AlAA-92-G439

A One-Equatlon Turbulence Model

for Aerodynamic Flows

P . R . Spalart and S. R. Allmaras

Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
Seattle, WA 98214-2207

30th Aerospace Sciences

Meeting & ExhlbH
January 6-9. 19921 Reno, NV
 A ONE-EQUATION TURBULENCE MODEL
FOR AERODYNAMIC FLOWS

P. R. Spalart
S. R. Allmaras-
Boeing Commercial Airplane Group
P.O. Box 3707, MS 7H-96
Seattle, WA 98124-2207

Abstract Motiyation and Related Work

A traDSport equation for the turbulent viscosity was
usembled, using empiricism and arguments of dimen-
IIional analysis, Galilean invarianee, and selective de-
pendence on the molecular viscosity. It has similarities
":'lith the models of Nee &: Kovasznay, Secundov et .1.,
and ~aldwin &: Barth. The equation includes a destruc-
tion term that depends on the distance to the wall, re-
lated to the one in Secundov's model and to one due
to Hunt. Unlike early one-equation models the result-
ing turbulence model is local (i.e .• the equation at one more accurate prediction of shock/bonndary-Iayer inter-
point does not depend on the solution at other points),
and therefore compatible with &rids of any structure
and Navier-Stokes solvers in two or three dimensions.
It is numerically forgiving, in terms of near-wall resolu- spirit. Physically, they treat the whole boundary layer
tion and stil"ness, and yields fairly rapid convergence to as a single, tightly-coupled module. which becomes in-
steady state. The wall and freestream bonndary con-
ditions are trivial. The model yields relatively smooth
Iaminar-tur!rulent t_ition, at points epecified by the
user. It is powerful enough to be calibrated on 2-D mix-
ing layers, wake&, and flat-pla~ bonndary layers, wh~h
we Itonsider to be the building blocks for aerodynanuc
lows. It yields satisfactory predictions of bonndary
layers in preaure gadients. Its Dumerical implemen-
tation in a 2-D steadY.fltate Navier-Stokes solver has
beeR completed and is discussed. The cases presented
include .bock-induced eep&ration and a blunt trailing
edge. The model locates Iihocks slightly farther forward
than the JoImsoD-King model. It perfonm well in the
near wake and appears to be a good candidate for more
complex flows such as high-lift systems or wing-body
junctions. However, _ it is not clear whether steady
soIutioc'! will or should be obtained.
·Member AlAA
Copyricht eAmerican Institut., 01 A _ t i a and AstJ'O" setting. while offering a plausible formula in the ,,·ake.
_ics. In<::•• 1992. AU riPu raerv<!d.
The aerodynamics conununity feels the need for, and
is ready to invest in, a new generation of turbulence
models, more onerous than the algebraic models but
with a wider enveloP'! in terms of flow and grid complex-
ity. The Baldwin-Lomax model [1] made Navier-Stokes
calculations posaible in situations that are awkward for
the Cebeci-Smith model [2], because the thicknesses of
the boundary layer are not well defined. The Johnson-
King model [3] has by-and-Iarge fulfilled the demand for
actions, compared with the Cebeci-Smith and Baldwin-
Lomax results. However these models, even when used
in Navier-Stokes codes, are boundary-layer models in
correct when detached and multiple shear layers are
preseDt. At the implementation level, they rely on sur-
veyin, the velocity or vorticity profile on a smooth grid
line, roughly orthogonal to the surface, thus being "non-
local". This becomes expeasive and awkward when an
unstructured grid is used [4]. Even when the only com-
plication is that two solid bodies are present, impl<?-
men tin, an algebraic model requires decisions that bor-
der on artificial intelligence and cannot be fully auto-
mated. This comes in addition to the poor accuracy
expected when a bonndary-layer model is applied to a
massively-separated 8ow, for instance. Generalizations
of algebraic models to multiple thin shear layers are
quite conceivable in boundary-layer calculation met/j·
ods, by combining the eddy viscOflity "sustained" by
each shear layer and confined to its vicinity. However.
in full 2-D calculations, the orientation of the grid line!'
with respect to these shear layers is not under control.
In addition, unstructured-grid methods are becoming
more common. Finally, we do not know of an alg.. hraic
model that ensures continuity of the eddy "iscosity be·
tween the airfoil block and the wake block. in a C-grid
We have abandoned t>lforts in that direction.
 On the other hand, transport-equation models such
as It-f and higher models [5] are usuallr "local"' , al-
though some have non-local near-wall terms, and have
been a~-ailable Cor years. However, they are Car from
having shown a decisive advantage for the prediction
ofshock/boundary-Iayer interactions or eeparation Crom
smooth surfaces [6). They may be superior Cor massive
eeparation, but we do not have enough data, nor pow-
erful enougb codes, to assess that. They are also much
more difficult to use. Tbis is not so much because of tbe
extra storage, but because they require finer grids near
a wall, involve strong source terms that often degrade
the convergence, and demand non-trivial upstream and
freestream conditions for tbe turbulence variables. The
near-wall problema oCten lead to the use of wall func-
tions (71, which are unwieldy and lose any justification
in the situation that matters most, namely, eeparation.
The new Baldwin-Barth model [8) is an attractive in-
two-equation models are the simplest complete mod-
els. The Nee-Kovasznay model was not followed upon
partly because it was not affordable at the time (1969).
Tbe Secundo\' model is currently entered in the Col-
laborative Testing of Turbulence Models (CTTM, [13])
and Prof. Bradsbaw was kind enough to pro\'ide the
one-page description that was submitted. Dr. Secun-
dov pro\'ided a few details in a personal communication
as well as a list of publications ranging from 19i! to
1986, but none in English. This model is presented as
an evolution of the Nee-Ko\'&Sznay model but is rich in
ilear-wall and compressibility corrections. In particular
we "reinvented" their near-wall destruction term. It is
expected for simple empirical models, developed under
roughly the same constraints (invariance, and so on).
to exhibit strong similarities. However, the leeway is
large enough to produce models with widely dift'erent
perCormance.

,+
termediate. It hIlS only one equation and is local, ex-
cept Cor the dependence which they plan to dispose
of in the long term. It is derived from thE; fro( model, Presentation and CaIibration of the Mogd
through some Curther assumptions. Near the wall it
does not require finer resolution than the velocity field Overvjew
it5eIC. Depending on the version, it predicts adverse-
pressure-gradient cases and shock interactions better In this section we present four nested versions of the
than Baldwin-Lomax, but not consistently as well as model Crom the simplest, applicable to Cree shear flows.
Johnson-King. Its accuracy will improve in time, and it to the most complete, applicable to viscous flows past
is much more practical than two-equation models. We solid bodies and with laminar regions. As each addi-
make more specific remarks on this model during the tional physical effect is considered. new terms are added
presentation of the new one. and calibrated. They are identified by a common letter
The present project was prompted by Baldwin &.: subscript in the constants and functions involved (e ..~ ..
Barth's work, and by the belief that generating a one- constant cu, function f~2; note that tbe constants aie
equation model as a simplified version of the k-c model normalized so tbat the functions are of order 1). The
is not optimal. A one-equation model is simple enough new terms are passive in all tbe lower versions of tbe
that it can be generated "from scratch" , which may lead model, so that the calibration proceeds in order. This
to better performance and certainly gives Culler control presentation may seem heavy, but should be instructiw
over its mechanics. A case in point is tbe Baldwin- as it allows the reader to criticize the tbeory or the cal-
Barth dift'usion term, which is constrained by the Iro( ibration layer by layer and to test the rele\-ant version
ancestry and the Curther assumptions made. We also in tbe situation he or she chooses. It should also help
allow a "eemi-local" near-wall term, as described be- preserve some clarity in later alterations of tbe model.
low. Our calibration strategy was different. 'We expect The Appendix gives a compendium of the equations for
to show that the new model has the same properties as the complete model.
that of Baldwin &: Barth in terms of compatibility witb
unstructured grids and benign near-wall behavior, and Constitutive Relation
is more accurate, especially away Crom the wall, as well
as slightly more robust. For instance, it accepts zero
The \:entral quantity is tbe eddy viscosity v,. TIJf'
values in the freetit.eam. =
Reynolds stresses are given by -'IT;'iij 2V,Sij whet{·
The roster of one-equation models also includes tbose S,j :: (lJU,/fJzj + lJUj/lJzj)/2 is the strain-rate ten-
oC Bradshaw, Ferriss, &: Atwell [9], Nee &: Kovasznay sor. Compared witb a two-equation model we naturally
[10J, Secundov and his co-workers [1 t], and Mitcheltree, miss tbe Ir term (turbulence kinetic energy). This is not
Salas, &: Hassan [121. Except for Secundov's and Bald- a major effect in thin sbear flows, and the addition of
win &: Bartb's, these models are not local, since they 2k/3 to the diagonal elements of the stress tensor is ap-
use length scales related to the boundary-layer thick- proximate in any case. Note that even in two-equation
ness. Tbis contributes to the common claim tbat one- models there bas been an erosion of the meaning of k
equation models are not "complete" (i.e., they require a it5elf [14J, and also that tbe equation II, = c"k~ If i,.
carefully-chosen length scale for each new flow' and tbat dearly not satisfied in the log la:rer with the true t· and
 c. "oe are basing this criticism on experimental and curvature effects, is not properly invariant. 'Ve ha\-,
direct-simulation results [15]. used the vorticity ... ;: ~. where nij :: aL';jaXj-
In a one-equation model, or in other models (e.g., fJUjlfJx;. The argument is that. in the flows of interest
zero-equation) which produce ~f but not k, we could ob- to us, turbulence is found only where vorticity is, both
tain a rough approximation of k as proportional to the emanating from the solid boundaries. There are regions
of vorticity \7ithout turbulence behind shocks; it is nor-
streues given by V,Sij, and introduce it on the diagonal.
mally too weak to produce much eddy viscosity. There
It would certainly be consistent to make it large enough
is a case for using the strain rate ~ or the norm
for the Reynolds-stress tensor to be positive-<iefinite.
Usually the trace of the tensor is significantly larger of the whole tensor .vu::;u:.; instead of IN, but we have
than needed for positive-<iefiniteness, with a given devi- not yet tested the model in cases for which it would
ator. The eigenvalUes are roughly k13, 2kl3 and k in a make a difference. We normalize any candidate so that
-'lear flow; none are very dose to O. We can approach it reduces to IU,I in a simple shear flow. Note that !r~1
this by adding ../2vf~/(3al) to each diagonal el- is not a smooth quantity, but it does not seem to upset
ement, where Cll is the "structure parameter" [91. This the numerical methods.
approximation may have some value in flows other than The production term, and in fact th~ restriction of
thin &bear layers, even though it is far from universal. the model to homogeneous turbulence, is
For iDStance, it fails on the centerline of a wake. The
diffic:ulties in introducing such a nonlinear component DVI
in the turbulent term of the momentum equation may =
Dt C61 S "1' (1)
be anotber factor.
The subscript b stands for "basic~. The response of
the model in homogeneous turbulence is dull. but not
Free Shear Flows grossly inaccurate. Th~ eddy viscosity is stationary in
= =
isotropic turbulence (Dvt/ Dt 0, because S 0). It is
Turning our attention to V, itself, since there is no accepted that in such a flow the energy Ii: is proportional
exact transport equation we could approximate term to t- S / 5 • Then the simplest combination that has the
by term, we take an empirical approach. We do not same dimensions as V" namely k 2 Ie where c is the dis-
even follow the c:lassical procedure of establishing and sipation, slowly decays like t-l/S. In anisotropic flows
calibrating the model in homogeneous turbulent flows Vt can only increase under the effect of production. in
first. This is because the model, with its single equa- a manner that depends on the choice of S. That choke
tion, is too simple to yield rich behavior in homogeneous may be re-examined later. but if we consider a shear
turbulence, and also because of our emphasis on aero- flow with S ;: 1l:,1 we observe that V, grows exponen-
dynamic flows and our limited interest in homogeneous tially like exp(C61St). This is the "classical~ behavior
turbulence. Thus we proceed to a model equipped with for shear flow, with a growth rate in the 0.1 to 0.16 range
diffusion terms and calibrate only at that level. according to experiments. Our calibration on inhomoge-
We construct the model by gathering quantities, de- neous flows yields values of c.. between 0.13 and 0.14.
rived from the mean flow field and from v" which have Thus, we do not emphasize homogeneous turbult'nce.
Galilean invariance. For instance, the mean velocity but we are not in strong conflict with it. The Baldwill-
U is DOt receivable. We then invoke common notions Barth and Secundov models have rather largt' produc-
of turbulence-for instance, related to its diffusion- tion constants, at least 0.2. Note that we have not found
to auemble dimensionally correct terms that together any plausible and invariant quantity that could consti-
can coostitute a plausible transport equation for VI' We tute a destruction term away from walls. We return to
consider free shear flows at high Reynolds numbers, and this issue later.
accordingly the molec:ular visc:osity is not allowed in the The search for diffusion terms naturally focuses 011
equation. The reuoaing is that in such flows the energy spatial derivatives of V" Classical diffusion operators
and information cascades flow only from the large scales areofthe type V.([vt!l1]vvI) with (T a turbulent Prandtl
to the small scales. number. They conserve the integral of VI' save for
The left-hand side of the equation, for correct invari- boundary contributions. However there is no real'Oll
ance, is naturally the Lagrangian or material derivative why the integral of VI should be conserved. Manip-
ofv,: Dv,lDt ;: IJv,I8t+Ui lJvr/lJz;. On the right-han ll uiations of two-equation models often bring out diffu-
side we provide a production term, and diffusion terms. sion terms that are not conservative, for instance cross-
terms between VA: and ve. By analogy we allow a non-
For the production term, the deformation tensor conservative diffusion term, involving first derivat iVe5 of
lJUillJzj presents itself. Since VI is a scalar we seek V" We arrive at the following "basic" model:
a scalar norm, denoted by S, of that tensor. SVI then
has the desired dimension. A term such as tll'I{}z (obvi-
ous notation). however tempting to mimic streamline- Dt
DVI= Cu S V, +;; (,v,r"J
1 [ '\' .(v,vvr) + C62 (2)
 We break our convention for 0'. which belongs to the 1I\'eak solutions such as (3), and raises the possibility of
C6 series, because of the traditional notation of Prandtl non-unique solutions. Indeed if tbe initial condition is
numbers. Izl, we have a weak solution in which II, behaves lih
The diffusion term of (2) conserves the integral of the IzI /(2+< ,,) near z
1 = 0, and a smooth solution with
quantity v:+ c
.,. Recall the lack of a destruction term.
/I, > 0 at % = O. The difference is confined to a
This lack wu responsible for a mild inconsistency in boundary layer near % = O. In a numerical setting with
iIotropic turbulence. It could also inva1idate the model straightforward second-order centered differencing. the
in the c.... or Ihear flowl in which v, decreues (nep- weak solution will be obtained if the diffusion term is
tive Dv,/Dt) luch at an axilymmetric wake. However, written /I, V2 /1,+( 1+cu)(V 11,)2, but the smooth solution
the difruaion term can eaaily brine down the centerline will be obtained if it is written as in (2). Other forms
value or v" and the true constraint is that under (2) the tbat give the smooth solution are V2(vl/2)+Ct2(V/l1)2
intesra1 or v:+ cu cannot decrease. With tbe cl.-ical and (l+eu)V(/I, VV,)-Ct2/1r V2/11' The later addition of
exponents of the aelf-.imilar axisymmetric wake (length a term proportional to the molecular viscosity formally
scale oc 11/3, velocity oc t- 2/ 3 ), we find that the intecral resolves this non-uniqueness and leads to the smooth
increases provided tbat cn ~ 1. Even iCthe calibration solution with /I, > O. Howe\'er, particularly at high
does not include the axisymmetric wake, it is preferable Reynolds numbers, it is desirable to use a favorable form
to satisfy this constraint. of the diffusion term.
Another cODitraint may be obtained from the behav- Outside a turbulent shear flow the Reynolds stresses.
ior or a turbulent front. The diffusion term admits the particularly the diagonal components, do not exactly
following (weak) one-dimensional solution: vanish. However, they are induced by pressure fluc-

