reveals a more
oscillating signal when cavitation appears (certainly due to the fact that the source term in the
resolution of the transport equation of CiCav has a factor compared to the liquid volume
fraction).
To avoid the oscillating behaviour in non-cavitating condition in the case of the resolution of the
liquid volume fraction, we had the source term in the transport equation when
the flow is far from cavitating conditions, so solving . This numerical treatment
removes the activation of cavitation terms since in this case, CiCav remains purely equal to 1.

CHAPTER 4.
FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION
In this section
4.1 Rigid-body motion 75
4.2 Flexible body with modal approach 80

4.1 RIGID-BODY MOTION
An arbitrary number of rigid bodies can be considered along with the flow around them by the
ISIS-CFD solver. Furthermore, their motions can be either imposed or solved separately for each
degree of freedom. Imposed motions cannot really be considered as Fluid-Structure Interaction
since there are no feedback of the fluid loads onto the kinematics of the bodies, even if the
computational grid must be moved in accordance with the displacement of the bodies, as for
solved motions. In addition to that, the latter require the resolution of the Newton's laws. An
internal implicit flow-motion coupling is used to ensure the global procedure to be stable and
accurate.
Resolution of the Newton's law
The aim is to calculate the temporal evolution of the kinematic characteristics of a rigid body
submitted to forces acting on it (hydrodynamic forces, gravity, ...).
An frame of , linked to the physical space, and assimilated to a Galilean
referential ( is the basis associated to ) is defined. The resolution of the Newton's law in
projection in reduces to:
with the following notations:

l center of mass of the body
l mass of the body
l elements of the inertia matrix of the body (see the equation
above)

l (x,y,z) coordinates of the vector on the basis
l coordinates of the velocity vector on the basis
l coordinates of the instantaneous rotation vector on the basis
l screw of external loads acting on the body including fluid loads
l inertial source term
Expression of :
Flow-motion coupling
In the case of prescribed motions, the bodies are first displaced at every time step, then the mesh is
rebuilt, and lastly the flow is solved. Therefore, there is no real coupling when motion is imposed
owing to the lack of fluid feedback on the body's position. The problem is more complex when
motion is solved with Newton's laws: then the body's kinematics are linked to the flow at the
same time-step by forces acting on them. Reciprocally, the body's motion modifies the flow
through the displacement velocity fluxes, as illustrated in the following figure.

FIGURE 4.1
Diagram of the Fluid-Structure interaction
The internal implicit procedure, which is used here, updates the kinematics of the body at each
non-linear iteration: at the end of each single nonlinear iteration, the estimated flow is used to
calculate the forces and moments acting on the bodies and then to compute the new positions of
the bodies. Thus, both the flow equations and Newton's laws are solved during each iteration of
Picard's procedure (called non-linear iteration). Consequently, the resolution of the flow and
body's kinematics are solved at the same time step without lag time. This internal implicit
procedure ensures a strong and accurate flow/motion coupling. However, such an approach is not
enough to ensure a stable coupling, due to added mass effect.
Added-mass effect and artificial added-mass method
Added-mass effect can be seen as the part of the pressure fluid force which is proportional and
opposed to the acceleration of the body. To highlight the phenomenon and the technique of
artificial added-mass method which is used to stabilized the coupling, a case of a rigid body of
mass m with only one degree of freedom in translation is used. The fluid force and the structure
force (gravity, joints, etc.) are respectively denoted as and . As discussed previously, the
fluid force is split accordingly and the added mass part is denoted by while the other part
is denoted by . This splitting is just done to highlight the problem, since a CFD solver can not
separate the added mass effect from the total fluid force when it computes the flow.
is defined as the added-mass. The equation which have to be solved reads:
The artificial added mass technique affects the inertia of the body by an artificial added mass
coefficient and thus decreases the dependency of the right hand side member with the
acceleration. It can be seen as a relaxation step. The corresponding equation which is solved to
update the i+1 non-linear iteration of the time step n+1 is:

At convergence ( ), the initial discrete equation to solve is recovered. The term
needs not be accurately assessed, since it does not affect the converged solution. It must only be
chosen just high enough to ensure stability. But the optimal artificial added mass is to be as
close as possible of the real added mass to reach a convergent solution as fast as possible.
For classical hydrodynamic problem, an artificial added-mass coefficient equal to 1 leads
to satisfying convergence properties. For specific cases, the solver can evaluate itself this artificial
added- mass coefficient (and updated it dynamically if requested) by solving an additional
Laplacian problem which leads to the evaluation of directly for each degree of freedom.
Evaluation of the added-mass matrix
The evaluation of the added-mass matrix for a solid body is done column by column (for each
requested DOF) through the resolution of the variable verifying:
with boundary condition expressed by
For a given DOF, is known on all boundary of the domain. The integration of on the
whole surface of the body gives access to all the terms of the column of the considered DOF.
The quasi-static approach
When dealing with potential flows, G. Delhommeau [1] underlined that the loads on a hull can be
divided into four parts: external forces (due to mechanical bindings or mooring lines), gravity
force, hydrostatic loads, and hydrodynamic loads. A first-order evaluation of the hydrostatic loads
around an equilibrium position can be obtained as a function of the sink , the roll and
the trim , as well as geometric and inertia characteristics [1]. The relation is given with the
equation:

The coefficients of the matrix depend on the density of water ( ), the magnitude of gravity (g),
the geometry of the wetted surface of the hull ( ), the immersed volume ( ), the center of
gravity (coordinates ( ) and the vertical position of the center of buoyancy ( ).
By computing , the equation below can be used to provide the hydrostatic position of any
hull through an iterative process, assuming that its mass and the center of gravity position are
known.

Coupled to a flow solver, it enables to predict a dynamic equilibrium position. In fact, let us
consider the vertical force and torque (evaluated at the center of gravity G)
along the X and Y axis respectively acting on the hull, (including gravity, fluid force and possible
external forces), in a given imposed position. Then, a prediction of the new position can be
obtained by solving the linear system above, giving as a result. This
amounts to extrapolating an equilibrium position with a first order method while keeping the
hydrodynamic load and the external forces constant. This inferred new position is relaxed and
then applied progressively during . After some time steps, a new prediction of the
equilibrium position using the current fluid forces applied to the hull can be obtained. Then the
procedure can go on up to convergence. The procedure is summed up as follows ( means the
time when an evaluation is carried out, the temporal interval between two evaluations, with
):
1.
2. computation of the current forces acting on the hull

3. prediction of to reach the new equilibrium position using the equation above
4. under-relaxation of the new position with a coefficient :
5. gradual variation of the position to reach within

6. when , go to
References
[1] G. Delhommeau, Les problèmes de diffraction-radiation et de résistance de vagues: étude

théorique et résolution numérique par la méthode des singularités. PhD thesis, Ecole Nationale
Supérieure de Mécanique de Nantes, 1987. 43
4.2 FLEXIBLE BODY WITH MODAL APPROACH
Concept
Considering a structural system with n degrees of freedom, the linearized form of the equation
governing the motion of the structure is given by:

where x=0 represents the equilibrium position around which linearization has been performed.
The modal approach is based on a reduction model by searching the solution under the form:
It can be shown that the equation can be written by:
Using as the n natural mode of vibration verifying the equation below it can be shown that
the M and K orthogonality of these vibration modes: and are
diagonal matrix.
Assuming the hypothesis of Rayleigh damping, i.e. taking proportional to and ,(

), the problem is now simplified to a resolution of n single-DOF systems.
Each single equation (corresponding to the i-th row of the system) has the form:
Eigen modal matrix can be normalized to have
( )
then leading to a set of uncoupled modal equations given by:
The total shape deformation is then given by the equation:

