Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)

Chungen Yin
Ph.D., Associate Professor

Email: chy@et.aau.dk
Phone: 99409279 / 30622577
Office: Pontoppidanstræde 111, Room 1.130

Among The World’s 100,000 Top-Scientists across All Fields, according to the Career-Long Citation Impact (Stanford Univ, 2020)

1/23
Textbook
• Versteeg, H.K.; Malalasekera, W. “An introduction to computational fluid dynamics – The finite volume method (2nd
edition)”. Pearson Education Limited, 2007 (ISBN 978-0-13-127498-3)

Evaluation
• Individual, mini-project-based oral exam. Please pick up one of the two assignments in the last two slides of Lecture
1 as your mini-project and submit the report no later than 15/Nov, as a group or individually. (more than welcome to
do both the assignments if you like – but not mandatory)
• No "Problems" section in the end of each chapter in the book. No quick number-in & number-out calculation for CFD;
always time consuming to reproduce the examples in the book from scratch. Less feasible to have 2h-exercise for
each lecture  Instead, 2h Q&A session after each lecture & a mini-project for the entire CFD course planned.

Course plan
• Lecture 1/6: CFD overview; Meshing fundamentals and Grid convergence index (GCI) analysis
• Lecture 2/6: Finite volume method (FVM) for diffusion-source problems and convection-diffusion problems
• Lecture 3/6: Finite volume method (FVM) for convection-diffusion problems (continued)
• Lecture 4/6: FVM for the complete general transport equation (transient convection-diffusion-source)
• Lecture 5/6: FVM for a system of coupled general transport equations (Navier-Stokes equations for laminar flows)
• Lecture 6/6: Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence modeling for turbulent flows
2/23
 Lecture 6/6

RANS (Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes) turbulence modeling

• Boussinesq approach; Eddy Viscosity models

• Near-wall flow physics; Near-wall modeling methods

Objectives:
 To understand Boussinesq approach for RANS modeling and the key Eddy Viscosity models
 To understand the key near-wall flow physics and the main near-wall modeling methods 3/23
 Problem: Turbulent flow in a 2D backward facing step
▫ Equations still closed? Wall impacts?

Top wall

10.16
Inlet Air flow: 𝜌𝜌 = 1.18 kg/m3; 𝜇𝜇 = 1.85 × 10−5 kg/(m·s) 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝐻𝐻 = 2.7 × 105 (turbulent) Outlet

Inlet y
bottom
wall
x Bottom wall (All the walls: aluminum, 𝜌𝜌 = 2719 kg/m3)
h=1.27 Step wall

5.08 50.8 all in [cm]

Ref: D. Driver, and H. Seegmiller. “Features of reattaching turbulent shear layer in divergent channel flow“. AIAA Journal
1985; 23: 163-171. (Experimental data available, e.g., x-directional wall shear stress along the bottom wall)

∂ρ ∂ρ u j
+ =0
∂t ∂x j p, ui (i = 1, 2 for 2D)
∂ ( ρ ui ) ∂ ( ρ ui u j ) ∂p ∂  ∂ui  (Suffix notation)
+ =− + µ 
∂t ∂x j 
∂xi ∂x j  ∂x j 

4/23
 Turbulence: Different simulation methods
Energy Containing Range: Large Universal Equilibrium Range: small isotropic eddies adapt quickly to maintain
anisotropic eddies dynamic equilibrium with energy transfer rate imposed by large eddies;
statistics of small-scale motions have a universal form.
Injection
of energy Dissipation of
energy

The smallest-scale
Large-scale Flux of energy (Energy cascade) (dissipating) eddies
eddies
l 𝑘𝑘 3/2 ℓ𝟎𝟎 η =𝜂𝜂 l/Re 3 ⁄ 1/4
= (𝜈𝜈L3/4𝜀𝜀)
ℓ0 ≈ ℓ𝑬𝑬𝑬𝑬 ≈
𝜀𝜀 𝟔𝟔
Resolved DNS Δt: lifetime of
11/4
the smallest
(DNS = Direct Numerical Simulation, CPU ~ 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑡𝑡 ) ∆𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷𝐷 ≤ 𝜂𝜂4 eddies