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

4
 destruction term introduced later is also nonlinear. The structure at the edge of the turbulent region. as seen in
sequence of exponential srowth, followed by saturation the mixing-layer case in FiS. 2. The centered-difference
at levels on the order of U00 6, is consistently observed in solution cannot faithfully reproduce a weak solution at
practice. Note also that even though the contribution of the front. but the disturbance d·:>es not propagate. Time
the eu term is pOlitive the diffusion terms cannot cause steps in excess of the stability limit were revealed first
runaway IfOwth. This is so because their contribution by short oscillations near the centerline.
is neptive at a local maximum of III ' Recall also the
c:outraint on the intesral of 11:+·'".
The eddy-viscOlity o.5T-~-""----r---..,..--.....,.-..,-"'_-....,
bud,et in a weJl..developed solution always includes a
IliJeable c:oatribution (rom the production term.
We DOW calibrate the free--shear-ftow version o( the O,"t-·--t--~t---hf4-f:,.o'~-!-----;
model by requiring correct levels of shear stress iD two-
dimensional mixing layers and wakes. Fair values for
the peak shear stress are 0.01(4U)2 in the mixiDg layer
aDd 0.06(4U)2 iD the wake, where 4U is the peak 0.3+----+--- -f--il'i:*-+---+---+----!
velocity difference [17]. This lives two conditions for
three free cOllltants C.1> 11', and C.2, and leaves a one-
dimensional family of "solutions" which is .hown in 0.2 t - -- t--JJ"--t--- t-........,""!--- ! - ----;
FiS. 1 parametri%ed by the Prandtl number 11' , the eas-
iest quantity to interpret. The ranse of values of 11' we
consider plausible is at most [0.6,1]. The corresponding I~=~ I·
I °500
values of cn are between 0.6 and 0.7 ana satisfy our 0.1 +---;.+--+---t--...,~-l..-i!---ll
"guidelines" (-1 < cn ::; 1) with a margin. The ratio
(1+c.,)/O' varies from about 2.7 to 1.7 and also satisfies I
°50
its suideline (> 1).
0.02 0.04 0.06

--- --
y
1.70

~I
Fisure 2: Profiles in a time-developing mixing layer.
1.115 Normalized with velocity difference and time. Velocity
II profiles adjusted to the same slope at y = o.
1.10 .~
\.Cb2
1.55 I ~ I Based primarily on the edge beha\·ior. we favor a
fairly diffusive member of our "plausible" range, namely
= =
2/3, C61 0.1355, Cl2 = 0.622, (l+c62)/O'::::: 2.4. In
"'"I
11'
1.50 i'.. the mixing layer it gives a velocity profile close to that

U5 ~ /UhCw2 lUIIIociated with identical "rollers" of uniform vorticity

(see Fig. 2). Very low values of 11' would be needed to

UO ~ brins it close to the hyperbolic-tangent profile, which is

a common approximation. In the wake the peak eddy

---- "'" viscosity is 0.46M where AI is the momentum of the

'----., ~ wake, in sood asreement ""ith experiment [18]. We did
r
:------- ~
-
10Cll1 not attempt to match any axisymmetric flow, partly
1.30 because they are not pre\'8lent in our applications and
partly because, for most models, these flows conflict
US with the 2-D flows. The model is not intended to be
0.1 0.7 0.' 0.8 1.0
11' universal.
I Fisure 1: Calibrated model constants. - locus of solu-
i •
tiOlll; +, x, • point selected for the calculations. ~ar-wall Region. high Reynolds Number

The solutions were obtained numerically using a
stretched srid, centered second-order finite differences,
Runse-Kutta fourth-order time intesration, and zero
values in the freestream . This artless treatment would
rapidly reveal poor numerical properties in the model.
The srowth of the layers was followed until a self-similar
Itate was attained. The solutions exhibit the ramp
In a boundary layer the blocking effect of a wall is
felt at a distance through the pressure term, which acts
as the main dest ruction term for tbe Reynolds shear
stress. This susgests a destruction term in the transport
equation for the eddy viscosity. Dimensional analysis
leads to a combination -CVJ I(IIr/d)2 , witb d the distance
to the wall. The subscript It' stands for '·walr . This

5
 term will be passive in free shear flows (d -> oc) and
i
7
I
therefore does not interfere with our calibration up to I :
I i
this point. The Secundov model includes this type of ! 1
I
term (however their term differs from ours in the viscous ,
and the outer regions). The idea of a near-wall, but not
I ~·I! V
ViICOUl, "blocking" 'erm is also in Hunt [19]. It is also 1.0 j
i
related to the algebraic models, which take the smaller
of two eddy viscOllities. The outer eddy viscosity scales
HIe,·..."
FPG
1'--j'LOQ
1\ I layer
with the boundary-layer thicknell, and the inner eddy 0.1 I
vilcOllity is pven by the mixing length, I oc d. I", [II I
In a claaical log layer with friction velocity u.. we 0.6 / i
~
I
have S = U.,f(IC4) and "I = u.,lCd. Equilibrium between I
i
the production and diffusion terms (all positive) and the /' !
F_
deltruction term is pOIIIible provided
,.rt
0uIIr

/ 'V
i

C",I= cU/,,2 + (1 + cu)/tT. ....