Then, the model reduction is achieved by excluding for the resolution the modes which are
without major interest for the studied configuration.
As for rigid motion, added-mass effect are naturally part of the fluid forces acting on bodies. And
as for rigid motion, added-mass effect can also destabilize this fluid-structure interaction as for
rigid motion. It is then possible to compute for each eigen mode the associated added-mass
coefficient as it is done in section " Rigid-body motion " (p. 75). And a similar treatment as
described in " Rigid-body motion " (p. 75) can be applied to ensure a stable coupling.
The equations above are modified as the following equation (where k refers to the index of the
non-linear iteration):
where k refers to the index of the non-linear iteration and to the added mass coefficient
associated with the mode i. The coefficient is computed similarly to what is done for rigid
motion but using an unit acceleration of the modal amplitude of the given mode.
Greedy algorithm
When using a large number of structural nodes, the data transfer of forces and displacements as
well as the mesh deformation technique leads to a large increase of the CPU time, impacting the
global efficiency of the computation. To tackle this bottleneck, a greedy algorithm has been
implemented ([1]). For each mode, a selection of nodes is done step by step, by including
successively the node which generates the biggest error compared to the use of the full description
of the initial structure. The procedure finishes when the selected nodes generate a relative error
below the given tolerance. This selection is done only once at the beginning of the simulation
since the different mode shapes do not shape during the computation.
References
[1] T. C. Rendall and C. B. Allen, “Efficient mesh motion using radial basis functions with data
reduction algorithms,” Journal of Computational Physics, vol. 228, no. 17, pp. 6231–6249, 2009.
Greedy.

CHAPTER 5.
AUTOMATIC GRID ADAPTATION
In this section
5.1 How to use the grid adaptation? 84
5.2 Refinement procedure and criteria 84
5.3 Free surface criteria 85
5.4 Gradient criteria 87
5.5 Pressure Hessian criteria 88
5.6 Free surface plus pressure Hessian criterion 88

5.1 HOW TO USE THE GRID ADAPTATION?
Grid preprocessing is done normally with hexpress2isis and premetis. For the refinement, the only
thing that is needed is a file of face sister pointers, specified in the .sim with ORIGINAL FACE
SISTER POINTER: FILE or R/W: FACE SISTER POINTER (see below). The generation of
the sister pointer file is triggered by the presence of one of these strings. Thus, one string (usually
ORIGINAL...) has to be present in the .sim before starting the preprocessing!
Refinement and derefinement are performed during the ISIS-CFD computation, based on the
parameters specified below.
For the postprocessing, parallel results are concatenated using postmetis_concat (or postmetis,
which calls postmetis_ concat when it detects a refined grid). For Tecplot visualisation, the
concatenated face connectivity file is then changed to a faces_4tecplot.xdr format using the tool
faces24tecplot, after which isis2tec can be used normally. CFView visualisation can be obtained
normally with isis2cfview.
The refinement is compatible with the following ISIS-CFD features:
l Steady single-fluid, steady multifluid, unsteady simulation,
l Free-moving rigid bodies, weighted deformation,
l Volume and surface probes.
5.2 REFINEMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
The grid refinement procedure developed for ISIS-CFD is integrated completely in the flow
solver. The method is entirely parallelised, including automatic redistribution of the grid over the
processors. During a flow computation, the refinement procedure is called repeatedly. In such a
call, first the refinement criterion is calculated, then in a separate step of the procedure the grid is
refined based on this criterion. For steady flow, the refinement procedure converges: once the grid
is correctly refined according to the criterion, further calls to the procedure no longer cause any
changes.
Anisotropic refinement is essential for our type of grid refinement. Isotropic refinement is very
costly in three dimensions, since each refinement means a division in eight (for a hexahedron).
Thus, creating very fine cells to accurately resolve a local flow phenomenon becomes almost
impossible. However, by applying anisotropic refinement for flow features that need a fine grid in
only one direction (notably, the water surface!), the total number of cells required can be greatly
reduced or much finer flow details can be resolved.

For directional refinement, a way is needed to specify different cell sizes in different directions.
The use of metric tensors as refinement criteria is such a way. This technique was first developed
for the generation and refinement of unstructured tetrahedral meshes. It is also an extremely useful
and flexible framework for the refinement of unstructured hexahedral meshes.
For tensor-based refinement, the refinement criterion in each cell is a 3x3 symmetric positive
definite matrix . The refinement of the cells is decided as follows. Let the criterion tensors in
each cell be known (they are computed from the flow solution, see the following sections). In
each hexahedral cell, the cell size vectors ( ), which are the vectors between
the opposing face centers in the three cell directions, are determined. Next, the modified sizes are
computed as:
Finally, a cell is refined in the direction j when the modified size exceeds a given, constant
threshold value :
The tensors are direct specifications of the desired cell sizes: in the refined grid, the cell sizes
are inversely proportional to the magnitude of the .
The following sections describe different refinement criteria.
5.3 FREE SURFACE CRITERIA
Free surface criterion
This is a directional refinement criterion, it refines the mesh in a direction normal to the water
surface. When the surface is at an angle to the mesh, this results in isotropic refinement, but when
the surface is aligned with the mesh, the cells are refined in one direction only.

FIGURE 5.1
Figure:Free surface refinement criterion: isotropic and directional refinement.
The free-surface criterion is therefore based on a vector, normal to the surface, with length 1.
Thus, from it follows that the threshold value directly indicates the desired cell
size at the surface. The normal direction to the surface is computed from a field that is
smoothed out by averaging over a cell and its neighbors, a given number of times. The gradient of
this field gives the normal directions. The criterion vectors are then chosen as the unit vectors
in this normal direction for those cells where the smoothed field is non-zero, and as zero
everywhere else.
Therefore, for this criterion, the refinement threshold has a special property: its value corresponds
to the desired grid size in the direction normal to the water surface. Thus, the threshold directly
specifies the mesh size. Therefore, it is not necessary to set a maximum number of generations, as
this number is automatically limited by the threshold and the initial mesh size.
However, the mesh must be refined in a zone around the free surface as well; the criterion does
not do this automatically, it only refines where the volume fraction is between zero and one. Thus,
it is essential to set buffer layers. At least two full buffer layers are advised.
Free surface tensor criterion
This criterion is similar to the free surface criterion, although it is computed in a different way. In
tensor form, the free-surface criterion is implemented as matrices having only one non-zero
eigenvalue, associated with the direction of the vector. In the directions normal to the vector, the

eigenvalues are zero, so the desired grid size is infinity. Thus, the grid is only refined in the
direction of the vectors. The tensors are computed as follows (with representing the tensor
product):
The same options can be specified and the same advice regarding buffer layers holds. The
important difference is in the creation of the buffer layers near breaking waves. In a region with
wave breaking and foam, applying buffer layers to the standard free surface criterion leads to cells
that are locally finer than the specified target. For the free-surface tensor criterion, this is not the
case.
Using the standard criterion gives a very detailed resolution of breaking waves, which may be
preferable. However, for unsteady flows where the position of the wave breaking changes often,
it is advised to use the tensor criterion.
Free surface isotropic criterion
This criterion is the same as the free surface criterion, with the only difference that all refinement
is isotropic.
5.4 GRADIENT CRITERIA
Three solution gradient criteria are available, based on the gradients of the pressure and the
velocity, and on the vorticity. These criteria give isotropic refinement. As the output of these
criteria is generally smooth, buffer layers may not be necessary. However, it is essential to set a
maximum number of generations, usually 2 or 3.
There is not yet a good rule of thumb to choose the value of the refinement threshold. The easiest
option is to use the REFINEMENT: TARGET NUMBER OF CELLS entry. Otherwise, for
steady computations, Zaib Ali [1] suggests to perform the refinement as a restart from a converged
non-refined solution and to tune the threshold based on the number of cells it refines the first time
the refinement procedure is called. (Starting from a converged solution, STEPS BEFORE FIRST
can be set to 0, so a few trial refinements can be made quickly).
The velocity gradient and vorticity criterion react very strongly to the presence of boundary
layers, thus it may be necessary to set BOUNDARY LAYER PROTECTION to NO
REFINEMENT (see below). This, however, makes it impossible to capture phenomena that
originate in the boundary layer. The pressure gradient criterion is insensitive to boundary layers,
so often it may be the criterion of choice.