LES Δt: lifetime of

Resolved Modeled
the resolved
(LES = Large Eddy Simulation) ∆𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 < ℓ6𝟎𝟎 (~𝟏𝟏𝟏𝟏
ℓ𝟎𝟎
) eddies

Resolved Modeled RANS Δt: by global

unsteadiness
∆𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 (RANS: only the mean flow is resolved)
5/23
 RANS (1/2): Turbulent stresses & Boussinesq approach
▫ Substitute 𝑈𝑈 + 𝑢𝑢′ & 𝑝𝑝 + 𝑝𝑝′ into instantaneous Navier-Stokes equations, then perform time averaging

∂(𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 + 𝑢𝑢′ 𝑖𝑖 ) 𝜕𝜕(𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 + 𝑢𝑢′ 𝑖𝑖 ) ∂(𝑝𝑝 + 𝑝𝑝′ ) ∂ ∂(𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 + 𝑢𝑢′ 𝑖𝑖 ) 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 (𝑥𝑥, ⃗ 𝑡𝑡) + 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ (𝑥𝑥,
⃗ 𝑡𝑡) = 𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 (𝑥𝑥, ⃗ 𝑡𝑡)
𝜌𝜌 ′
+ (𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 + 𝑢𝑢 𝑗𝑗 ) =− + 𝜇𝜇
∂𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 ∂𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 ∂𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 ∂𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 Instantaneous Mean Fluctuation

� = 𝑋𝑋; 𝑥𝑥�′ = 0; 𝑥𝑥 ′ 𝑌𝑌 = 0; 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 = 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋; 𝑥𝑥𝑥𝑥 = 𝑋𝑋𝑋𝑋 + 𝑥𝑥 ′ 𝑦𝑦 ′ ; 𝑥𝑥 ′ 𝑦𝑦 ′ ≠ 0, …

Basic rules: If 𝑥𝑥 = 𝑋𝑋 + 𝑥𝑥 ′ , 𝑦𝑦 = 𝑌𝑌 + 𝑦𝑦 ′ , then 𝑋𝑋

▫ Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations:

𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑝𝑝 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕 −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ Turbulent / Reynolds stresses [Pa or N/m2]
𝜌𝜌 + 𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 =− + 𝜇𝜇 +
𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 New terms to be modeled to close the equations!

Viscous / Laminar stresses Turbulent / Reynolds stresses

Analogy method
𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗
𝜏𝜏𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 = 𝜏𝜏𝑗𝑗𝑖𝑖 = 𝜇𝜇 + Boussinesq (1877) −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ = 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 +
𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖
𝜇𝜇 : Molecular viscosity 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 : Eddy (turbulent) viscosity
6/23
 RANS (2/2): Eddy Viscosity Models - Overview
𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑝𝑝 𝜕𝜕 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕 −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡
𝜌𝜌 + 𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 =− + 𝜇𝜇 + −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ = 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 + 𝜈𝜈𝑡𝑡 ≡ � [m2/s]
∝ 𝑉𝑉ℓ
𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝜌𝜌

𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 = 𝜌𝜌 𝑓𝑓𝜈𝜈1 𝜈𝜈̃ Spalart-Allmaras model: solve 1 extra transport eq. for 𝜈𝜈̃ . • All are isotropic eddy -
viscosity model.
• specially developed for aerospace industry; NOT calibrated for general industrial flows

• Realizable k-ε & SST k-ω:

𝑘𝑘 2 k-ε models (Standard vs. RNG vs. Realizable): solve 2 extra
𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 = 𝜌𝜌 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 Recommended for
𝜀𝜀 transport equations for k and ε. Then 𝑉𝑉� = 𝑘𝑘1/2 , ℓ = 𝑘𝑘 3/2 ⁄𝜀𝜀. ‘standard’ cases.
• high-Re model; need to be modified to resolve the near-wall region;
• need Two-layer zone wall treatment to capture correct viscous sublayer behavior.
• When anisotropy of
turbulence greatly affects
𝑘𝑘 k-ω models (Standard vs. SST): solve 2 extra transport the mean flow, consider
𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 = 𝜌𝜌 𝛼𝛼 ∗
𝜔𝜔 equations for k and ω. Then 𝑉𝑉� = 𝑘𝑘1/2 , ℓ = 𝑘𝑘1/2 ⁄𝜔𝜔. Reynolds Stress Model
 can be used in the near-wall region without modification: designed to predict correct behavior (which solves transport
when integrated to the wall. equations for −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ ).
 switch between a viscous sublayer formulation at low y+ values and a wall function at higher y+.