8hlar
olBL
I
'Ielta show that the model, when equipped with the
deltruction term, can produce an accurate log layer.
This relis OIl th'! treatment of the vilcous regiOll, d~
0.2

0.0
I/V I
!
I,
!

ICribed below. On the other hand it produces too low 0.0 0.• 0.8 1.2
r
a Rin-friction coefficient in a flat-plate boundary layer.
This shows that the destruction term 8.£ formulated de- Figure 3: I", function involved in the destruction term.
cays too slowly in the outer region of the boundary layer. see (4-6).
To address this deficiency and allow a new calibration
we multiply it by a non-dimensional function ItIJ, which
equals 1 in the log layer. Note that C",I is not negotiable fact that S may vanish . The region r > 1 is exercised
(i.e., we would not adjust the C, at the expense of the only in adverse pressure gradients, and then rarely be-
log-law constants), and also that \II"e were not able to = =
yond r 1.1. Having 1",(0) 0 is not essential, because
obtain an accurate skin friction just by using the free- in free shear flo~s ~he destru.ction term vanishes on ac-
dom left by the free-shear-flow calibration (Fig. I). The count o~ the cP. m Its den~lI!lDator. A reasonable value
model becomes for C",3 IS 2. \\e then cahbrate C.. ~ to match the skin-
friction coefficient in a flat-plate boundary layer. We
2
DVI =CtlSVI+.!. [V.(VI VVI)+Ct2(VVI)2]-C",l/w [!.i)
adopt the value ofth~ CTTM.' namely C, 0.00262 =
Dt u d at R4 = 104 [13]" which requires C",2 = 0.3. All the
T • (4) boundary-layer tests relied on a code written by Mr. D.
Note that Secundov et .1. did not foUow the I", route. Darmofal, ofM.I.T .. during a short stay at Boeing.
The choice of an adequate argument for I", was in- Figure 4 shows the velocity, eddy-viscosity. and shear-
spired by algebraic models, in which the mixing length stress profiles in a flat plate boundary layer at R, :::: 10 4 .
plays a major role near the wall. This length can be At 104, C, = 0.00262 and H
defined by I;: VI/tiS and we use the square of I/"d as
1.31. The Clauser =
shape factor G;: J2/C,(H - 1)/H is settled at 6.6.
a convenient nOll-dimensional argument:
and the shape of the profile is satisfactory. Notice
V, again the ramp structure of V, at the edge of the shear
r;: Sf( 2 d2. (5)
flow. The peak value of V, is O.021Uoo f.°, compared witl.
Both r and ItIJ equal 1 in the log layer, and decrease in 0.0168Uoo 6° in the Cebeci-Smith model [2]. Conversely.
the outer region. Note that any dimensionally conect the Cebeci-Smith eddy viscosity is higher near 11/6° 1. =
The .hear-stress profile approaches the wall with a fi-
function oC(v"d,S) that reduces to -CtIJl,,:lU~ in a log
layer would be as eligible as the one we are choOlling (.f). nite slope, rapidly turning to zero slope at the wall a5
A satisfactory I", function is diICusaed in the context of direct-simulation results [15].
Figure 5 shows the velocity profile in wall coordi-
I.,(r) =, 9 ++c",3
[
1
6
/I ] 1/6
C'6
3
, , = r + C.,2 (r G
-
nates, illustrating the log layer and the smooth depar-
r). (6)
ture in the wake. Again, the shape of the outer region
appears good, showing that the destruction term and
This function is shown in Fig. 3. The results are the !'" function are fair approximations, at least in thi5
most sensitive to the slope of Iv. at r =
1, which is flow. The arrival at the freestream velocity is a little too
controlled by C",2. The step from 9 to /", is merely a abrupt, as it 1\'as in the mixing layer, in Fig. 2. This be-
limiter that prevents large values of I"" which could up- havior cannot be corrected except by making the model
set the code and give an undeserved importance to the very diffusive (low u) .

6
 3

'rr~ff. I
,
I
2

1\ !
i
r---- ~. r" ,I
o '\""- .--- ~
I>"<- '\ i
;

-1 / i

7 !
I
!
fo.t I
i
I
,
I

-4
I I
4 I o 4 8
y/S" yW
Figure 4: Profiles in a flat-plate boundary layer at Figure 6: Eddy-viscosity budget in a flat-plate bound-
R, s:t: 10·, outer coordinates. U normalized with Uoo ' r ary layer. Normalized with rIVal/.
with rOIl..", and v, with 0.025Uoo 6".
ble for the advance of the turbulent front. in qualita-
tive agreement with the budgets of "legitimate" turbu-

Jj i
"
lence quantities such as the kinetic energy. Near the
I
"
"
,I
i
wall the dift'usion again makes a strong positive contri-
, bution, balanced by the destruction. The ideal near·

V"'I ,
'I
i
i
I
i
I
i

,
wall budget is. in the units of the figure. production
= 1, dift'usion =
,,2(1 + e.2)/u /eu ~ 3. destruction
-1 - K2(1 + et2)/u /eu ~ -4. Note that it is not main-
=
I;
Ii
I:
I Ii I tained far up into the layer at all; correspondingly. Vt
does not follow its ideal linear log-layer behavior ("Yu T )
far up either (see Fig. 4). However this does not prevent
i
U+ Ii
I, I
a log layer from forming.
I This completes the calibration of the model save for
Ii , viscous eft'ects. \\'e later examine the performance of the
I: I model in what is probably the most sensitive situation.
'I
I! : the outer region of a boundary layer in adverse pressure
gradient.
I:
II
Ii
,I I I
I
1000
Near-wall Region. finite Reynolds Number
10000
y+
In the buft'er layer and viscous sublayer. additional
Figure 5: Velocity profile in a flat-plate boundary layer
notation is needed. Besides the wall units, y+ and so
at R, s:t: 10", inner coordinates. - model; - - -log law.
on, we introduce v which will equal v, except in the
viscous region, and X == v/v. This is in analogy with
The budget of Vt is shown in Fig. 6. The sum (i.e., Mellor &.: Herring's notation [20], because from the wall
Dv';Vi) is positive throughout. It is 0 at the wall, to the log layer we have X KY+ . =
then roughly follows a ramp up to the edge of the tur- We follow Baldwin .\: Barth [8] in choosing a trans-
bulent region. Its outer part is representative of the v
ported quantity which behaves linearly near the wall.
outer part of either one of the free shear flows, in- This is beneficial for numerical solutions: ;; is actually
cluding the vanishing contribution of the destruction easier to resolve than U itself, in contrast with (, for
term. The production is equal to the shear stress. instance. Therefore. the model will not require a finer
In the outer part the dift'usion is primarily responsi. grid than an algebraic model would. To arrive at this
 we cODIider the c1aaical log layer and de\'ise near-wall made of the momentum equation and (9), as it has been
"damping functions~ that are compatible with known obtained starting with a wide range of initial conditions.
results. These functions are distinct from the I. near- This includes the results of Figs. 4 and 5; in particular
wall inv"lCid destruction term. Fig. 5 displays the viscous and buffer layers.
The eddy viKOCIity /I, equals "yu. in the los layer, Fine effects of pressure gradients or transpiration are
but not in the buffer layer. We define v10 that it equals likely to strain the accuracy of the model, although we
,,"',. all the way to the wall. This leads to expect the trends to be correct and the database is far .
from definitive. Note that the traditional tools for in·
X3 (7) serting these effects into the algebraic models are ruled
1~1 = .,..-:-r.
X~ + t;;) out, because they are not local.
The 1,,1 fWKtion is borrowed from Mellor k Herring.
The subKript tI stands for "viscous". We prefer the Lamjnar &CioD aDd Trjppjnc
value c,,1 = 7.1 to Mellor & Herring's 6.9, which we
helieve yields a low intercept for the log law. Other I~) The final set of terms provides control over the lam-
fuJldioas could be used, for instance the one compatible inar resions of the sbear layers, a control which has
with the Van-Drieat damping is I,,) = ("1 + 41+2 - two aspects: keeping the 8011' laminar where desired .
1)/2X, where t+ = X[I - exp(-xllCA+)] and A+ is the and obtaining transition where desired. Navier-Stokes
codeiJ with &Igebraic models usually have crude "off-on"
familiar 2G [2]. We have not encountered cases b which
the choice of I .. ) mllde a difference. Note that there isdevices or short ramps hued on the grid index along the
DO basis for (7) to apply at the edge of the turbulent
wall. These do not help the convergence of the codes. In
region, where X is &lao of order 1 and smaller. However, addition we require a device that is useable on unstruc-
the eddy ViK06ity has little inftuence there, because of tured grids. The subscript t will stand for "trip". We
i.Jse this word to mean that the transition point is im·
the absence of steep gradients.
p06ed by an actual trip, or natural but obtained from a
The production term also needs attention. III it S is separate method. 0" "0
scco."t do,d' tAt t.rhlt"cf
replaced with S, given by mollel 6( tM/std to prellict tAt transition location. Tbis
is true of all the models we kno,,·. Some models. in·
X
=
/~2 1 - 1 + xl,,) (8) c1uding Ir-(, predict relaminarization. In situations tbat
should induce relaminarization, this one tends to drop
The function /,,2 is constructed, just like /01> 110 that the eddy viscOCIity to low levels, but without "snapping"
S would maintain its log-layer behavior (S =.../(KY» to O. We may be able to improve on tbis using the f'2
all the way to the wall. S is singular at the wall, but function below.
ii is 0 there, 10 that the production is well-behaved ' We delCribed how transition was expected only in
Note that there is a range of X in which S is _ than thin shear layers. The linearized version of (9) for small
S and may become negative. This should DOt upset v only contains the production term: DvlDt cuSii; =
the Dumerial salven. Other quantities involved in the therefore, v=
0 is an unstable IOlution of (9) (going
"inviKid" model are redefined in terms of if iDst.ead of in the direction of DIDt). In a boundary-layer code
/I" for instance r == ii/(SK 2tP). the uro solution is easily maintained, but in a Na\'ier-
We fiwly add a viscous diffusion term, cOMistent Stokes code exactly-aero values are rarely preserved, so
=
with a Dirichlet boundary condition at the wall, if O. that the model is "primed" by numerical errors up-
This term too is based on an analogy, rather tbaa a rig- stream of the trip. It then transitions at a rate that
oroua equation. In addition ii behaves linearly, 110 that depends on numerical details and has little to do wit h
its Laplacian will be small in an established dution. the boundary layer's true propensity to transition, as
Accordin&ly, we insert the molecular viscOCIity ia a con- controlled by pressure gradient, suction, and so on. We
venient place and pay little attention to a factor of tT . verified this behavior, and it is not acceptable.
The transport equation has become A solution is to alter the production term so that
v= 0 is a stable solution, albeit with a small basin of
Dv -_ 1 [
Dt =c61 S/I+; V.«/I+V)VV)+C.2(VV)
2] attraction. For this we take the convention that in the
laminar region v is of order /I at ID06t , and recall the
argument x. Note that if 'V ::; /I, then /II <: /I. because of
-c",t!tIJ [~r (9) the damping by I,,). We multiply the production term
by 1 -/,2, where
Tbis equation now yields equilibrium (D'VI Dt =0) all
(10)
the way to d = 0 in a classical law-of-the-wan situa-
tion. Furthermore, the numerical evidence shows that In order for 0 to attract ii down from values on the
tbis clusital solution is a stable IOlution of the system order of /1/5 , the following values are fair : Ct3 1.1. =
8
 C'4 = 2. In any case c,3 must be larger than 1. As
for Ct. it could be decreased several-fold , if a code still m=CbJ
D"V [1 - f 12 J S- 11+;;
- 1 [....
\ . ((1I+1I)\"V)+Cb
- - 2 (\"vf"]
yielded premature transition. The cross-over point of
1- / 12, i.e., the bound of the basin of attraction), is at
X= og CI3 C,.. However, 2 was small enough in our
code. Values much smaller than 1 would start affecting
- [cu,du - 112] ~; [~r
+ III AU 2. (11)
the results in the turbulent region. with
In order to still balance the budget near the wall we
offset the change in the production term with an oppo-
111 =CII gl exp (-CI2 :.J2 [d 2 +9~d;1) , (12)
site change in the destruction term, involving /12, Again
and 9, == min(O.I, taU /w,AZ) ",here Il.z is the grid spac-
we take an empirical approach, and have numerical evi-
ing along the wall at the trip. This equation specifies
dence that it yields a stable system. A user that is doing
the two I, terms, and the trip term is the last in (11).
boundary-layer calculations can leave the /'2 term out
The Gaussian in 111 confines the domain of influence of
=
(i.e., let C'3 0).
the trip terms as needed ; it is roughly a semi-ellipse.
The magnitude is adjusted so that the integrated con-
The task ill now to obtain transition. We refer to tribution for a particle crossing the domain of influencl"
transition points, in 2-D, and transition lines, in 3D. is on the order or U.6, 6 the boundary-layer thickness,
We address only boundary-layer transition, but a gen- as is ensured by typical algebraic models [2]. The odd
eralization to free shear 60ws will be easy. Usually each
factor 91 is passive in a situation with an extremely fine
2-D body hu two transition points. We wish to ini- grid, but is quite active il.nd necessary in practice. This
tiate transition near these points in a smooth manner, is because the domain ofinfluence Dfthe trip scales with
and compatible with any grid . For this a source term the boundary layer thickness, which is very small in the
is added that will be nonzero only in a small domain of laminar part. As a result, that domain easily falls be-
influence. This domain should not extend outside the tween two streamwise grid points, so that the trip is not
boundary layer. Not wanting to find this edge, nor vio- felt at all. The 9, factor guarantees that the trip term
late in\'Ilriance principles, we invoke the quantities I1U will be nonzero over a few streamwise sta(ions.
and Wt. Il.U is the norm of the difference between the
velocity at the trip (i.e., usually zero since the wall is The value C'2 = 2 reflects typical values of 6""dU.
not moving) and that at the field point we are consid- in laminar boundary layers and is not a candidate for
ering. Wt is the vorticity at the 1\'all at the trip point. much adjustment. Tests indicate a range of at I'!ast
Upstream ofthe trip in a boundary-layer code, it is fair two decades for CII between values so low that transi-
to take 101 at the wall at the current station, since 101 tion miscarries, and values so high that;; Ilnd the skin-
at the trip ill not available yet. The thickness of the =
friction overshoot. The value Ctl 1 is well within that
boundary layer is on the order of U./WI, where U. is range; successful transition was obtained with 0.1 and
the edge velocity. Recall that it is still laminar. We with 10. It is possible that at very low Reynolds llum·
also introduce d" the distance from the field point to bers CII would require more attention. In any case. we
the trip point or line. recommend that the user check for transition on both
surfaces. To start with, the two trips should bracket the
Storing, or repeatedly computing, dt for esch field .tagnation point. Except at very low Reynolds numbers
point ill a penalty, but it would not be difficult to keep the skin-friction coefficient is enough of a criterion. Note
a list of the points that are within a r~asonable distance that the trips are often near the leading edge, in a re-
of the trip and to compute the trip term only for thOlie. gion where the skin friction has violent variations due
The Uler may also watch for the following peculiar sit- to the pressure gradients. Therefore, it is advisable to
uation: the body could be so thin that the trip on one check the skin-friction coefficient a little downstream. in
side causes transition on the other side. A definition of a weak pressure gradient.
d l as the length of the shortest line that links the field
Note that the grov.·th of ;; to nonlinear levels un-
point to the trip while not crossing the body would solve
der the effect of the production term occurs in a few
the problem, but in an expensive manner. It is simpler
boundary-layer thicknesses (C6I being roughly 0.13) .
just to override d, (Le., set it to a large value) for field
This is consistent with the idea that the trip term mim-
points and trips that are known to be on oppOllitt: sides
ics the secondary instabilities invoked by recent transi·
of the body. The angle between the line from the trip
tion theories, which have growth rates on the order of
to the field point and the normal to the wall may be
1/6. However since the streamwise grid is often much
useful. coarser than 6, transition will still appear very steep to
that grid . The contribution of the trip source term is
Dimensional analysis points to AU 2 as a proper rapidly overwhelmed by the exponential amplification
scale for the source term. and we arrive at due to production . Thus. we have a formal ad\"antag'