Reference
[1] A. Zaib, “Error indicators for controlling automatic grid refinement in isis-cfd,” Master’s
thesis, Ecole Centrale de Nantes, 2009. Available at ftp://ftpa.ec- nantes.fr/user/ftp-
emn/pub/Thesis/.
5.5 PRESSURE HESSIAN CRITERIA
Two criteria are available that are based on the second derivatives of the pressure, which is
generally accepted as an approximative error indicator. The first criterion is tensorial, based on the
Hessian tensor of second spatial derivatives of the pressure, to the power 0.5. It results in
directional refinement.
where the power 0.5 indicates that the matrix, multiplied by itself, gives the Hessian matrix. The
number can be used to modify this power, it is specified by REFINEMENT:
CRITERION TO THE POWER.
As these criteria are smooth (for single-fluid flow), like the gradient criteria, the same guidelines
hold. Buffer layers are not strictly necessary, a maximum number of generations must be set (2 to
3) or a minimum cell size, and the threshold can be set with the REFINEMENT: TARGET
NUMBER OF CELLS option.
5.6 FREE SURFACE PLUS PRESSURE

HESSIAN CRITERION
For free-surface flows, the Hessian criterion is combined with the free-surface tensor criterion.
Even if the current implementation of the Hessian criterion has a behaviour similar to a free-
surface criterion at the water surface, the real free-surface criterion is used as well because it
guarantees that the grid at the surface is absolutely regular and that a safety zone of refined cells is
generated around the surface.

Combined criterion
The criteria are combined into one tensor criterion by taking a weighted maximum of the two
tensors. We want to indicate directly the desired cell size (as for the free-surface criterion), so
we apply a weighting factor c only to the Hessian criterion:
The (approximate) maximum of the two tensors is computed using the following procedure. First,
the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the two tensors are computed. Then new eigenvalues are set
for each tensor, as the maximum of the original eigenvalue and the length of the corresponding
eigenvector when it is multiplied by the other tensor. This gives two approximations to the
maximum tensor; the final tensor in each cell is a weighted average of these two.
Best practice
The criterion is supposed to work from a coarse original grid without the need for initial
refinement zones. When using it, the following best practice guidelines should be followed:
Grid
l Make an original grid that has sufficient resolution to snap to the geometry, but not more. In
principle, do not put in refinement boxes and do not put a lofted surface at the water level. The
criterion will take care of this. However, check that the grid is regular (few deformed cells) and
that most cells are close to rectangular. If this is not the case, put in a large refinement box with
coarse cells around the free surface, everywhere where the flow interests you, in order to get a
regular grid and thus a better refined grid.
Computation settings
l Specify a minimum cell size for refinement, like for the Hessian criterion.
l Use the REFINEMENT: REINITIALISE AFTER FIRST STEP? option, in order to get a
good initial definition of the free surface. As a result, the number of steps before the first
refinement must be set to zero.
l The criterion is always based on the smoothed volume fraction. As a result, the number of full
criterion copy buffer layers can be reduced (to 0 for steady flow, to 2 less than the usual value
for unsteady flow). Choose the number of partial copy layers as usual for free-surface criteria.
l Do not use a limiting box for refinement in Z-direction. The Z-refinement must go all the way
to the inflow and outflow boundaries in order to impose a correct water level. Limiting boxes
in X-, and Y-direction can be used.
l For a smoother grid, one can set the conditional refinement factor to 1.1 - 1.2.

l In this case, a part of the criterion is non-smooth, so the target number of cells option should
not be used.
l For unsteady flow and steady flow with mesh deformation, it is advised to use the
REFINEMENT: SCALAR PROD. ONLY IN REF. ZONE? option to allow derefinement of
the high aspect ratio cells at the outside of the domain.
Choice of c
The correct value for the proportion c depends - unfortunately - on the problem. It will be scaled
differently if the problem is dominated by waves or by pressure gradients at the hull.
A default value is suggested for a displacement ship, where the pressure gradient associated with
the hull is the dominating factor. In this case, assuming that the pressure at the bow is close to the
stagnation pressure and the pressure at midships is nearly atmospheric, it follows that the pressure
differences on the hull are proportional to the dynamic pressure . Also, it follows that
their variation takes place over a length proportional to the ship hull. Thus, the second spatial
derivatives of the pressure vary with , where V is the reference velocity and L the
reference length. is the density of the water.
Thus, c should be inversely proportional to this value. It is suggested to put:
where a1 is a scaling parameter. The Series 60 test case (c.f. Jebali (2011) ) indicates that a value
of a1=30 is realistic if is the default value 1.0.
It should be clear that the choice (equation above) is a very rough initial guess which is not valid in
all cases.

CHAPTER 6.
SLIDING GRIDS METHODOLOGY
In this section
6.1 Introduction 92

6.1 INTRODUCTION
The main objective of the sliding grid approach is the full viscous simulation of the unsteady flow
on the hull/propeller system. This puts severe requirements on the grids and the coupling
techniques which will have to be general and accurate to deal with complex fully-unstructured
grids around the hull and the full propulsive systems.
Considering a propeller rotating behind a ship, the interaction between the propeller and the hull
will be solved as soon as a sliding interface is used to provide proper exchange of informations
between non-matching parts of the grids.
A first possible way to take into account non-matching computational domains consists in using
different reference frames in the rotating and stationary parts. The method is usually referred to as
Multiple Reference Frames (MRF). It is mainly used to simulate rotor/stator interactions and also
the effect of rotating blades of stirred vessels configurations. No relative mesh motion is allowed
between the parts: the relative velocity is computed in the rotating reference frame with the
addition of both Coriolis and centrifugal terms in the momentum equations. The main advantage
of the method is that it can be used in a steady-state formulation to achieve simulation at a lower
cost that an unsteady simulation. An exhaustive description of the MRF approach is listed in the
introduction of [1].
Since no transient flow simulation is permitted, the MRF approach was not considered and the
solution was to consider the same earth fixed reference frame for all the parts of the computational
grids. The sliding interfaces for fully unstructured grids are far more complex than for structured
grid topologies. This is due to the explicit data structure required to address the connectivity so
that interpolations are not as relatively easy as it can be with an implicit addressing of a structured
grid. As reported in the literature considered, see [2], various techniques have been developed to
use sliding interfaces. Global flux conservation across the interfaces can be assumed but with
constraints so that the flexibility to handle complex geometries is lost: symmetry restrictions on the
grid interface or exact alignment of the grids at the interface at each time step. In the context of
the FV method with cell-centred schemes, it could be possible to ensure a strict global mass
conservation by replacing the faces of the control volumes by a set a new faces built from the
intersections of the sliding faces from each sub-domain sharing the sliding interface boundary.
The main drawback is in the limiting choice of the shape of the sliding boundary (cylinder for
example). It also results in a significant extra computational cost to build the new faces. Even for
connecting dissimilar hexahedral meshes the task is challenging in computational mechanics [3].