7/23
 Standard k-ε model
▫ 𝑘𝑘 −eq.: derived by multiplying the instantaneous NS equations by 𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ , & performing time-averaging

𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝑘𝑘) 𝜕𝜕 (𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 𝑘𝑘� 𝜕𝜕 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑘𝑘 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈𝑖𝑖

+ = 𝜇𝜇 + + ( 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝑆𝑆 2 − 𝜌𝜌𝜀𝜀 ) 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝑆𝑆 2 = −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ = 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 +
𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑖𝑖 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗

Transient + Convection Molecular diffusion (exact) + Production Dissipation 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝜕𝜕𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′

𝜌𝜌𝜀𝜀 = 𝜇𝜇
(exact) Turbulent diffusion (modeled): (modeled) (modeled) 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗
redistribute k in shear layer

▫ 𝜀𝜀 −eq.: formulated by analogy with the 𝑘𝑘 −equation, multiplying each term by 𝜀𝜀/𝑘𝑘

𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 ) 𝜕𝜕 (𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 𝜀𝜀 � 𝜕𝜕 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝜀𝜀 𝜀𝜀

+ = 𝜇𝜇 + + 𝐶𝐶ε1 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝑆𝑆 2 − 𝐶𝐶ε2 𝜌𝜌 𝜀𝜀 𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘 = 1.0, 𝜎𝜎𝜀𝜀 = 1.3, 𝐶𝐶𝜀𝜀1 = 1.44, 𝐶𝐶𝜀𝜀2 = 1.92
𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎𝜀𝜀 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝑘𝑘
𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 = 0.09

𝑘𝑘 2 (from benchmark exp. of simple air / water flows)

𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 = 𝜌𝜌 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇
𝜀𝜀

▫ Widely used; Well-known weaknesses (e.g., overly diffusive for many flows, difficult to integrate to
the wall through the viscous sublayer, limited ability to predict important flow characteristics, …)
8/23
 Realizable k-ε model
▫ Realizable 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 : Outperform the standard 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 ; Modifications to the standard 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 marked in Red.

• k-equation is same as that of the standard & RNG k-ε!

𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝑘𝑘) 𝜕𝜕 (𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 𝑘𝑘� 𝜕𝜕 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑘𝑘 Modulus of mean

+ = 𝜇𝜇 + + (𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝑆𝑆 2 − 𝜌𝜌𝜀𝜀) S = 2 Sij Sij rate-of-strain tensor
𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎𝑘𝑘 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗

• New ε-equation: based on transport equation for mean-square vorticity fluctuation.

𝜕𝜕(𝜌𝜌𝜌𝜌 ) 𝜕𝜕 (𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 𝜀𝜀 � 𝜕𝜕 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝜀𝜀 𝜌𝜌𝜀𝜀 2  η  k

+ = 𝜇𝜇 + + 𝐶𝐶1 𝑆𝑆𝜌𝜌 𝜀𝜀 − 𝐶𝐶2 C1 = max 0.43,  , η = S , C2 = 1.0
𝜕𝜕𝑡𝑡 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝜎𝜎𝜀𝜀 𝜕𝜕𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗 𝑘𝑘 + 𝜈𝜈 𝜀𝜀  η +5 ε

• New formulation for μt: Cμ is not a constant of 0.09 and it varies as a function of mean velocity field.