9
 over the "off-on" models in that transition is a smooth
process, but in practice it is debatable. Naturally, an
adaptive gid will focus points at transition, and ap-
proach the ideal situation .
InjtW apd fmstream C9nditjons
Note that T and D(v) are aiways positive or zero. and
P(V'} is positive as long as S is positive.
Care should be used in interpreting our notation. For
example, the complete production 9perator is P(ii)V
rather than P(ii) alone. The n9tation is intended to
simplify the foll9wing matrix theory analysis.

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

(19)
Numerica! Solution Procedure
The exact solution of the turbulence transport equa-
We expand 9n the approach of Baldwin & Barth (8]
tion cannot become negative. It can be shown that if
for solution of the turbulence transport model within a
Navier-Stokea solver. The model is advanced in time us-
=
ii 0 at some location and the surrounding values are
non-negative, then 8v/8t ~ O. An underlying goal of
ing an implicit IOlution procedure deaigned to achieve a
tbe solver is to reproduce this analytic behavior-a non-
patitive turbulence field for all transient IOlution states,
negative turbulence field-throughout the solution pro-
as weD as a fast cODvergence ratl' to steady-state. \\'e
cess (i.e. ii ~ 0 at all grid points and at all time steps).
have incorporated the turbulence-model solution mod-
ule into a modified version of Martinelli &.: Jameson's We athieve this goal ofa non-negative turbulence field
FLOI03 (21], where the updates of the velocity field andthrough the use of positive discret ... operators and M-
the turbulence are decoupled at each time step. The type matrices. A positive operator. when applied to a
turbulence is updated at the start of each multistage vector of non-negative elements, will produce a vector
Runge-Kutta time IItep on the finest grid of the multi- with n9n-negative elements. An M-t.ype matrix is di-
gid cycle; on coarser grids the turbulence is frozen. agonally dominant with positive diagonal elements and
We begin by rewriting the one-equation model (11) neptive (or zero) off-diagonal elements. A key prop-
erty of an M-type matrix is that its inverse contains
in a form more convenient for numerical analysis,
only non-negative elements; hence, the inverse of an ~f­
type matrix is a positive operator. Our goal can be
':: =M(V)v+ P(ii)iI- D(ii)ii+ T (13) accomplished by careful discretization and construction
of the implicit operators !d, rr and Ii'.
where M(V)ii is the c9mbined advection/diffusion
terlDli, Rearrangement of (18) gives v n + I directly a~ a fUII~­
tiOD ofv n ,
M(V)ii= -(ii .V)v+;' [V. [(v+ V)Vii] + c., (VV)2] , [1_ At{fd + rr -I»J V,,+I = (20)

the production IOUfCe term is

(14) [1+ At (M - Jd) + (P - Ji") - (D - J»)} 'I n + AlT.

P(V)V = cull - 1121 S V, (15) Assuming v n ill non-negative, then non-Ilegativity of

v n +1 is guaranteed if the right-hand-siele operator is
the wall destruction source term is positive and the left-hand-side operator forms an M-

v_]2
type matrix. Thus, sufficient constraint~ on the discret e
_ eu operators are given by,
D(V)v = [coud.. - [
,,2/t2] d ' (16)
-!d is M-type (218)
and the trip function is
- rr is M-type (21 b)
T =IIIAU 2 • (17) + J) is M-type (2Ic)

10
 are discretized using second-order-accurate central dif-
ferencing.
[M - KIJ v ~ 0 for all v ~ 0 (22a)
[p - JS] v ~ 0 for all v?.: ° (22b) 1 + Cb2 1 [(
[M(V)V]\2) = - ;";\ ii.+ 1 - V.
- - - - v+ vIHl/2-"-'""--"':'
CT Ax. A.r.+I/2
[D -I>] v:S 0 forallv~O (22c)
_ (v + ii)i-l/2 ii! - Vi_I] , (27)
Baldwin k Barth show, for their model, that similar I.JI. X i-I/2
constraints on the implicit and explicit operators in the cn 1
backward-Euler scheme guarantee positivity of the dis-
[M(V)VW') :: - -(v + ii)i--" CT Ax.
crete solution. They also show that these constraints iii - Vi-I]
iii+! - Vi
give unconditional stability of the numerical solution- [ AXi+I/2 - AXi-l/2 . (28)
procedure.
Description of the discretization and construction of The diffusion coefficients (V+V)i+I/2 and (v+ ii).-1/2 at
implicit matrices will be given in detail for I-D, where cell faces are taken as averages of adjacent cell-centered
the notation is simpler. Extension to 2-D and 3-D is values,
straightforward because there are no cross derivatives
in the one-equation model. (v + ii)i:H/2 = ~ [(v + iI). + (v + ii).:i:Il, (29)
The model is discretized using a cell-centered finite-
difference scheme. and AXi+I/2 and Ari_l/2 are distances between cell
centers.
.
Th e approXimate J acob'lans """,2)
M an d """'M 3) are 0 I)-
Advection Operators
tained by freezing the diffusion coefficients.
The advection terms are discretized using f:rst-order
...,{2) 1 + C62 _ 1
accurate upwinding. Mi,i_1 =
+ ---(V+V)i_l/2 "A CT ~x.~r'_l/2

[M(v)v]ll) = - [ut ('ii ~;:-l) + U.- C'i~; iii)] , :-:{2)

M, = - -1 +-Cb2
( v + ii)i-I/2 ~ ~
1
',' CT Xi x._I/~ (30)
(23) 1 + Cb" _ 1
where the advection velocities U+ and U- are defined. - - - - -(v + 11).+1/2--":-'--
CT ~.r'~X'+1/2
""{2) 1 + Cb2 1
ut = ~(Ui + IUil). Ui- = 1_ (Ui - lUi/). (24) M i.i+ 1 = + ---(vCT
+ ii)'+I/2"',,-.- ,--
... .r ...... .rHln

The Jacobian of the advection operator is.

""",3) cb2 I
M;· I:: - -(V+ii)i .
t.t- (f ~Zi~J't-1/2
M!~Ll = -- (-Un/AXi, 1
K(~/ = -. (+ut - Un/AXi, (25)
...,{.3,l
Mi,. = + ""::'(v+ ii)i--':""--
C6"

CT AXi~.ri_l/· (31)
Cb2 1-
fV(~i~1 = - (+Un/AXi. + -(v+ ii)i
CT AXiA.r.+I/2
,

1
Note that _}i;fl) is M-type and (M - IVI)(1lv = 0,
""{3)
Mi,i+l =- C62
-(v + ii)i
CT Ax.Axi+l/2
.
satisfying the positivity constraints.
These operators satisfy constraint (22a), since
Diffusion Operators
[M - M](2) v =0, i71(3)
[M-M J v::O, (32)
We have found that positive operators are more easily
constructed if the diffusion terms are rearranged into the :-:{2) :-:{3)
When negated, the sum M +M forms an !\I-typt
form,
matrix. This can be shown by considering individual
matrix elements. For example, the sum of the matrix
elements above the diagonal becomes.
where liberties have been taken with differentiation of
Kf'2) + Kr 3 ) _ *
the molecular viscosity v. The form of (26) avoids dis- ',i+1 ',HI - CT~XiA.r'+1/2
cretization of the term (V'ii)2, which does not easily lend
itself to positive discrete operators, The diffusion terms [(1 + Cb2)(V + ii),+1/2 - Cb2( II + ii).] (3:3)

11
 t 'pon substitution of (29) for the diffusion coefficient at possible strategies and explain why they are dE;ficient
the right cell face. then the sum b~omes. before discussing the strategy we actually employ
M'2) K(3 ) 1 The obvious choice of setting thE' implicit op",rator~
i"+l + i.i+l = 20'aZ,aZi + 1/ 2 • equal to their true Jacobians does not satisfy th .. po~­
itivity constraints. F'J r examplE'. [P - Plv ~ 0 b not
[0 + Ct2)(V + ii)i+l + (1- Cb2)(V + ii)i] ' (34) met ifP' > o.
For -1 :s
C.2 :s
I, these elements are always pOliitive. A second strategy, which always satisfies the M-type
Similarly, the elements below the diagonal are always matrix constraints, is to take the negative part of the
poIitive, and thOle on the diagonal are always negative. production Jacobian and the positive part of the de-
Also, the macnitude of the diagonal elements are equal struction Jacobian,
to the 10m of the off-diagonal elementf-. Hence, the If =
-pos [-P - P'Y] , (3ia)
lurn JJ<2) +JJ<3) it a negated M-type matrix, ..tiBfying
constraint (21a).
I) pos[D+D'v]. = (3ib)