The main effort has been devoted to have the sliding grid implementation working with the
existing adaptive grid refinement method already implemented. The originality of the
implemented method is that it works in parallel and the different sub-domains can be distributed
arbitrarily over the processors. No explicit interpolation is used to find the states on the sliding
faces; instead, the coupling algorithm identifies real cells that are used as neighbours for the cells
in the other sub-domain. The fluxes are computed across the sliding faces independently of the
appertaining sub-domain and therefore without regards to conservation of mass and momentum.
Since the implementation is fully modular the improvement of the reconstructions could be
considered later.
Since one of the key features for the sliding interface approach presented here is the definition of
connectivity between the cell faces and cell centres, the next section presents some details on the
numerical implementation of the sliding-interfaces methodology.
References
[1]A. A. B. Basara and D. Beader, “Simulation of single- and two-phase flows on sliding
unstructured meshes using finite volume method.,” International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Fluids, vol. 45, no. 9, pp. 137–1159, 2004.
[2] E. L. Blades and D. L. Marcum, “A sliding interface method for unstructured flow
simulations,”International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, vol. 53, no. 9, pp. 507–529,
2007. 5
[3] H. G. Kim, “Development of three-dimensional interface elements for coupling of non-
matching hexahedralmeshes,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, vol.
197, pp. 387–3882,
6.2 IMPLEMENTATION
To compute the fluxes over the sliding interface, we need to establish connections between cells
on the two sides of the interface. The procedure to connect these cells is performed at each time
step in order to account for the rotation of the two sub-domains with respect to each other. This
procedure is chosen to remain as close as possible to what is done for standard cells. Thus, no
specific interpolations are used. Instead, for a cell and face on the interface, we search the cell
center (in the other sub-domain) which best matches the face. This cell is then used as neighbor
cell for a flux computation exactly like in the " Numerical framework " (p. 10).

FIGURE 6.1
Sliding faces: construction of ghost points (left), searching the global faces (center), the new
neighbor cell (right).
The matching neighbor steps are searched in three steps (see figure above).
1. A temporary "ghost" point is constructed on the outside of each sliding face. This point is the
mirror image of the inside neighbor cell center, except near sharp corners of the sliding
interface where the normal vector to the face is used. Ghost points are constructed on each side
of the interface, for the two sub-domains (figure above shows only the point for the left sub-
domain). The ghost points are not used for interpolation, only for the remainder of the search.
2. The current position of the sliding faces is gathered over all partitions to form a global table.
Then, in each partition, a search algorithm is used to find the global sliding face closest to each
local ghost point.
3. The inside neighbor cells of the faces found are used as outside neighbors for the local sliding
faces. If the neighbor is on another processor, an MPI communication is established just like
the one for the normal domain decomposition. If the two cells are on the same processor, the
communication is performed locally. As opposed to the normal domain decomposition, a cell
on a sliding interface may be a neighbor for more than one cell, or for none at all.
As one sees, we do not explicitly split the grid in two parts by assigning a number of processors to
each sub-domain and partitioning each sub-domain separately. Instead, the grid can be arbitrarily
spread over the processors, a `color' is assigned to each cell to indicate to which sub-domain it
belongs. This gives the flexibility to run the code on a single processor and also to perform grid
refinement; when a part of the grid is refined, the balance would be lost if each sub-domain were
assigned to a constant number of processors. With our approach, we can redistribute freely.
The main validations of the sliding grid approach have been performed about the interaction
between the free surface and a submerged propeller [1] and [2]. It was also used to analyze a self-
propulsion test case in [3].

References
[1] P. Queutey, G. B. Deng, J. Wackers, and M. Visonneau, “Ventilated propeller simulation

with a rans solver,” in The 7th International Workshop on Ship Hydrodynamics, IWSH’2011),
(Shanghai, China), 16-19 September 2011. 52
[2] P. Queutey, G. Deng, and J. Wackers, “Coupled sliding grids and adaptive grid refinement for
rans simulation of ship- propeller interaction,” in 14th Numerical Towing Tank Symposium,
NUTTS’2011),(The Lifeboat College, RNLI Poole, UK), October 2011. 52
[3] M. Visonneau, P. Queutey, G. B. Deng, E. Guilmineau, A. Leroyer, and B. Mallol,
“Computation of free surface viscous flows around self-propelled ship with the help of sliding
grids,” in 11th International Conference on Computer Applications and Information Technology
in the Maritime Industries, COMPIT’2011), (Liege, Belgium), 16-18 April 201. 52

CHAPTER 7.
NUMERICAL STRATEGIES TO SPEED UP

CFD COMPUTATIONS
In this section
7.1 The time-splitting procedure for the volume fraction 97
7.2 Acceleration algorithms 98

7.1 THE TIME-SPLITTING PROCEDURE FOR
THE VOLUME FRACTION
With an interface capturing approach, we have to solve the ALE convection equation for the
volume fraction, ( is simply denoted by c in the following):
where is the domain of interest, or control volume, bounded by the closed surface moving at
the velocity with a unit normal vector directed outward. The time derivative following the
moving grid is written .
Finite-Volume discretization leads to the following discretized form:
where and mean respectively the previous and the current time, and the
current time step. denotes the reconstruction of the volume fraction at the centre of the face,
whereas and represent respectively the velocity flux and the grid displacement velocity
flux through the considered face . Since steady configurations are investigated here, accurate
resolution in time is not required, so the basic first order Euler implicit scheme is applied for the
time derivative.
The spirit of the time-splitting approach is to reduce the CFL condition related to the equation
above, by using a specific time step for the volume fraction, which is a fraction of the time step
associated with the global simulation. In other terms, the global time step is split into a
sequence of smaller ones leading naturally to smaller Courant numbers (equation above). As a
consequence, the volume fraction equation is solved sequentially several times during a single
global time step, for only one update of the other flow equations; each resolution is called a
"subcycle". If we note N the number of "subcycles", the split time step is equal to .
The intermediate volumes , for which no mesh is reconstructed, are linearly interpolated
between and . Thus, the convection equation for c becomes:

FIGURE 7.1
Temporal diagram
We solve this equation N times going forward in time progressively (rather than solving the
previously discretized equation)
From one equation with a typical Courant Number for the classical approach, the time-
splitting approach leads to N equations to solve but with typical Courant numbers around .
Finally, by summing the equation above from i equal 1 to N, we obtain the following equation
below, similar to the previously discretized form.
7.2 ACCELERATION ALGORITHMS
Quasi-static approach
Up to now, when dealing with simulation to reach an equilibrium position, we were obliged to
use a fully unsteady approach, i.e. to couple at each time step the flow motion and the Newton's
law. To be stable, that required time step to be small enough. To relax this condition and decrease
the CPU time, we have developed a new approach which is based on a succession of predicted
ship attitudes. These attitudes are evaluated using an ad-hoc quasi-static approach. This procedure
remains stable even for larger time step, enabling the use of this splitting method. It can favorably
be used in conjunction with the time-splitting method for the fraction volume equation.

The quasi-static approach is only available in three-dimensional, and the conditions to activate this
approach are:
l Multi-fluid is activated
l and the time discretization is BACKWARD ORDER .
Quasi-static approach for hydrofoils
For a foiling ship, the hydrofoil produces a vertical force, to lift the boat out of the water, as well
as a lateral force to counteract the side force of the sails, in case of a sailing yacht. For a given
operating point, these forces are constant: the lift equals the weight of the boat, while the side
force is given by the wind strength and the sail configuration. Thus, to compare different foil
designs they should be simulated at the same vertical and lateral forces (rather than in the same
attitude). This requires adjusting the orientation of the foil with respect to the flow. However, to
control both the vertical and the lateral force, two angles can be adjusted: the rake and leeway
angles. A difficulty for computing the angle corrections is that their effect on the forces is coupled:
a change in the rake usually modifies the lateral force as well as the lift force, and vice versa.
FIGURE 7.2
Surface element for the determination of the vertical and lateral lift slope
Therefore, the dependence of the forces on changes in the angles is computed as follows. Let
and be the lateral and vertical forces, the rake, and the leeway. Consider a small
section of the hydrofoil surface with normal vector . Its surface parallel to the -axis is:

Let be the angle of with respect to the horizontal plane: . Then the
change in angle of attack for due to changes in the main angles and is:
Using the theoretical 2D lift slope [1], the force change on the surface becomes:
where the dynamic pressure is . Finally, the force change is decomposed as

and . Integrating these incremental forces over the entire
wetted surface leads to the total change in the forces:
The coefficients before the integrals are added because the hydrofoil has an upper and a lower
side, so the projected surface of the foil is integrated twice. To simulate a hydrofoil for a given
combination of side and lift forces, the computation is started with a fixed position. After a given
number of time steps, the actual forces are evaluated and corrections for the angles are computed
by solving the system above, substituting for the difference between the desired
and the actual forces. The angle corrections are applied over a few time steps, then the forces are
allowed to converge and a new correction is applied. No explicit under- relaxation of the
computed angle corrections is needed: the 2D lift slope is always an overestimation in 3D so the
angle corrections are systematically too small, which stabilizes the process. Depending on the
geometry of the hydrofoil, it may not be possible to solve the system. For example, if the entire
foil is vertical (i.e. a rudder), everywhere so cannot be computed. This is logical
since a rudder cannot generate vertical forces. A fortiori, for any straight foil, and are
constant and can be moved out of the integrals; the determinant of the resulting matrix is zero.
Physically speaking, since the lift force on a straight foil is normal to its projected surface, such a
foil cannot generate arbitrary forces in vertical and lateral directions independently.