𝑘𝑘 2 1 Sij S jk S ki
𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 = 𝜌𝜌 � 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 = A0 = 4.04, As = 2.45 cos φ , φ = 13 cos −1 (2.45W ), W =
𝜀𝜀 𝐴𝐴0 +𝐴𝐴𝑠𝑠 𝑈𝑈 ∗ 𝑘𝑘⁄𝜀𝜀 Sij Sij
*
U ≡ Sij Sij + Ω ij Ω ij

9/23
 SST k-ω model (1/2)
▫ Background of Menter’s Shear Stress Transport (SST) k-ω: many people have noted that

• The Wilcox k-ω: overly sensitive to the free-stream (BC) value of ω. k-ε model: not prone to such a problem

• The Wilcox k-ω: performs much better than k-ε models for boundary layer flows

• Most 2-eq models (incl. k-ε) over-predict turbulent stresses in the wake (velocity-defect) region  poor
performance of the models for boundary layers under adverse pressure gradient and separated flows.

▫ Menter’s SST k-ω model: (1) Zonal Blended k-ω/k-ε equations to combine their advantages; (2)
Clipping of 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 to assure −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ stays within what is dictated by the structural similarity constant.

k-ω model converted from the standard k-ε model via Outer layer
change-of-variable, 𝜀𝜀 = 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝑘𝑘 𝜔𝜔 (wake and outward)

k-ω model taken from the Wilcox standard k-ω model Inner layer
with some constants modified (sublayer, log-law layer)
Wall
10/23
 SST k-ω model (2/2)
▫ Blending F1[Eq]inner+(1-F1)[Eq]outer: for a smooth transition when moving away from the wall

∂ ( ρ k ) ∂ ( ρU j k ) ∂  µ  ∂k  φ = F1φ1 (inner ) + (1 − F1 )φ 2 (outer )

  µ + t  + ( µt S − ρ Cµ kω )
2
+ = 
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σk  ∂x j  ϕ = σ k , σ ω , Cω1 , Cω 2
∂ ( ρ ω ) ∂ ( ρU jω ) ∂  µ  ∂ω   ω 2 2 ρ ∂k ∂ω F1=1 (the inner layer)
  µ + t  +  Cω1 µt S − Cω 2 ρω  + (1 − F1 )
2
+ = 
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σω  ∂x j   k  σ ω ω ∂x j ∂x j F10 (the outer layer)

𝑦𝑦
Smooth
transition
in 𝑘𝑘 & 𝜔𝜔

▫ Clipping of 𝝁𝝁𝒕𝒕 for inner layer

k a1k 
µ t = ρ min ,  With the clipping, −𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝑖𝑖′ 𝑢𝑢𝑗𝑗′ correctly limited to what is implied by the structural similarity constant 𝑎𝑎1 .
ω ΩF2 
11/23
 Near-wall flow: Boundary layer structure

𝑈𝑈0
Freestream

Range of applicability of
k-ε and RSM models
Edge of Boundary Layer (BL)

Outer layer

𝑈𝑈0
𝛿𝛿 Log-layer (fully-
turbulent region) Inner
layer
𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 𝑈𝑈 Buffer layer (transition)
𝑦𝑦
Low-Re
models
Sub-layer (laminar)

▫ Walls affect the mean velocity via no-slip condition: Very close to the wall, viscous damping reduces
tangential velocity fluctuation; kinematic blocking reduces normal fluctuations.

▫ Walls are main source of vorticity and turbulence

12/23
 Near-wall flow physics

+
𝑈𝑈 𝑢𝑢+ = 2.5 ln 𝑦𝑦 + + 5.45
𝑢𝑢 ≡
𝑢𝑢𝜏𝜏

Edge of Boundary Layer (BL)

𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 Inner layer Outer layer
𝑈𝑈0

𝑈𝑈 Edge of inner & outer layer

depends on Re number!
Log-layer (fully
turbulent region) e.g., the upper limit of 𝑦𝑦 +
of the log-layer can be:
Log-law holds ONLY • 𝑦𝑦 + <~150 (Re=104-106)
Buffer layer
(or blending for equilibrium flow • thousands (Re=107-108)
𝑦𝑦 Laminar sub-layer
region) (𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑/𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 0)