Baldwin &: Barth noted that the steady-state dis- This strategy is also defective and must be discarded
cretization of the diffusion terms in their model must because the other two positivity constraints may not be
be modified on coarse grids to obtain a non-negative met, For example. ifD > 0 and D' < O. then D - If < 0
turbulence solution. When ""ritten in the form of (26). will not be satisfied. -
the diffusion terms of the Baldwin-Barth model give an A third strategy is to use only the negative parts of
effective value of C62 below -1. Because of this, they P and P' in (35a) to form P, and the positive parts of
must limit the averaging of the diffusion coefficients to D and D' in (35b) to form D.
cell faces to ensure their equivalent of KJ<2) + KJ<3) is
a negated M-type matrix. This limiting procedure re- p =
-pos[-P]- pos[-P']v. (38a)
duces spatial accuracy. As shown by the above con- D =
pos[D] + pos[D'lv. (3i'b)
struction, discretization of the present model's diffusion
terms does not require similar modification. The con- This is a viable strategy: the four source term positiv-
ity constraints are satisfied for all po~<ible sign combi-
straint (62 > -1 , derived on physical grounds. also plays
nations of P . P' , D and D'. However. we dis('ard thi~
a crucial role in the numerical context.
strategy because of its slow convergence rate.
In a typical fiow situation, both production and de-
Source Operators
struction increase in magnitude as v is increased (i.e ..
p, D and their derivatives are all positive) . In this case
The production. wall destruction, and transition trip
source terms all produce diagonal matrix operators, our third strategy chooses,
so grid indices are ignored in the following analysis. p=O. D = D + D'v = [D(v)v]'. (39 )
Though vector notation is used, all equalities and in-
equalities apph: on a cell-by-cell basis. This is equivalent to integrating the production term
The starting point for construction of the implicit explicitly and the destruction term implicitly: thi~ tee 11-
source terms J> and I) is the true Jacobians for the nique has often been used for solution of k-( modE;ls. Al-
production and destruction operators, tbough this strategy guarantees positivity. it can result
in extremely slow convergence in regions where produc-
[P(v)v)' =
P(v) + P'(v)v. (35a) tion and destruction are large and dominate the equa-
[D(v)v]' = D(y) + D'(v)v, (35b) tion budget. In these regions, the Jacobians [P(v)"j'
and [D(v)vJ' will be individually large but ",;ill tend to
where we use ( )' for convenience to denote differentia- cancel. No"" if only [D(v)vl' is used to update the so-
tion with respect to v. Also for convenience we define lution, then the contribution to the diagonal element
the following operator: of the matrix will be excessive; the resalting solution
change A.v will be correspondingly small e\'en when th o;
Z ifz>O residuals are not close to zero.
pos(.r) = - (36)
. { 0 if z < O. This possible analytic cancellation of the individually
large Jacobians motivates our final strategy for choo;.illg
the implicit source terms. Ratber than concentraling Oil
Our objective is to choose If and I) close to the true the individual production and destruction Jacobians w ",
Jacobians. namely [P(Y)vl' and [D(v)vl'. 110 that rapid consider the source terms combined together and u.,e a
convergence is obtained when the residuals are small , variation of (38).
while retaining strict adherence to the positivity con-
straints for all possible solution states . We give three =
D - P pos[D - P ] + pos[D' - P']v ( ·1(1 I

12
 With the _ree term6 taken ""ether. only two posit h'- subiterations of an approximate factorization scheme at
ity coutramts are required. each time step . .-hich will r~cover the update of the
original unsplit I~'stem at con\'ersenee (of the subit-
1) - P' ~ 0, (41a) eration process). We use th'e lubiteration proces!! of
[1>-D]-lP'-P] = [1>-P}-[D-P] ~ O.(4Ib) Steinthorsson &.: Shih [22]. where the splitt in,; error is
simply Iaged one subiteraticlD. The objeeth'e of the
Eumin!!!J the four poaibJe sip combinations for ~D­ approximate factorization is then to minimize splitting
PJ and [D - P}. the.e poritivity coostraints are always error for rapid conversence. alld to minimize the num-
.w.&ed by (40). Furthermore. aaalytic caoeellation of ber of .ubiterations where th.! candidate updated field
productioD and delltructioD is relec&ed in (40). resultins contains neptive points.
in nperior cOD~pDCe compared to (38).
In 2-D we have tried conventional ADI .-ith aD addi-
We evaluate the Jacobians P' ar.d D' analytically us- tional factor due to the SOUtel! terms,
inS the chain rule. The differentiation is stmptfor-
ward. except for the wall delltructioo term I.. Since [1- ~tUd [1- ~tt;J"J [1- ~t(F -1i)J.t\,"
evaluation and difl'erentiatioo of I. involves terr.lS like =~tRY". (45)
r- s and r12 I care must be taken for r small or larse.
lest ODe'. computer besina to complain. Tbe form of where R is the residual or risht-band-side operator in
(18). We have aI.o tried the approximate factorization
(6) ciws acceptable numerical behavior for r - O. For
developed by Shih &.: Ch}'u [23J for finite-rate chemistry.
larse r, the functiOD ItIl asymptotes to [1 + c!31 1/t1 , so
~ eome cutoff' (say r =10). the derh-ative (I",)' is [N - ~tUd N-I [N - .1tU,,] = ..1tR,·" , (46a)
8et to aero.
N:: 1- ~t(p' -1»). (46b)
As disc.-ed in {23]. this second form bas Iml'er splittint:
Approximate FI&Wiation
error and con"erses much faster to the unsplit update
With the implicit and explicit operators properly de- than conventional ADI. Howe~'er. even this second form
fined. the backward Euler solution procedure (18) suar- requires several subiterations at start up to achie"e a
antees a positive turbulence field at each update. It non-nesative updated turbulence field: for example. ap-
does. howe~·er. require expensive inversion of a larse proximately 30 subiterations are needed for a time step
=
sparse matrix in 2-D or 3-D. Approrimate factoriza- of ~t 10 (baaed on chord and freestream density and
tion of the implicit operator will reduce the cost of an preaure) to eliminate all nepth'e updated points.
update, but unconditioaal positivity is lost . To see this \\'e use an approximate factorization that outper-
etrect consider a 2-D flow with zero IOUrce terms. The forn» be '.ll (45) and (46). Prior to splittin,;. we di~' ide
uusplit implicit system is, tJtrousb by the diqonal mment of tbe implicit opera-
tor. then use a conventional approximate factorization.
=
[1- ~t (R( + R.,)] ~y" ~t (M( + M,,) y". (42) Denotins the diqonal elements of the implicit ad,'~­
where M( and M" are finite ditrerences in tbe ( and tion/ditrusion operators .. ~"J and ti,,"',
the scbeme
"coordiDate directions, respectively, and U( and U" becomes.
satis!'y tbe positivity coutrainu (21a) and (22a). If the
implicit operator is approximately factorized. tben the
[1- ~ttr(J [1- ~ttr~] ~y" =~tRvn, (4i)
system becomes. where
[1- ~tU(] (1- ~tU,,) ~y" =~t(M( + M.,)y".
(43)
R.earraqing this system to i80Iate y .. +l pves.

(1-~tUd (1-~tU.,]y"+1 = [1+~t(M(-Ud

+ ~t(M., - U.,) + ~t2U(UIj) v". (44) (4E-)
We incorporate this approximate faetorizatioll
The splittins error results in the term ~t2JJ'(t;J.,y, ICherne into a aubileration proce5ti in the fashion of
which may DOt be positive. For small enou,h ~t the SteinlhorMon &:: Shih (22]. .-here the splitting error
apliuinS error wiD DOt ruin positivity, but the constraint
.t\t2U(U,,~y is law<! one subiteration.
equatioo on ~t is a nonline"r matrix equation in it&elf
and is quite difficult to solve. [1- ..1ttr(] =
.1v·(t) ~tRvn - ~tn( (..1,.- _ ..1~.)' t_ l.
We conclude that there appearll to be DO approximate
factorization of(18) that retainll t"· unconditional pos- [1- ..1tU.,J ..1y(tl = ~v· (· i
itivity of the orisinal unllplit ,. . d . We propose usin~

13
The second .tep equation bas been used to rewrite the o.ooa
eplittiq error 011 the ri&ht-band side in the first ,tep; ~ I
I
~v- is a coovenieat definition. 0.0021
D~ I
In practice this 'plittin& perfOl'111& quite well. Usin& 0.11024
a coutant ~t throupout the field, we have yet to en- 00022 ~ i
I
I

COUDter a lituatioa where a oeptive turbulence update .

o~
j

ocean eYeD on the first subitentioo. This iDcludes tests 0.0031 1

wltere ~t .... varied over 1e1r2l"aI orden between 0.001 E~\ I!o- Model i
aDd 1000 0.001'

~
. C} I
From numerical experimentation. we chooee ~t = 0.0015 !

10 aDd Mop IUbiteratin& wbeo the normalized cban&e

1f4V/(1f + ~Ib is reduced below O.O!. Typically. 10 to
~ ----l
I
I

,
0.0014
20 .biteratioae are aeeded for initialilatioa transients 0.0012
'\ ~
i
!
aDd approximately 30 are required wbeo tile traDllitiOll
trip fuaction "waRs up". Within a few time steps only 0.0010
f\ !
!
one eubit.eration ill Deeded. 0.0001 I
i
Tbis procedure d dividin, tbroup by the diap- i 0 I'
aaI elements at.o improYei the scheme', reaistance to 0.000& 1
2 3
1OUIld-oft" error in the inviKid rqion where v is ,maD. z
The eoIutioa module wiD still function properly if the Fisu re 7: Ski-friction coefficient in Samuel-Joubert flow,
rr-tream Voo or the initial suees for ii is eet to zero. based 011 Uooo. z in meters.
In c:omparison. round-oft" errors may cause De&ative up-
dates, even at cOllver,ence of tbe ,ubiteratiOlll, if either 0.024
(45) or (46) is used . 0;
0.022
The model shows promisin, conver,ence to steady- I I
8ta&e wbeo coupled to the solver for the velocity field. 0.020 !
Cooversence is typically as ,000 or hetter than tbat
for the Baldwin-Lomax aJ&ebraic model. This may be o . o~. I
I 7
due to the ah.ence or "blinkin," pbenomenoo in the 0.016
present model. In aJ&ebraic models, conver,ence to
6"
I /
lteady-tltate may be adversely affected by dilcontinu- 0 .014 !
Mode/_
V •
(lUI behavior. For example, the poIitioo _here the eddy I E"'~ /
viKosity switches hetween inner and outer formulations 0 .012
,~7 /
may _aDder back and fortb between adjacent cells. slow- 0.010
in, cODver,ence or causin, a limit cycle. ,
O.ClOl Y /'
!

i
....r ,
0.005 ~ ...- V
Results ~
0.004 ~ ~
I
!
j..--
Boundary-Lug Calculatjons 0.002 I

2
Only iDcompreaible boundary layers have been con-
Iidered. With zero prel5ure padient, the model obeys Fisure 8: Momentum and displacement thicknesses in
the accepted ReyuoId..number Kalin" 10 tbe results Samuel-Joubert flow. in meters.
IhowD at R. = 104 enlUre apeement with the cur-
mat tIaeories. The model &ives satisfactory results in
attadaed boundary layers with preeaure padients, typi-[0.0050.0.0057] for C" [1 .35.1 .42J for H. and [700. S00}
for R.. The eddy-viscoaity profile is atypical. Because
cal of tille Stanford lQ68 cues. We only present reault.
for the .mk low aDd the Samuel-Joubert low [24] as of the lack or entrainment in the sink flo"., it does not
tile other CUllS with moderate &r&dients Ihow the sameshow a front at the edse of the boundary layer. Instead.
tread. Darmofal's code was used asain. it extends iDto the freestream re,iOll. This did not di~­
turb tbe veloc:ity profile. which is satisfactor~· bot h ill
In the sink flow. with an acceleration parameter
terms or thicknea and shape.
K == v/U;,(dUoo/dz) equal to 1.5 x 10-', we obtain
= = =
C, 0.00535, H 1.35, and R. 760. T~ results In the Samuel-Joubert flo"· the .sreement i5 rath ~ r
are weD within the experimental raDse, which is about Soad for the skiD friction, fig. 7, and the thiclmes-~~.