Modeling general rigid-body motions of one object (rotating frame
method or RFM)
In order to model a general rigid-body motion (rotation) of one object, the RANSE are solved in
the moving reference frame but written in terms of absolute or inertial reference frame quantities.
In this case, the rotating frame method (also called RFM) is used and the momentum equation, is
written as:
where Ω is the rotation velocity. Notice that
= 0,
since we are only dealing here with rigid-body motions. Boundary conditions may be defined
both in body and earth-fixed reference system. For instance for a non slip condition of a moving
body, in the earth-fixed reference system or in the body-fixed reference system.
For a propeller in open-water, steady calculations are possible and therefore the term
is dropped. Nevertheless, unsteady flows are possible to be modeled with this approach, for
instance when the unsteadiness comes from the flow pattern (vortex shedding, cavitation, etc) or
even for some cases of imposed motions (roll-damping). Initialization of the velocity field should
be done in the inertial earth-fixed reference frame.
References
[1] J. D. Anderson, Fundamentals of aerodynamics. McGraw-Hill International Editions, 2 ed.,

1991

CHAPTER 8.
ACTUATOR DISK
In ISIS-CFD the momentum equations include a body-force term fb, used to model the effects of
a propeller without modeling the real propeller. There are numerous approaches to calculating fb
including simple prescribed distributions, which recover the total thrust T and torque Q, to more
sophisticated methods which use a propeller performance code in an interactive fashion with the
RANS solver to capture propeller-hull interaction and to distribute fb according to the actual blade
loading. For the latter, special interface should be developed to extract effective wake from
RANS solution and to produce fb calculated by a propeller performance code. ISIS-CFD does,
however, include a prescribed body force with axial and tangential components. The radial
distribution of forces, with components (axial), (radial)=0 and (tangential), is based
on non-iterative calculation of Stern et al [1], the Hough and Ordway [2] circulation distribution
with optimum type from Goldstein [3], and without any loading at the root and tip:
They represent body forces per unit volume normalized by where U is the reference
velocity, L is a reference length, and the fluid density. Coefficients are expressed as:

where and are the thrust and torque coefficients, J is the advance coefficient, n is the
number of rotations per second (rps), is the rotation speed, is the propeller radius, is
the hub radius, is the mean chord length projected into x-z plane (or actuator disc thickness),
and and define the propeller center coordinates. Variable r is the normalized distance
to propeller in the propeller plane. As derived, these forces are defined over an actuator disk with
volume defined by , and .
Integration of the body forces over this analytical volume exactly recovers the prescribed thrust T
and torque Q:
In ISIS-CFD, there is no need to specify , and J, but the thrust T and the torque Q are
prescribed. The coefficients and are then computing using the above relations.
If the propeller torque Q is not known, it is however possible to estimate its magnitude from open
water test of the propeller. Such open water test usually provides the performance curve as
illustrated for the propeller of the KRISO Container Ship (KCS) from the test case 2 of the Tokyo
Workshop 2005.

FIGURE 8.1
Propeller performances
For a prescribed thrust and/ or an advance ratio parameter knowing the advance speed U and ratio
J from the propeller rotation speed (n or ), the is obtained from the performance curve and
the propeller torque Q can be deduced from the propeller thrust T as:
As an example, for this case, the propeller condition was =0.25 m and J=0.732. From the
performance curve, we have =0.170 and =0.029, so the relation above writes Q~0.0427
T.
References
[1] F. Stern, H. T. Kim, V. C. Patel, and H. C. Chen, “A viscous flow approach to the
computation of propeller-hull interaction,” Journal of Ship Research, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 246–262,

1988. 55
[2] G. Hough and D. Ordway, “The generalized actuator disk.” Technical Report TAR-TR 6401,
Therm Advanced Research Inc., 1964. 55
[3] S. Goldstein, “On the vortex theory of screws propellers,” Proceedings of the Royal Society
of London.Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, vol. 123, no.
792, pp. 440–

CHAPTER 9.
WAVE MODELLING
Wave fields can be modelled in ISIS-CFD with a special farfield boundary condition which
imposes a velocity field u and water height (implied through the volume fraction ci) which vary in
time. The values of this boundary condition come from potential-flow solutions for travelling
waves. One should note that this is not a direct imitation of a wavemaker as used in model basins.
Neither does the imposed inflow solution correspond exactly to the nonlinear wave train which
will appear in the flow domain; some transient waves close to the wavemaker boundary are
therefore to be expected.
The first, second, and third-order regular Stokes waves are implemented, as well as the modelling
of real wave spectra based on first-order Airy wave components.
In this section
9.1 Stokes waves 107
9.2 Irregular waves 110

9.1 STOKES WAVES
The expressions of the free-surface elevation and the velocity potential are taken from the book
entitled "Vagues et ouvrages pétroliers en mer" [1]. The difference between [1] and the following
expressions is that, in ISIS-CFD, the free-surface elevation at t = 0 is zero in the boundary where
the wave kinematics is imposed.
First order Stokes waves or Airy waves
The Airy wave model follows the linear theory (supposing that the waves have small slopes and
that the waves are dispersive) and is based on potential theory to describe the movement of
gravity waves at the water surface. In 1D, the free-surface elevation is a sine function of
the horizontal position x and the time t,
where:
l a is the amplitude of the wave, which is half the wave height H,
l k is the wave number linked to the wave length, , via:
l is related to the period T and the wave frequency f by
The waves travel on the surface at the phase velocity c:
The solution of Laplace's equation for this problem with appropriate linearized boundary
conditions yields the following velocity potential:
where d is the water depth.