𝑦𝑦 + ≅ 6 𝑦𝑦 + ≅ 30 𝑦𝑦 + ≅? ? 𝑦𝑦 + ≅? ? ln(𝑦𝑦 + )
𝜌𝜌𝑢𝑢𝜏𝜏 𝑦𝑦
𝑦𝑦 + =
𝑢𝑢𝜏𝜏 = 𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 /𝜌𝜌 𝜇𝜇

• 𝑘𝑘 dissipation • 𝑘𝑘 production~dissipation Dependent on 𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈∞ 𝑥𝑥

>> production “Turbulent equilibrium” mean flow 𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅 =
𝜇𝜇
• Viscous forces rule, • Log-law applies
𝑈𝑈 = 𝑓𝑓(𝜌𝜌, 𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 , 𝜇𝜇, 𝑦𝑦)
13/23
 Near-wall modeling options
▫ Use Wall-Functions method

Turbulent core
• Use empirical formula that impose suitable conditions near the
wall, without resolving the viscosity affected region.
• The rest of the boundary layer still needs to be resolved.
• The first grid point placed in log-law region: difficult to achieve
Buffer &
in meshing especially when Reynolds number is relatively low. sub-layer

▫ Use 𝑦𝑦 + −Insensitive Wall Treatment method

• Transport equations are integrated across the viscous sub-layer

Turbulent core
(down to y+≈1). No assumption about the near-wall variation of
velocity.
• In 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 models, additional damping functions are used, or (more
commonly) a two-layer zone formulation is used.
Buffer &
• In 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜔𝜔 models, damping is achieved through analytical solution sub-layer

for 𝜔𝜔 in the Inner Layer.

14/23
 Standard Wall Functions (1/2)
▫ The goal of any wall function is to compute the Wall Shear Stress 𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 , which is required to close the
discretization of the governing equation on the wall-adjacent cells (𝑖𝑖 = 1).

1/4 1/2
𝑦𝑦 ∗ = 𝜌𝜌𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝑘𝑘𝑃𝑃 𝑦𝑦𝑃𝑃 /𝜇𝜇 into log-law 𝑢𝑢,∗ = 2.5 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 𝑦𝑦 ∗ + 5.45 to get 𝑢𝑢 ∗

1/4 1/2
𝜌𝜌𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝑘𝑘𝑃𝑃
For wall-adjacent cells: calculate wall shear stress 𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 = ,
𝑢𝑢∗
𝑖𝑖 = 2
𝜕𝜕𝑈𝑈 𝜏𝜏
𝑤𝑤
and extra 𝑘𝑘 production 𝐺𝐺𝑘𝑘 = 𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 = 𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 1/4 1/2 .
𝜕𝜕𝑦𝑦 0.42𝜌𝜌𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝑘𝑘𝑃𝑃 𝑦𝑦𝑃𝑃
𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃
𝑖𝑖 = 1
𝑦𝑦𝑃𝑃 (𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 − 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙)
𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 For wall-adjacent cells: the discretized momentum & 𝑘𝑘 equations
are modified by adding the above 𝜏𝜏𝑤𝑤 & 𝐺𝐺𝑘𝑘 as new source terms (for
𝑘𝑘 − equation, also with 𝛻𝛻𝑘𝑘 � 𝐧𝐧|𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 = 0).
3/4 3/2
𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝑘𝑘𝑃𝑃
For wall-adjacent cells, 𝜀𝜀 −equation is not solved: 𝜀𝜀𝑃𝑃 = ,
0.42𝑦𝑦𝑃𝑃
calculated algebraically from Turbulent Equilibrium.

15/23
 Standard Wall Functions (2/2)
▫ Problem: The wall-adjacent cell-centers need to be placed in the log-layer, which is difficult to
achieve in meshing, especially at low- or moderate-Re (the thickness of the log-layer is small).

▫ Major problem “fine-grid errors”: For standard wall functions, the solution deteriorates under mesh
refinement, since the first cell-centers move into the viscous sublayer while the log-law is still used.

▫ This behavior is not acceptable for any numerical method, since grid refinement is expected to lead
to an asymptotic solution. With standard wall functions, users get “punished” for mesh refinement.
 “Scalable wall functions”: an attempt to avoid this kind of fine-grid errors by introducing a limiter
𝑦𝑦 ∗ = max(𝑦𝑦 ∗ , 11.225) in order to force the usage of log-law. No problem with mesh refinement.