14
 1.65 1-~!:---,:
0.12' ---,--,---,.---,----
--!-----;--+--+---.1--+---,..--
1.10
I 0
0.1' J...
I i
O.'Or-+--+--1r---t--+--+----i-~~
.!
i--+--+--+-+----if---+--.;...!~~
i
I
0.08
II i JIt::
1.515 0.08 +---f---+--If--+---;---+--i--J-
.f·1
~ / O.07+--+_+_-+--t-~--I--+JSoL-1

1.80
II
0.06+-_+_+_-+--t-~-_1-"¥-"4---i
V :
~~I
H Exp' -4:: O.05+-_+_+_-+_-t__ Exp.....
~_--:!!~~~L_
"/ i ~
1.45

1.40
0
c OJ 0
O.04+--+--+---1:..---t--+'<----o,.q:.=~--
1
0.03+- _+--+_+--+.-.<-..j,4'7-+_~' _:
0.02+-_+_+_-+--;;"..q-r~--1--+----.;
!

"/
"i~odel !

I
0
° c
V 0.01
,,"/
t---t--r--::lI!F;.,-&--+--r--+--f----'
i--- ,./ ~v
1.35 0.00 ~_....-_~:....JL-.J--..L-__1_--.J----"
2 3 0.2 0.. 0.6 0.11 ' .0
z U
Figure 9: Shape factor in Samuel-Joubert flow . Figure 10: Velocity profile at z 304m in Samuel- =
Joubert flow. U normalized with edge \·elocity. y in
meters.
Fig. 8. The model produces slightly higher skin fric-
tion, but lower thicknesses. The shape factors (Fig. 9) 0.'2
i
are in disa&reement even before the pressure gradient is 0." I

applied, and are the root of the disagreement in thick- I

I I
nesses. With an adverse gradient, the skin-Criction term 0.'0
.
"
i
loses its authority in the momentum equation. The ex- 0.08
perimental values for z between 1 and 2m, H ~ 1.39,
are surprisingly high considering the weak pressure gra- 0.011
I ~ "
.............
dient and the Reynolds number, R, ~ 6500. Interest- 0.07 !
! I
..............
ingly, the calculated shape factor is catching up with Y
the experimental one Cor z > 3m. 0.06 ""k -.........
"-...... jlAodeI !
!

Figure 10 shows the velocity at z = 3.4m. The posi- 0.05 ,

tion oC the boundary-layer edge is good, but the com- 0.04 ~ ,
puted profile is Cuner than the experimental profile. The Exp. ~~i
shear-stress profiles in Fig. 11 show good agreement for 0.03
the outer values, but the near-wan agreement may be 0.02 ,.. 7) ~

poor enough to partly explain the differences in the ve- ~ I

locity profiles. Stress disagreements can of course be 0.01
t--- P
,
compounded by the convection and pressure terms. Cu- 0.00
riously Dr. F. Menter, who was kind enough to test the 0.0000 0.0004 0.0008
r
l--
0.00'2 0.0016
i
0.0020
-
model in his Navier-Stokes code [25], obtained similar
a&reement Cor the stress profiles, but better agreement Figure 11: Shear-stress profile at :r = 3.39m in Samuel-
for the velocity. Joubert flow . T normalized with edge velocity. y in
meters.
The Samuel-Joubert results suggest a mild but gen-
uine tendency to underpredict the shape factor and
thickneMeI in adverse pressure sradients. This may this type of 80w. Neverthl!less, the behavior of the
make the model a little more resilient to separation than new mod~l is not disappointing and vindicates the no-
it would ideally be. The tendency is not as strong as tion that a model calibrated Cor mixing layers, wakes.
with the Cebeci-Smith, Baldwin-Lomax, and IN mod- and zero-gradient boundary layers has a gooa chance in
els, but our comparison with experiment is not quite adverse-gradent boundary layers, which are an inter-
as Sood as that obtained by Menter \II-ith the Johnson- mediate sit'Jation. In addition, an improvement of the
King and Ir-w models [25J. Both models have been dt'<;truction !erm 1"Iay yet be found sufficient to obtain
finely tuned over years. with an emphasis on precisely resuits 011 <i ;"! .... ith the best models.

15
 ~avier-Stokes Calculations '1.4

I --
.. • xperl~t
ptesent~ :
We present three cues or the RAE 2822 airfoil; the '1.2
~ , - - - . a.tdwi".lomu
first two have a sharp trailing edge but shock interac- ~I- L..-" ~ - . - . • .IcIhNon-KJng
I
tiooa or different strengths. and the tbird has a blunt ".0 I -.
trailing edge.
-0.1
r i
\..
Navier-Stoke8 calculations for- Cues 6 and 10 OIl the
RAE 2822 airfoil [26] were performed using the present -0.6
\;\
,
model, &I well u the Baldwin-Lomax and Johnson-King -CI'
turbulence models. The John80n-King results were ob- -0.4
~ i
I

l.r' ~ ~ I ! !
tained Uling the Navier-Stokes code or Swanson [27].
Results for- each model were computed on 384 x 80 and -0.2
V' ~ N
;

768 )( 160 grids to minimize numerieal errors. These

~
,I
grids were generated by the elliptic method of Wig- 0.0
ton r23]. The medium and fine grids contain 257 and / ~ N
' .

513 points on the airfoil. respectively. 0.2

'"
AU calculations for Case 6 were performed at tbe same 0.4 l I
~ .:J,
conditions: M = 0.725. He = 6.5 X 106 • a prescribed 0.0 0.2 0.4
z/c
0.6 0.8 1.0

lift coefficient of Cl = 0.743. and transition trips at

Figure 12: Pressure distribution for Case 6, RAE 2822
3% chord. Results on the 768 x 160 grid are shown in
Figs. 12 and 13. AU models converged solidly on both airfoil.
grids.
0.007,..,..-....---.--,..-....--....----,r-------_
Figure 12 sbows a comparison of surface pretlllures
for- Cue 6 obtained with the three turbulence models - - pteNnt model
- - - • lIaIdwin-L......
and experiment [26]. The shock for- tbe present model _. - .• ..Ic>hrcon-K"'I!
is about 1.5% chord farther forward than in the ex-
periment or- as predicted with the Baldwin-Lomax and 0.005 ,! .:~_
Johnson-King models. but well within the acatter of var- •I ' • . -::'~ ""___-'-- .....

ious models as reported at the Viscous Transonic Airfoil 0.004 TI~j~~_+-·--·~'~~~---~~~-~-~~~--+_~~--"~~

!I
Wor-kshop (VTAW) [6]. The new model is farther from
~ I
the experiment near tbe leading edge on the upper sur- 0.003 +-'---<~_+--+--+---+*_I--_+--+--~__I
!

face. but cloeer to the experiment near the trailing edge C,

on the lower surface. All the calculations reveal small
pressure glitches near the trailing edge. With the new
model on the fine grid. the angle of attack was 2.37°.
the drag coefficient 0.0121. and the moment coefficient
-0.091, compared with 2.9~. 0.0127. and -0.095 in the
experiment, re8pectively.
Figure 13 shows the upper-surface skin-friction coeffi-
cient for the same case. Between the three models there
is a difference or up to 10% upstream of the shock. and
similar but reversed differences downstream of it. The
new model d0e8 not predict wall-shear reversal. The
other two predict reversal at the foot of the shock, but
only on the finest grid (768 x 160). Reversal was never
predieted at the VTAW, where the finest grid used was
369 x 65. It appears that with current codes the simple
qUe8tion of whether reversal occurs is not firmly an-
swered even at grid resolutions that are considered very
fine. At the shock. the new model produces a larger
step up for the boundary-layer thicknesses than with
Baldwin-Lomax, resulting in a mor-e for~'ard position.
Intere8tingly, the size or the displacement effect is not
correlated with the occurrence of reversal at the wall.
-O.OO,+--~-4--L-+---L---<~~-+-~--
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 ' .0
z/c
Figure 13: Skin-friction coefficient on upper surface for
Case 6, RAE 2822 airfoil. C, based on (;at:.
Flow conditions for the RAE 2822 Case 10 are M =
0.75, Re = 6.5 X 106 , a prescribed lift coefficient of
Cl = 0.743, and trips at 3% chord . The new modd
obtained a 8teady solution on the 384 x 80 grid. but
produced a limit cycle on the finer 768 x 160 grid . All
the cyclic variation was in the separation bubble. The
new model also produced a limit cycle on the 384 x 8(1
grid when the artificial dissipation in the ~a\·ier-Stokes
solver ~' as cut in half. Baldwin-Lomax and Johnson-

16
 -'.4

f' ... • .--1 trailing edge. lower surface. All the models fail to agree
with experiment for ric> 0.7. upper surface. The new

,
~' --~_' model predicts a flattening pressure for ric> 0.9. up-
-1.2
+- j ----8eldwi~Lomu

-- ~\
~;.-

~~
. -'-"~King per surface, in qualitative disagreement ..... ith the exper-
-,.0 ~.
\

( -, .... :;' \
,
I
iment. The Johnson-King model has shown the &ame
trend, but not as strongly and only in Coakley's imple-
'- \
mentation (6). The Baldwin-Barth model also produces
-aa
• • • I
~\.\1' the flattening (8) .
-aa This behavior of the C., is corr~lated with that of
I\~,~
-C.,
44

-o.z J
V ~ ~
,. .
the akin-friction coefficient, Fig. 15. Downstream of
"
the shock, the experiment and our Johnson-King re-
IUlta ahow the akin friction returning to .trong posi-
tive values. The flow reattaches firmly. The Baldwin-
0.0 .rJ
V" "\ ~ ••
Lomax results show weakly positive skin friction over
a short stretch. With the new model th~ skin friction
~
,"""'I