The wave angular frequency and the wave number k are coupled through the linear dispersion
relation below:

For the 3D case, a configuration is chosen where the waves can travel in an arbitrary horizontal
direction, in the plane . The wave vector is perpendicular to the wave front. Its unit
vector is defined as: .
Finally, the velocity components and are obtained by deriving the velocity
potential with respect to each direction:
Second order Stokes waves
The expression of the velocity potential is given by:
and the free-surface elevation by:
The velocity components and are
Third order Stokes waves
The free-surface elevation is defined by:

with
The wave height is given by:
The dispersion relation is given by:
The expression of the velocity potential is given by:
References
[1] G. Susbielles and C. Bratu, Vagues et ouvrages pétroliers en mer. Technip, 1981. 57

9.2 IRREGULAR WAVES
One denotes by irregular waves a realistic and chaotic sea state. However, these sea states possess
a characteristic footprint: their spectral density, called simply spectrum in the following. For the
modeling, the sea state is supposed to be a superposition of regular waves, each having its own
amplitude and phase. The spectrum is the relation between the amplitude of a wave component
and its frequency, so we note S(f), or S(ω). The main parameters of a spectrum are the significant
wave height Hs and a characteristic period, for example the peak period Tp or the average period
of the passing of the mean level Tz. The significant height is defined by , where
m0 is the zeroth-order moment of the spectrum S(f), while the peak frequency fp, the inverse of
the peak period Tp, corresponds to the frequency where the spectrum has its maximum value.
Mathematically, the spectra are continuous. Numerically, these spectra are approximated with a
discrete number of wave components.
Basic definition of the spectrum
Most spectra are expressed following the notation introduced by Bretschneider in 1959 [1]:
A and B are constants which define the model, these may depend on one, two or three adjustable
parameters. Among these models are the Pierson & Moskowitz [2] and ITTC models [3]. Other
models exist which are based on a modification of the Bretschneider formulation, like the
JONSWAP spectrum [4]. These spectra are summarized in the table below.
Definition of the spectra
The unit of the spectrum S(f) is (equivalent to ), or rather if

the S(ω) formulation is used. Since , one should apply the relation
to conserve the area under the graph.
TABLE 9.1 Implemented spectra.
Spectrum Number of and defined using

parameter(s)

Pierson- 1 Peak period Tp
Moskowitz
ITTC 2 Peak period Tp and significant wave height Hs
2-parameter 2 Peak period Tp and peak enhancement factor Hs
JONSWAP
3-parameter 3 Peak period Tp, significant wave height Hs and peak
JONSWAP enhancement factor γ
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum
The formulation of this spectrum which is used here, is found in [5]. The single parameter is
chosen as Tp in order to have a common parameter for all spectra.
The coefficient is defined by:
where α is the Phillips constant [5] which is equal to and g is the gravity
acceleration. The coefficient which depends on Bpm has the value:
The conversion formulas if one knows either the velocity U19.5 or the significant wave height Hs
are
ITTC spectrum
The ITTC spectrum, also defined in [3], has two parameters: Hs and the peak period Tp. The
following conversion formulas give Tp in terms of the mean period or the average zero passing
period Tz:

To simplify the relations for and , the number K is introduced:
The coefficients and then become:
ISSC spectrum
The ISSC 1964 spectrum is defined by [6] and is very similar to the ITTC spectrum, having the
same parameters: Hs and the peak period Tp. The following conversion formula gives Tp in terms
of the mean period [7]: The coefficients and are:
JONSWAP spectrum
To model sea states close to a shore, the JONSWAP spectrum can be used (our formulation
comes also from [3]). Its input parameters are Tp and γ, the peak enhancement factor. This
spectrum is based on a modification of the notation of Bretschneider:
where α is the Phillips constant and σ is a constant of value for the frequencies
and for . The default value for γ is 3.3.
The coefficients A and B of the JONSWAP spectrum are the same as for the Pierson-Moskowitz
spectrum:

If one knows the wind velocity U10 at 10m above the sea level and the fetch F (in m), the peak
period can be estimated by the expression just below and α can be computed by the equation
below.
Following [3], the value for Hs can be numerically estimated from γ, g, α and fp:
Three-parameter formulation of the JONSWAP spectrum
A three-parameter formulation of the JONSWAP spectrum is given by Chakrabarti [7]. The

significant wave height Hs is introduced as another degree of freedom. In this definition, the
coefficient A is a function of Hs, Tp and γ, equal to:
Irregular wave field
The solutions for the wave height and the velocity field of an irregular wave field come from the
monochromatic wave solution. As this formulation is linear, the contributions of each wave
component can be summed. The water heights for each wave component come from the
equations for the " Stokes waves " (p. 107) with an added initial phase angle . The total water
height is obtained by summation:
To obtain this result, one needs , and . The amplitude comes directly from the spectrum
via:

where is the frequency increment defined by: with:
l and respectively the minimum and maximum frequencies chosen,
l the number of frequencies.

The relation below between the wave number and the frequency (or the angular frequency
) can not be solved analytically but can be obtained numerically, for example with Newton's
method.
The initial phase angle must be defined randomly, as is the case in the ocean. To generate
these random values, we use the approach of González & Pino [8] rather than relying on the
random-number generator of the computing machine, since this approach allows us to obtain the
same suite of random numbers independent of the machine architecture.
The velocity components are computed with an approach similar to the summation for the water
height and, by introducing the components and of the vector , one obtains by
superposition:
Reference
[1] C. L. Bretschneider, “Wave variability and wave spectra for wind-generated gravity wave,”
Technical Memorandum 118, Beach Erosion Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Washington, DC, USA,

[2] W. J. Pierson and L. Moskowitz, “A proposed spectral form for fully developed wind seas
based on the similarity theory of S. A. Kitaigorodskii,” Journal of Geophysical Research, vol. 69,
pp. 5181–5203,
[3] ITTC, Proceedings of the 23rd International Towing Tank Conference, vol. 2, 2002. Final
Report and Recommandations to the 23rd ITTC. 59, 60, 61
[4] K. Hasselmann, T. P. Barnett, E. Bouws, H. Carlson, D. E. Cartwright, K. Enke, J. A.
Ewing, H. Gienapp, D. E. Hasselmann, P. Kruseman, A. Meerburg, P. Muller, D. J. Olbers, K.
Richter, W. Sell, and H. Walden, “Measurement of wind-wave growth and swell decay during
the JOint North Sea WAve Project (JONSWAP),” Deutsche hydrographische Zeitschrift, vol.
Reihe A(8), 1973. 59
[5] O. M. Phillips, “The equilibrium range in the spectrum of wind-generated waves,” Journal of
Fluid Mechanics, vol. 4, pp. 426–434, 1958. 60
[6] W. H. W. et al., “Environmental conditions. report of committee 1,” in 2nd International Ship
Structures Congress, (Oslo, Norway), 1964. 60
[7] S. K. Chakrabarti, Handbook of Offshore Engineering, vol. 1. Elsevier, 2005. 60, 61
[8] J. A. González and R. Pino, “A random number generator based on unpredictable chaotic
functions,” Computer Physics Communications, vol. 120, pp. 109–114, 1999. 62

CHAPTER 10.
PROJECTION
In this section
10.1 Objectives 117
10.3 Examples 118
10.4 Limitations 119

10.1 OBJECTIVES
A method is introduced in ISIs-CFD flow solver to project an existing mesh (containing a body)
onto a triangulated surface file giving the desired shape for this body.
1. For optimisation computations: a series of different body shapes is provided by the
optimisation suite. Using the projection, an existing grid can be adapted quickly and
automatically to each shape, and the converged state of a baseline solution on the grid can be
used as starting point for each computation.
2. For automatic grid refinement, the standard linear interpolation that gives the position of the
new nodes, does not put these nodes on the body surface. In order to capture the geometry
accurately, the refined grid has to be reprojected onto the body geometry.
The implementation is based on a triangulated surface file. This file is either generated by
hexpress2isis (for the original geometry of the grid) or is to be provided by the optimisation
program.
10.2 IMPLEMENTATION
Overall workflow
The mesh is projected onto a triangulated surface file in a simple, ISIS-CFD specific format: the
.its file (ISIS-CFD Triangulated Surface), whose format is described later on.
For a given mesh, the initial ("baseline") .its file is generated by hexpress2isis, based on the .dom
file for the mesh. A new tool dom2its will also be provided to perform this generation
independently. A computation on the initial mesh can then be started.
Optimization suites can deform this baseline .its file into new .its files for subsequent
computations on different hull forms. As explained below in section below, these .its files must be
topologically equivalent to the original .its file.
Projection strategy
Projection of the body surface nodes onto the triangulated surface is performed at the very
beginning of a computation and directly after each grid refinement step.