▫ In general, use of wall functions is not recommended.

16/23
 𝑦𝑦 + −insensitive wall treatment
▫ To achieve a formulation which is less sensitive to wall resolution, a blending is often performed:

• Blending sub- & log-layer 𝑢𝑢 + −profiles, which leads to independence of wall shear stresses from 𝑦𝑦 + ;

• For 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 models: the two-layer zone wall treatment (also know as Enhanced Wall Treatment) is preferred.

• For 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜔𝜔 models: analytical solutions for 𝜔𝜔 in sub-& log-layer, and the 𝜔𝜔 from 𝜔𝜔 –eq. outwards are blended.

• For large 𝑦𝑦 + , the solution is only reasonably 𝑦𝑦 + −insensitive when there are still enough cells in boundary layer.

Plotting EVR with mesh on top shows

𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡
the number of cells in the BL. EVR = indicates the boundary layer (BL),
𝜇𝜇
as it has maximum in the middle of the BL. In
viscous sub-layer, EVR < 1.
𝑎𝑎 𝑦𝑦 + 4
Γ=−
1 + 𝑏𝑏 𝑦𝑦 +
BL often requires a minimum resolution for
accurate results, e.g., 𝑁𝑁𝑦𝑦 = 5 − 10 for
“most” industrial flows.

17/23
 𝑦𝑦 + −insensitive wall treatment: for 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 models
▫ Two-layer zone wall treatment, also known as “Enhanced Wall Treatment (EWT)”

• Turbulence equations: (1) In turbulent core zone, 𝑘𝑘 & 𝜀𝜀 solved

𝑘𝑘 2
normally; 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 = 𝜌𝜌𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 as normal. (2) In viscosity-affected zone,
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑦𝑦 = 𝜌𝜌 𝑘𝑘𝑦𝑦𝑃𝑃 /𝜇𝜇 ≥ 200 𝜀𝜀
the same 𝑘𝑘 −equation solved; ε calculated algebraically from
3⁄4
Mixing Length, 𝜀𝜀 = 𝑘𝑘 3⁄2 ⁄ ℓ𝜀𝜀 , where ℓ𝜀𝜀 = 𝑦𝑦 ⋅ 𝜅𝜅 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 ⋅ 1 − 𝑒𝑒 −Re𝑦𝑦 ⁄𝐴𝐴𝜀𝜀 ;
𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑅𝑦𝑦 < 200
) 𝜇𝜇𝑡𝑡 = 𝜌𝜌 𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝑦𝑦 𝑘𝑘, also different from the turbulent core.

• Momentum equations with a blended sub- & log-layer 𝑢𝑢+ -profile

Turbulent core region

𝜀𝜀𝑃𝑃 : from PDE ε EWT = λε ε outer + (1 − λε ) ε inner µ t ,EWT = λε ( µ t ) outer + (1 − λε ) ( µ t ) inner

Viscosity-affected region ∆ Re y
3/2
𝜀𝜀𝑃𝑃 = 𝑘𝑘𝑃𝑃 �ℓ𝜀𝜀 Blending 1  Re y − 200 
λ = 1 + tanh   A=
function: ε
2   A  artanh (0.98)
 
Wall
18/23
 𝑦𝑦 + −insensitive wall treatment: for 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜔𝜔 models
▫ Also known as “Automatic Wall Treatment” for 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜔𝜔 based models (No need for two-layer zone
formulation or for complex low-Re terms, as done for 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 models)

▫ Analytical solutions for 𝜔𝜔 exist in sub- and log-layer, which is ideal for 𝑦𝑦 + -insensitive blending. 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜔𝜔
models provide “elliptic blending” for 𝜔𝜔 calculated in different ways.