G.2

0.4
0.0
,J

I 0.2 0.4 0.6

~

0.1
......... -.'"' " "
gazes zero before again taking moderate negati\'e \'al-
ues. There is no reattachment, and the flattening pres-
~
lUre distribution reflects it. Note that a similar be-
' .0 havior has been observed with algebraic models: if the
:rIc skin friction approaches zero smoothly enough the Van-
Fipr~ 14: Pressure distribution for Case 10, RAE 2822 Driest damping can, erroneously, "shut dO"'n" th~ eddy
airfoiL viscosity across the whole layer. This is not what is
happening here.
0.007 The limit cycle behavior of the new model on the fine

O.CIIII I --prwent~
- - - ' 8eIdwi~.
grid shows an oscillation between slightly negative and
=
slightly positive skin friction near ric 0.8.
~I
-'- " ~King
The apparent failure to reattach is not a favorable

---- .-
0.005 result, and this behavior "'as also observed in another
'. ,~ I
~
f
,I
.1
.'.,: ~ -, I separated case (B. Paul, personal communication). The
0.004
'- . IOlutions show a very 10'" eddy \'iscosity near the wall.
1I
\ :

.\
~ \ I A run with a more diffusive model (i.e .• lower u) that
could have helped the eddy viscosity diffuse towards the
~ , wall failed to show much difference. However we do not
\ ,
0.002
. I believe there is a structural reason for the failure to reat -

0.001
\\ .I
.....
tach, baaed on two tests. The first is a cakulation of
.-
reattachment on our boundary-layer code, modified to
, , a time-developing code; a layer of reversed ftov.· near the
,.
0.000
\\
,- wall was eliminated as could be expected . The second
is an unpublished calculation by Menter of a. separation
~~ -\ bubble; again the skin friction returned to positive ""l-
-0.00'0.0
' .' ues without hesitation. Numerical errors in our current
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 ' .0 Navier-StolEes/turbulence-model solver may be playing
:rIc a role.
Fipre 15: Skin-friction coeflkient on upper surface for
Cue 10. RAE 2822 airfoil. C, based on U"". For Case 10. with the ne",' model on the 384 x 80
gid, the angle of attack was 2.52°. the drag coefficient
0.0238, and the moment coefficient -0.104. compared
, Kin~ produced steady solutions on both gids. Results with 3.19", 0.0242, and -0.106 in the experiment , re-
for Cue 10 ar~ preaented in Fip. 14 and 15 for aU three spectively.
turb~nce models on the 384 x 80 grid .
The blunt-trailing edge airfoil is RAE 2822, truncated
As uaual, Case 10 produces larger differences than at 94% ofthe original chord (hue height 1.14~ chord) .
Cue 6. With our policy of matchin~ the Mach number Our objective is to explore the behavior of the model
and lift coefficient the new model ~ives a better answer and ofthe numerics at corner-induced separation. with
than Baldwin-Lomax, and slightly better than Johnson- high-lift applications in mind . Accordingly we chos~
King (see Fig 14). This is in terms oCahock location Case 1 (29) which is 8ubcritical: !of 0.6i6, Re = =
and pressures near the leading edge. upper surface, and 5.4 x 106 , and lift coefficient CI 0.451 . Calculatiom =
Ii
:I
ylC
~
UminIU.dg.
0.6

0.5
I
I ,

..,..V
V
~
. ,
:

.... 0.4
V
0.3
)'
0.2 •
/
...OIL-_----------------
0.1 II
0.0 1/ i
.. '"" ...~.----.,..,
..- - - - •.o:-,-----:,""
·02::---x-IC--:-'·' -.,:-----:--..,·.. -D.1
1.00
0Y 1.02 1.0<1 1.06 1.08
!
I
i
i
I
1.10
Figure 16: Velocity contours near the trailing edge for zlc
Case 1. blunt RAE 2822 airfoil. Levels: -0.007 (small
Figure 17: Minimum velocity in wake for Case 1, blunt
island), 0., 0.007. .. RAE 2622 airfoil. 0 experiment, - - - 768 x 160 grid,
- - - 384 x 80 grid.
were performed on medium and fine two-block grids.
The fine grid consists of a 768 x 160 C-grid block around
the airfoil and a 128 x 64 block downstream of the blunt
trailing edge. The grid contains 513 points on the airfoil
and 65 points across the blunt base. The medium grid y/c
contains blocks of 384 x 80 and 64 x 32. Results for Case
1 are presented for the fine grid.
Strong convergence was obtained, and solution
glitches are less severe than with the sharp trailing edge.
The angle of attack for Case 1 is 2.035°, the drag coef-
ficient 0.0097, and the moment coefficient -0.061, com-
pared with 2.450 , 0.0098, and -0.060 in the experiment,
103
respectively. Xlc

In another example of slow convergence of the detail
features in the flow. the amplitude of the backflow dou-
bles between the 384 x 80 grid and the 768 x 160 grid.
The region with negative velocities extends a little over
one step hei&bt (i.e., 1.35% on the fine grid, the step be-
ing 1:14% chord) beyond the trailing edge. The report
on the experiment also shows about 1.2 step heights,
but the interpolation is debatable in that the U
line is shown with an apex, probably due to the under-
standable sparsity of the measurements. The region of
reversed flow should not be confused with the displace-
ment body invoked in integral boundary-layer methods,
which tends to be much longer (2.5 to 5 step heights) .
Figure 16 shows velocity contours, with the expected
wedge-shaped region of low velocity. Figure 17 sholl's
the minimum velocity in the wake, which is in fair agree-
ment with the experiment [29]. The computed curve is
shifted by about 0.5% chord downstream. This suggests
Figure 18: Streamlines near the trailing edge for Case
I, blunt RAE 2822 airfoil.
that the model not only gives an accurate growth rate
for a fully-developed wake (per its calibration), but is
also fairly accurate for a "youngfl, asymmetric one. The
0 = wake of a wing, which is combined with a mixing layer.
is stiD s different problem; nevertheless, we expect the
model should also be able to treat it well . ...
Figure 18 shows streamlines (but not equally-spaced
stream-function contours). Their pattern is unexpected.
being rather uymmetric and indicating "reattachment"
of an upper-surface streamline near the mid-point of the
base. There are three half-saddles, one saddle, and two
nodes. This differs from the "educated guess~ made, for
instance, in [30]. That guess assumes that the stream-
lines connected to the three half-saddles meet at the full

18
 O'Olf===:-~~==~~~g::~~~~~~~~~~~§~
:: : eddy
in fig.visc06ity blends
4) into its wakeitsbehavior
boundary-layer behavior
(a bell-shaped (as
distri-
bution). There is little basis to judge its level in the
recirculation region.
Finall)' Fig. 20 shows the pressure distribution. The
agreement is good, especially considering the 0.415' dif-
ference in angle ofattack, except that the calculated Cp
.... is shifted down. This was also observed by Drela for his
numerical method (31). We also ran Case 4 to measure
the Reynold&-number effect. In the experiment, Case 4
had the same angle of attack as Case 1, but a Reynolds
number of only 1.9 x 106 , resulting in a 1066 of 0.036 in
=
C/. We ran Case 4 with imposed C/ 0.415, and the
angle of attack settled at 1.940 • The lift-curve slope is

... L--------:=====
01
about 0.155 per degree. This implies that the C/ I06S
due to the lower Reynolds number is about 0.022. This
is only about 60% of the lift I06S observed in the exper-
iment .

..... .~-~--:~-~-==---=---=-~--:-:
. 1.00 1.0' 1.at XIC 1.04 l.OJ Summary of the results
Figure 19: Eddy-viscosity contours near the trailing
edge for Case 1, blunt RAE 2822 airfoil. We have exercised the model outside its domain of
calibration and with the full Na"ier-Stokes equations.
-1.0 instead of just the boundary-layer equations. Its com-
, ElOP ,I patibility with unstructured grids has yet to be used.
-O.s

-0.11
-
.....
'-,.- o.t.!.:

~
!!!: ~
••
I! !
but there is no need to demonstrate it. In a few cases
with shock-induced separation the new model yielded
a limit cycle, with a pulsation of the bubble. when the
algebraic models yielded steady solutions. Since time-

-o.~ x
"f\ j

I I
accurate solutions Ilfe very expensive, steady solutions
may be greeted as successes whether they are ph~' si­
cally correct or not. Outright divergence ofthe iterative
-Cp
;Y
lY ~
~
'''\ process has never occurred, and the model seems to be

,"
-0.2 ~ reasonably "friendly" to the relaxation process, without
any attention being paid to the initial condition . Thus.
0.0 1I ~ ~
the model appears robust enough to be implemented by
independent users, in a variety of codes and physical

0.2 I ~xl,.J situations, and it should be particularly attractive to

unstructured-grid \lIers.

0.4
'j
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.11
ric
Figure 20: Pressure distribution for Case 1, blunt RAE
2822 airfoil.
• saddle, isolating the two nodes. There is no reason for
such a pattern to occur in the absence of symmetry, and
it is not stable. The saddle and the lower node could also
eliminate each other under other conditions. Streamline
patterns can overstate the importance of regions with
10\\' velocity and little dynamical significance.
Figure 19 shows eddy-viscosity contours. Continu-
ity between the grid blocks, "'hich is hard to achieve
with algebraic models, is of course observed. The
The accuracy 10 rar is consistent with our expecta-
tions. The model's response to grad ual or steep pressure
0.' 1.0 gradients, and to the removal of the blocking effect of
the wall, is encouraging. The post-shnck reattachment
in an adverse pressure gradient has proven to be difficult
for the model. Menter also reported somewhat disap-
pointing results over a backward-facing step. traced to
an excessively-rapid build-up of the shear stress (per-
IOnal communication). This weakness also afHicts the
k-£ model, and may respond to a modification of the
/", function. The quality of our results with the blunt
trailing edge indicate that this problem cannot be very
severe. It appears that the calibration cases are in-
deed representative enough of the flows of interest to
ensure decent performance in non-trivial situations, and
to warrant extensive applications and tests ofthe model
in its present form.