The projection works as follows. It is assumed that the geometry of the body is given in a
triangulated surface file with extension .its (ISIS-CFD Triangulated Surface), whose format is
described later on. During the basic projection, for each node in the mesh that lies on the surface
of the body, the triangle in the .its file that lies closest to the node is searched. The node is then
moved to the surface of this triangle.
The information of which node lies on which triangle is recorded and saved (in an internal file,
see later on). When the same mesh is later projected onto a different triangulated surface with the
same topology, this information is used to project each node onto the new position of its original
triangle. This feature is essential for optimization, in order to conserve hull topology features like
edges; cells may not "flow around" an edge when the surface is deformed for a new design.
Therefore, a new .its for a new design must be topologically compatible with the original (or
baseline) .its file. It means that the new .its design must have the same number of surfaces and of
triangles (but with different triangle node locations of course).
In both cases, after the surface nodes have been projected onto the triangulated surface, the entire
mesh is deformed in order to adapt it to the new position of the surface nodes.
The choice of the type of projection (node on arbitrary triangle, or node on predefined triangle) is
chosen automatically by ISIS-CFD, based on the following criteria. A node is projected on a
predefined triangle if:
l The computation is a restart,
l A file describing the connection of nodes to triangles exists,
l This file contains the same number of body surface nodes as the actual mesh.
10.3 EXAMPLES
As an example, we list three scenarios of one or more computations. The type of projection is
indicated as AT (node on arbitrary triangle), or PT (node on predefined triangle). For
optimisation, we assume that a first ("baseline") computation is performed on the original grid,
followed by several computations on hulls that have been deformed by the optimiser.
l Basic optimisation without grid refinement: Baseline computation; start of computation: AT,
New computation with deformed hull, same mesh; start of computation: PT. ... etc. for all new
computations.
l One grid refinement computation without optimisation: Start of computation: AT, After grid
refinement: AT (number of cells has changed), ... etc. for all refinement steps.
l Optimisation with grid refinement: Baseline computation; start of computation: AT, Baseline
computation; after grid refinement: AT, New computation with deformed hull; start of
computation: PT (the number of cells is the same as at the end of the baseline computation!),
New computation with deformed hull; after grid refinement: AT (topology problems do not

appear as only the new nodes are deplaced).
10.4 LIMITATIONS
For optimisation, a new .its for a new design must be topologically compatible with the original
(or baseline) .its file. It means that the new .its design must have the same number of surfaces and
of triangles (but with different triangle node locations of course).

CHAPTER 11.
OVERSET
In this section
11.1 Introduction 121
11.2 Overset Domain Layout 121
11.3 Cell Status 123
11.4 Donor cell identification 126
11.5 Overset interpolation 127

11.1 INTRODUCTION
Relative body motion is frequently encountered in marine application. Although some of them
such propeller revolution can be handled with sliding grid, many others such as rudder control can
only be handled efficiently with overset approach. In an overset approach, meshes are generated
separately for different bodies. They overlap partially in the computational domain. Cells in the
overlapping region are assigned with three different status: active, blanked and interpolated.
Blanked cells are discarded. Values in the interpolated cells are updated from active and
interpolated cells defined in other domains. Active cells are solved normally using interpolated
cells as additional boundary condition. Although the principle of overset implementation is
relatively simple and almost the same for any software, their implementation can be very different.
It is very useful to know the implementation in more detail in order to be able to use it correctly
and efficiently. Overset implementation in the ISIS-CFD code will be described in the flowing
sections.
11.2 OVERSET DOMAIN LAYOUT
This first task to accomplish in overset implementation is to define the overset domain layout. This
layout will be used by the code to assign a correct status (active, blanked or interpolated) to each
cell. In our implementation, we consider that an overset domain consists of a single mesh with at
most only 1 body defined inside. Multiple bodies with different motion law defined in a single
domain will not be supported. The overset layout consists of 2 elements: overset domain
boundary, and overset domain body. Figure(a) below shows a typical overlapping domain with a
body defined inside, with (b) displaying the overset domain boundary and (c) showing the overset
domain body.
In our implementation, instead of asking user to define the domain boundary and domain body by
selecting patch by patch, an implicit role is employed to define overset domain layout. The
implicit role used to build domain boundary is the follow:
All patches not belonging to a body as well as patches belonging to bodies explicitly declared by
user as being part of the domain boundary form the domain boundary.

FIGURE 11.1
Overlapping domain layout
The implicit role used to build the domain body is the follow:
All patches belonging to a body except whose name contains "Virtual_body or "Sliding_patch"
form the domain body.
In the example shown in figure above, usually, the foil is the only body defined in the
computation. Hence, with the implicit roles thus defined, overset domain layout is defined
automatically without any additional information provided by the user.

In a parallel computation, overset domain layout is defined in every bloc resulting from domain
decomposition. Its construction is a global operation involving a MPI gathering task. It can be
very expensive. To reduce the CPU time, in the current implementation, it is built only once at the
beginning of the computation during the initialization step. Moreover, if the domain is a
parallelepiped, then, domain extent (Xmin, Xmax, Ymin, Ymax, Zmin, Zmax) is employed for
the definition of domain boundary. At each time step, the position of the domain boundary and
domain body are updated only with the motion law of the pilot body and mesh deformation
management employed for the computation. Let's take a typical ship resistance computation as an
example. In such computation, ship forward motion is imposed, while ship trim and sinkage
motions are resolved. Rigid mesh motion is applied for the forward motion, while mesh
deformation is employed to handle trim and sinkage motion. In this computation, ship forward
motion is applied to update domain boundary, while the domain body is updated with ship
forward, trim and sinkage motion. As the overset layout is not rebuilt at each time step, but only
with its position updated, deforming body and deforming domain boundary are not supported in
the current implementation.
11.3 CELL STATUS
Each cell during an overset computation is attributed with a specific status. An active cell (or field
cell) is a cell for which the governing equation is solved normally. In the opposite, a blanked cell
(or hole cell) is a cell that is ignored in the computation. In between, we have interpolated cells (or
fringe cells) whose value needs to be updated from active cells located in another overlapping
domain. In our implementation, we have designed a simple procedure that allows to determine
cell status locally at each bloc without any MPI communication. First, a computational domain is
declared as a background domain, or an overlapping domain. When two domains overlap, cell
status in the overlapping region is determined according to the type of the overlapping domain
described as follow.
Overlapping between a background domain and an overlapping

domain
When a background domain overlaps with an overlapping domain, cell status assignment for the
overlapping domain (red domain in the figure below) is straightforward. All cells in the
overlapping domain are active cells (status 1 in figure below). Boundary cells are assigned with
interpolated status (-1). For the background domain, it is proceeded with the following steps. Step
(a), all cells of the background domain interior to the overlapping domain (cells located between
A and B in the figure below) are considered as blanked cell (marked by 0 in the figure below).
Step (b), active cells are propagated one layer into the hole region. Step (c), blanked cells next to
an active cells change their status to interpolated cells. As domain boundaries are defined in all

MPI blocs, cell status assignment can be performed independently by all blocs without any MPI
communication. One can also notice that with this approach, there is no need to check if a cell in
the background domain is inside the body defined in the overlapping domain or not.
FIGURE 11.2
Overlapping between background and overlapping domain
The above procedure can provide a correct setup only when the overlapping domain is located
inside the background domain. In a computation where the background domain represents a
confined domain such as ship-lock interaction computation, user can specify the background
domain with protected physical boundary by giving a protecting distance. In such case, all cells in
the background domain next to any physical boundary within the protecting distance will always
be considered as active cells, while a cell in the overlapping domain located in the same region
will be considered as a blanked cell. An example is by figure below. The overlapping domain
(red domain) is larger than the background domain (blue domain) on the right side. The dashed
line denotes the protecting distance given by the user. All cells in the background domain on the
right of the dashed line are assigned with an active status, while all cells in the same region in the
overlapping domain is assigned with a blanked status. After propagating the active cell by one
layer in the hole region and identifying interpolated cells, resulting cell status for this configuration
is shown in figure below.
FIGURE 11.3
Overlapping between overlapping domain and background domain with protected physical
boundary