𝑦𝑦
𝜔𝜔 = numerically solved from the Transport Equation in the Outer Layer & Freestream

Turbulent core
𝑢𝑢𝜏𝜏
in log−layer
𝐶𝐶𝜇𝜇 𝜅𝜅 𝑦𝑦
𝜔𝜔 = 6𝜈𝜈 6𝜈𝜈
Buffer & in laminar sub−layer → as 𝑦𝑦 → 0
sub-layer 𝐶𝐶𝜔𝜔𝜔 𝑦𝑦 2 𝐶𝐶𝜔𝜔𝜔 𝑦𝑦 2

▫ Very attractive near-wall model: better than all other models equations.

19/23
 Wall Functions vs. 𝑦𝑦 + −insensitive Wall Treatment
Wall Functions 𝑦𝑦 + −insensitive Wall Treatment
Standard Wall Functions:  Most consistent wall treatment
• First cells to be in the log-layer: difficult to achieve  Boundary layer can be resolved and mesh
• For low/moderate Re numbers, no enough resolution in independence can be achieved
the boundary layer, compromising accuracy
 On fine meshes, all parts of the boundary layer is
• “Fine-grid errors”: Deteriorate under mesh refinement! accounted for

Scalable Wall Functions:  On coarse meshes, revert back to wall functions

• To force the usage of log-law in conjunction with standard  “Automatic Wall Treatment” for 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜔𝜔 based models
wall functions, by introducing 𝑦𝑦 ∗ = max(𝑦𝑦 ∗ , 11.225).
 Two-layer zone wall treatment (also known as
• Avoid deterioration under mesh refinement. Boundary
“Enhanced Wall Treatment”) for 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 models
layer can be resolved; mesh independence is doable.
• Ignore thickness of sub-layer on fine meshes. Identical to
standard wall functions for coarse meshes (𝑦𝑦 ∗ ≥ 11.225).

ALL wall functions: Problematic if Pr number significantly

deviates from 1, in case with heat transfer
20/23
 Turbulent flow in 2D backward facing step: Mesh
▫ Turbulent flow in a 2D backward facing step: 21,750 cells, intended for resolving the viscous
sublayer with fine near-wall mesh of y+≈1

Flow separates at the step & re-attaches some distance downstream

21/23
 Turbulent flow in 2D backward facing step: Plot results
▫ CFD vs. Experimental: Impacts of turbulence models and inlet BCs

3
7
Wall shear stress-x [Pa]

2 6
1 5
4
0 Exp (Driver & Seegmiller, 1985)

Y+
SST_profile-inletBC 3
-1 RKE_profile-inletBC
SST_profile-inletVel_uniform-inletTurb 2
RKE_profile-inletVel_uniform-inletTurb
-2 SST_uniform-inletBC 1
RKE_uniform-inletBC
-3 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 0 0.127 0.254 0.381 0.508
Dimensionless x-pos on bottom wall, x/hstep
Position on bottom wall from step wall, x [m]

 Use of realistic, non-uniform velocity and turbulence

inlet Boundary Conditions (BC) greatly improve the
agreement between CFD and Experiment.
 Both realizable 𝑘𝑘 − 𝜀𝜀 (RKE) and SST k-ω work fine
here. The latter shows slight improvement.
 Not a formal validation study: (1) Mesh is not as
fine as expected (reduce y+ on the bottom wall to
~1); (2) Mesh independence must be addressed.
22/23
 RANS turbulence modeling – A checklist of key issues
▫ Calculate Re number and check whether the flow is turbulent or not.

▫ Decide on a near-wall meshing and modeling strategy.

• Choice depends on your problem & computational resources, e.g., (1) if focus on heat transfer/force on a
wall or flow separation on a wall, then a fine near-wall mesh is a must (y + ~1); (2) if focus on mixing/reaction
in the center zone of a large reactor, then a coarse near-wall mesh is acceptable (Ny = 5 − 10 ).

▫ Choose a suitable turbulent model (to reduce model uncertainty) and near wall treatment method.

• SST k-ω and Realizable k-ε models are recommended choices for “standard” cases.
• SST k-ω is preferred for cases where the sublayer needs to be resolved (e.g., flow separation, heat
transfer from/to walls, forces on walls).

• 𝒚𝒚+ −insensitive wall treatment is recommended over wall functions.

▫ Define reasonable boundary conditions for the turbulence model variables.

23/23