19
 Outlook of order UooR in the recirculation region. A Reynolds
number based on tbat viscosity would be finite, which
The development of the model will nevertheless con- shows that there is no immediate lCaJing argument that
tinue. It will praerve the basic favorable features of can predict whether a steady solution can be stable.
the model: ainpe trauport equation, local formulation, This question must await extensive tests. The pressure
moderate resolution requirements, good numericallta- to produce time-accurate Navier-Stokes codes will only
bility, iD8eDlitivity to the freestream value, ready con- increase, even if the steady-state codes have not reached
trol of trauition. The invariance principles wiII allO be perfection.
upheld. Additional tests will be made, notably in three Even when unsteady solutions of the modeled equa-
dimelllioal. No additional difficulties are anticipated. tions are obtained, their meaning will need scrutiny.
Tests in more Itronpy stimulated Oows such a massive Many of the properties of Reynolds-averaging hold ap-
IeparatioD, wakes in pressure gradients, or free vortices, proximately if there is a separation of scales (i.e., a spec-
are likely to reveal weak_ in the model. They will tral gap) hetween the resolved motions and those that
aIIo aue. the current Navier-Stokea codes, in two re- are left to the turbulence model. We have little evidence
spects. The first .. the detai1accuracy, for instance the in that domain. An example of legitimate decomposi-
cooaervatioo of momentum in boundary layers, which tion would be a mixing layer that wanders on a time
is far from perfect in our experience. This problem haa scale much longer that its internal time scale which, af-
been ot.tructed by the difficulty in computing the thick- ter modeling, is 6/AU (with 6 the thickness, and A(,
nellel6· and IJ in Navier-Stokes codes, but it must now the velocity difference). Note that what we envision
be addreased, if only on a flat plate at low Mach number. here is different from Large-Eddy Simulation. As the
The other aspect is the question of steady solutions grid is refined the model does not change, the way it
in Oows with medium- or large-scale separation. An does in LES (through a narrowing of the filter, so that
classic example is the flow past a circular cylinder; a the limit is direct simulation). The difficulty of LES is
pressing industrial example is the Oow past a staDed the filtering without spectral gap. Instead, v..e converge
airfoil, near its maximum lift coefficient C"mazo. Except to a smooth solution of the modeled equations .
at very low Reynolds number the Oow is unsteady and Some of the near-future directions have been hinted
three-dimensional. On the other hand, provided the ge- at above. There is the choice of S, between the vortic-
ometry is time-independent, it is legitimate to define its ity, the strain rate, or another scalar norm of the de-
time-average and to hope for a code that would com- formation tensor. There is the use of an approximation
pute it as a ateady solution. It is .Iso legitimate to re- of the turbulent kinetic energy Ii: to give the Reynolds-
quest the low-frequency component (i.e., with Strouhal stress tensor a plausible trace (or set of eigen\lllues).
number of order 1) of the solution, particularly the Oue- There is a modification of the /", function in the region
tuating loads for Itructural purposes. The ideal turbu- r > 1, that would alter the results only on adverse pres-
lence would include a Iwitch between these two options. lure gradients. The third modification could be assessed
We do not know, in general, whether the exact solu- in the Samuel-Joubert or airfoil flows, but obvious test
tion of the Navier-Stokes/turbulence-model system in cases for the first two are not at hand.
its pretent form is steady. In the design of some models,
The current model has no compressibilit~· terms. Em-
decisions have been made solely on the basis of a prefer-
pirical terms baaed on the turbulent Mach number, such
ence for the candidate that yielded steady solutions. We
as the one in the Secundov model, or on the quantity
are far from having the capability of routinely perform-
Vp.V;; are available. The former may be calibrated
ing time-accurate calculations to explore the issue. All
in supersonic mixing layers. The latter may assist the
to converge, and the generation of a limit cycle, m.,
the routine calculations aim at Iteady solutions. Failure

a lign that the exact solution is unsteady. It may allo

be
model in shock/boundary-layer interactions if a consis-
tent trend is found that shows an erroneous shock lo-
cation, and we can extricate that trend from numer i-
be just a numerical problem.
cal concerns (e.g., artificial dissipation) and from the
Enviaioo a ateady solution, say past a cylinder. An endIeaa corrections of tranlOnic airfoil testing. In that
aJ«ebraic modelluch as, for instance, Baldwin-Lomax range of density variations it may be enough to write
would be UIed out of its range, but this does not stop ea- the transport equation in terms of p instead of ii. tak- •
ger UIetI. In the recirculating re&ion it would yield eddy ing advantage of the flexibility in placing p inside or
viscosities on the order of U00 R, with U00 the freestream outside various derivatives. This is consistent ",·ith the
velocity and R the cylinder radius. We presume here spirit in which the model was devised. To tJ .:s date.
that the Baldwin-Lomax fmn condition would occur efforts to devise a curvature term with the required in-
in the wake, and not near the wall. A balance be- variance pr(\perties and no d.dependence have failed.
tween production, on one side, and diffusion and de- Note that curvature effects have been obsef\·ed in free
struction, on the other, suggests that the new model shear flows. Three-dimensional effects in boundary lay-
also could produce a IOlution with an eddy vilCOIiity ers (Le., pressure-gradient vector at an angle to the ve·

20
locity vector) are also delicate to introduce even empir- The trip function III is as follows: d, is the distance
ically without violating the in~-ariance principles. No from the field point to the trip. which is on a wall. ,,:, is
plana have been made to depart (rom a acalar eddy vis- the wall vorticity at the trip, and ~U is the difference
c05ity. between the velocity at the field point and that at the
trip. Then" == min(O.I.~U/IoII~Z) where ~.r is th.,
grid spaein, along the wall at the trip. and
Acknowled,ements

The initial work was performed by the first au-

III Cn " exp ( -C,2 = [d + :J%
) .
2
(A6) g~d;]
thor while an employee of NASA Ames Reeearch Cen-
ter. Dr. L. Wilton reviewed the manuscript and ran The constants are Cu = 0.1355, tf 2/3, cn 0.622, = =
lOme 0( the cues. Mr. W. F. NoU8S reviewed the It 0.41. C",l = =
Ctt!lt + (1 + cn)/tf. c .. 2
2
0.3, =
maDUKript. Ms. W. Wilkinson provided some of the Ctl/3 2, Ct.l = 7.1, Cn = = =
1, C,' 2. C'l! = 1.1, Cf4 2.
rue.. We have benefited from comments by Drs. Bald- Turbulent heat tranlfer obeys.a turbulent Prandtl num- =
win. Barth, Birch, Bradabaw, Jou, Menter. Speziale, her (not to be confused witb tf) equal to 0.9.
and Vandromme. Theae comments do not constitute
endonemeata.
References
Appendix; Summary of the Model. Version I
[1] Baldwin, B. S,' &: Lomax, H., "Thin layer approxi-
We solve the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equa- mation and algebraic model for separated turbulent
tiODS and a transport equation (or the turbulence model. flows". AIAA-7S-257.
The ReyncJds atreues are given by -1ijlij = 2VI Sij [2] Cebeci, T ., &: Smitb, A. M. O ....A finite-difference
where Sij :: (lJUi/lJZ j + lJUj/8zi )/2. The eddy vis- method for calculating compressible laminar
c05ity v. is pven by
and turbulent boundary layers~, Journal of Basic
X3 ii Engineering, Vol. 92, No.3, pp. 523-535.
"1 =ii 1,,1. 1~1 =X 3 3'
+C.,1
X:: -.
If
(AI)
[3] Jobnson, D. A., &: King. L. S., "A mathemat-
v is the molecular visc05ity. ii is the working variable ically simple turbulence closure model for at-
and obeys the transport equation tached and separated turbulent boundary layer5~,
AIAA JoUrnal. Vol. 23, No. 11. 1985, pp. 1684-
Dj;
Di =cn [I-I.,] S-_11+;1 [V. «(If + ii)Vii) + cn (Vii) 2] 1692.

[4] Mavriplis, D. J .• "Algebraic Turbulence Modeling

- [C.,tltI/ - :: 112] [~r + In ~U2 (A2) for Unstructured and Adaptive Meshes", AIAA-90-
1653.
Here S is the magnitude of the vorticity,
[5] Launder. B. E .• &: Tselepidakis, D. P., "Direction!!
- ii
S == S + «242 1"2, (A3) in eecond-moment modelling of near-wall turbu-
lence" • AIAA-91-0219.
and d is the distance to the closest wall.
[6] Holst, T. L., "Viscous transonic airfoil workshop.
The function I., is Compendium of results". AIAA-S7-1460.
1+ I ] 1/' -
[ +)3
I.,=.? , ,=,,+cw,(,,6_,,). ,,:.....!--.
S,,2d2
[7] Viegas. J. R., Rubesin, M. W., &: Horstman, C.
tl/3 C., "On tbe use of wall functions as boundary con-
(A4) ditions for tw~dimensional separated compressible
For wse " I. reaches a cooatant, so lar,e values of " ROWIS", AIAA-85-OISO.
can be truncated to 10 or so.
The wall boundary condition is if = o. In the [S] Baldwin, B. S., &: Bartb. T. J .• "A one-equation
freestream 0 is beat. provided numerical errors do not turbulence traoaport model for high Reynolds num·
push ;; to negative values near the edge of the bound- her wall-bounded flows". AJAA-9I-061O.
ary layer (the exact solution can't go negative) . Values
below ,,/10 will be acceptable. The Ame applies to the [9] Bradshaw. P.• Ferriss. D. H., &: Atwell . N. P..
initial condition. The /12 function is "Calculation of boundary-layer de\'e1opment us·
ing the turbulent energy equation", J. fluid ~' t'ch .
1,2 =C,3 exp(-Cr4 :.\'). (A5) Vol. 2S, 3, 1967, pp. 593-616.

21
 [10] Nee, V. W., &: Kovuznay, L. S. G., "Simple phe- [24] Samuel, A. E., &: Joubert, P. N. "A boundar~'layer
nomenological theory of turbulent ahear flows", developing in an increasingly ad\'erse pressure gra-
Physics of Fluids, Vol, 12, No.3, 1969, pp. 473- dient", J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 66, 3, 19i4, pp. 4$1-
484. 505.
..j
[11] Secundov, Smirnova, Koclov, &: Gulyaev, "One- [25] Menter, F. R., "Performance of popular turbulence
equation eddy vileosity model (modified L, S. J. models for attached and separated adverse pressure
Kovumay model)". Short aummary of the equa- gradient flows", AIAA-91-1784.
tioaa. Personal communication, 1990.
[26] Cook, P. H., McDonald, M. A., &: Firmin, M.
[12] MitcJaeltree, R. A., Salas, M. D., &: Husan, H. A., C. P., "Aerofoil RAE 2822 - Pressure distri-
"One-equation turbulence model for transonic air- butions, and boundary layer and wake measure-
foil lows", AlAA Journal, Vol. 28. No.9, 1990, pp. ments", AGARD-AR-138, 1979.
1625-1632. [27] Swanson, R. C., &: Turkel. E., "Artificial Dissipa-
[13J Bradshaw, P., Launder, B. E., &: Lumley, J. tion and Central Difference Schemes for the Eu-
L., "Collaborative teating of turbulence models", ler and Navier-Stokes Equations", AIAA-Si-llOi,
AlAA-91-0215. 1987.
[28] Wigton, L. B., "High Quality Grid Generation Us-
[14] Wilcox, D. C., "Reassessment of the scale-
ing Laplacian Sweeps", Fourth International Sym-
determining equation for advanced turbulence
posium on Computational Fluid Dynamics, U .C.
models", AIAA Journal, Vol. 26, No. 11, 1988, pp.
Da\'is.Sep. 1991, pp. 1222-1228.
1299-1310.
[29] Cook, P. H., &: McDonald, M. A., "Wind tun-
[15] Spataft, P. R., "Direct simulation of a turbulent nel measurements in the boundary layer and wake
=
boundary layer up to R, 1410", J. Fluid Mech .. of 6.n airfoil with a blunt base at high subsonic
Vol. 187, 1988, pp. 61-98. speeds", RAE Tech. Rept. 84002. 1984.
[16] Baldwin, B. S., &: Barth, T. J., "A one-equation [30J Henne, P. A., &: Gregg, R. D., "A new airfoil design
turbulence transport model for high Reynolds num- concept", AIAA-89-2201-CP
ber waIl-bounded flows", NASA TM 102847, 1990.
[31] Orela, M., "Integral boundary layer formulation for
[171 Townsend, A. A. The structure of turbulent shear blunt trailing edges", AIAA-89-2200.
flow. Cambridge University Press, New York, 1976.

[18] Schlichting, H. Boundary-layer theory. McGraw-

Hill, New York, 1979.
[19] Hunt, J. C. R. "Turbulence structure in ther-
mal convection and shear-free boundary layers".
J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 138, 1984, pp. 161-184.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[23] Shih, T. I.-P., &: Chyu, W. J., "Approximate Fac-

torisation with Source Terms" , AIAA Journal, Vol.
29, No. 10, October 1991, pp. 1759-1760.

22