Overlapping between overlapping domains
To determine cell status between overlapping domains, we employ a simple distance approach
that can be easily parallelized. This situation is illustrated by figure below. In our implementation,
each overlapping domain must has an overlapping body defined. We also assume that domain
body of different overlapping domain does not overlap each other. Let's assume that cell P is a
cell in domain A located in the overlapping region between domain A and domain B. Body A
and body B are domain body associated with domain A and domain B respectively. If the
distance to body A is smaller than the distance to body B, then, cell P is assigned with an active
status. Otherwise, it is assigned with a blanked status. In the example given in figure below, all
cells at the left side of the dashed line in the red domain and those at the right side in the blue
domain are assigned with active status. As body A and body B are defined in all MPI blocs in our
implementation, cell status assignment can be made in a parallel computation without any global
operation. After propagating the active cell by one layer in the hole region and identifying
interpolated cells, resulting cell status for this configuration is shown in figure below. Once again,
it can also be noticed that there is no need to check if a cell is located inside the body of the other
overlapping domain or not. A correct decision can always be made as long as body A and body B
are not overlapped each other.
FIGURE 11.4
Overlapping between overlapping domains
Overlapping between background domains
As there is no hierarchy defined in our implementation, when two background domains overlap,
we can't decide which cell will be blanked. Hence, overlapping between background domains is
not supported in the current implementation.
Linked domain
When two computational domains are connected with sliding patches, there is no overlapping
between them. To avoid unnecessary blanking operation between sliding grid domains, the
concept of linked domain is introduced in our implementation. Let's take a typical propeller-hull
interaction configuration as an example. We assume that propeller motion is handled to sliding
grid. The propeller domain is located inside the domain containing the ship. In a setup with link

domain, we consider the ship domain as the parent domain. The propeller domain is a children
domain linked to the parent domain. For the composite linked domain, domain boundary is
defined by the domain boundary of the parent domain. Hence, the parent domain must contain all
children domains linked to it. When defining the domain boundary, the sliding patch of the parent
domain should not be included in the composition of domain boundary. This can be accomplished
by defining the sliding patches as a sliding patch body. This operation must be performed in
overset computation using sliding grid when linked domain is defined. The domain body is a
composite body. It contains the ship found in the ship domain, and the propeller found in the
propeller domain. The position of ship and the propeller is updated with the motion law of the
ship and the propeller respectively.
11.4 DONOR CELL IDENTIFICATION
Unlike cell status assignment, donor cell identification is a global operation in a parallel
computation. In our implementation, it is proceeded in the flowing way. First, all active cells next
to interpolated cells are candidates for donor cell. All donor cell candidates are collected and
distributed to all MPI blocs. For each interpolated cell, a search on all donor cell candidates
located in other domains is performed. Based on a minimum distance criterion, a temporal donor
cell is found. The coordinates of the interpolated cell is then sent to the bloc where the temporal
donor cell is found, and a new search based on cell connectivity is performed among active cells
until a closest point to the interpolated cell is found. This closest point will be considered as the
final donor cell. It should be noticed that this new search is performed on the local MPI domain
only. Hence, if the search reaches a MPI communication boundary, it will be stopped, and the last
cell will be considered as the donor cell. For this reason, our donor cell identification procedure is
not a domain partitioning independent approach. But for practical application, the impact of such
local searching procedure is expected to be small.

11.5 OVERSET INTERPOLATION
Determine the value for interpolated cell is one of the critical issues in overset implementation. To
ensure the accuracy, high order interpolation is preferred. However, high order interpolation
might cause numerical stability problem. Hence, a compremise needs to be made between
accuracy and stability. Two interpolations schemes have been implemented in our solver. The first
one is a least squared approach based on linear polynomial. This approach ensures a formal
second order accuracy. But it suffers from numerical stability problem when interpolation stencil
is not good enough. To ensure a better numerical stability, a simple distance weighted
interpolation is also implemented. Both interpolation schemes rely on an interpolation stencil. This
stencil is constructed based on cell connectivity of the donor cell by including all active and
interpolated neighbor cells. The default interpolation scheme is the least squared approach. To
ensure numerical stability, a minimum interpolation coefficient is specified. If the minimum
interpolated coefficient is smaller than the threshold value prescribed by the user, then, distance
weighted interpolation is employed instead. User can specify a very small threshold value to
switch the interpolation scheme to a more stable distance weighted scheme completely.
When the gap between two overlapping regions is very small, it is necessary to consider the
interpolation operations as additional equations add them to the linear system resulting from the
discretization of the governing equation and solve the whole linear system implicitly for the
pressure equation. This implicit resolution is the default option. User can switch to explicit
resolution if domain coupling is weak.

CHAPTER 12.
ADDITIONAL EQUATIONS
In this section
12.1 Passive scalar 129

12.1 PASSIVE SCALAR
The transport of the passive scalar is implemented as the following equation. The passive scalar is
therefore a quantity carried away (both convected and diffused) by the fluid with no interaction
with it.
The discretization schemes are limited to AVLSMART discretisation scheme or to the GDS
discretisation scheme, see "" (p. 24) and "" (p. 25) respectively for implementation.
On the boundaries, except where the passive scalar is prescribed (Dirichlet BC), the passive scalar
value is copied from the interior (Neumann BC).

Equipe METHRIC,
Laboratoire de recherche en Hydrodynamique, Energétique et Environnement Atmosphérique,
CNRS-UMR 6598,
Centrale Nantes, B.P. 92101, 44321 Nantes Cedex 3,
France. Web: http://www.ec-nantes.fr
EN201809261630

FINEMarine Theory Guide

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINEMarine Theory Guide

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THEORY GUIDE

CHAPTER 1. THE ISIS-CFD FLOW SOLVER

CHAPTER 2. TURBULENCE MODELS

CHAPTER 3. CAVITATION MODELS

CHAPTER 4. FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

CHAPTER 5. AUTOMATIC GRID ADAPTATION

CHAPTER 6. SLIDING GRIDS METHODOLOGY

2 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

CHAPTER 8. ACTUATOR DISK

CHAPTER 9. WAVE MODELLING

CHAPTER 10. PROJECTION

CHAPTER 11. OVERSET

CHAPTER 12. ADDITIONAL EQUATIONS

3 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

Volume fraction of phase:

Distance to the nearest no-slip surface

Gravity component in the coordinate direction

Cartesian unit vector; k = 1,2,3

Turbulent kinetic energy

Characteristic length scale

Coordinate component of the unit normal vector to no-slip surface; i = 1,2,3

Magnitude of mean strain rate,

Mean strain rate tensor,

Mean flow velocity component in the coordinate direction

Flow velocity fluctuation component in the coordinate direction

Characteristic velocity scale

Control-volume velocity displacement

$ Space coordinate component; j = 1,2,3

4 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

Kronecker second-order tensor

Turbulent dissipation rate

Alternating third-order tensor

Turbulent eddy viscosity

Specific turbulent dissipation rate, turbulent frequency

Magnitude of mean vorticity

Mean rotation tensor ,

Total stress tensor

Molecular stress tensor

Turbulent Reynolds stress tensor

5 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

THE ISIS-CFD FLOW SOLVER

6 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

7 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

Substituting the"" (p. 8) into the "" (p. 7)) yields:

8 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

or, in a non-integral form using Divergence operator

Turbulent closure equations

9 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

1.2 NUMERICAL FRAMEWORK

Generic discretization form

10 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

The fictitious local time differencing is evaluated by:

11 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

Centered reconstruction and gradients

12 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

with the definition of vectors and :

13 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

B. Quantity on the face

14 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

C. Normal gradient to the face

with explicit term:

for QR-QL and the projected jump constraint:

15 FINE™/Marine 7.2 Theory guide

with such that: