Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Detached-Eddy Simulation
Detached-Eddy Simulation
Detached-Eddy Simulation
Philippe R. Spalart
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Seattle, Washington 98124; email: philippe.r.spalart@boeing.com
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
181
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
a b
Figure 1
(a) Vorticity isosurfaces colored with pressure over an F-15 jet at a 65◦ angle of attack (Forsythe et al. 2004). Figure courtesy of
J. Forsythe. (b) Acoustic-source isosurface around a Ford Ka automobile (es turbo 3.1) (Mendonça et al. 2002). Figure courtesy of F.
Mendonça and Ford Motor Co.
1. BASICS
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
Figure 1 illustrates the nature of detached-eddy simulation (DES). The aircraft geometry is
complete (except for detailed surface and propulsion effects); the simulation is at flight Reynolds
number; the large-eddy simulation (LES) content (resolved turbulence) in the separated region
is rich; and the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) function plays a role on the aircraft’s
nose. Furthermore, the forces and moments are accurate to within 6% (Forsythe et al. 2004).
This approach must still be considered experimental as a prediction method, and the accuracy
benefits from the thin edges on the wing; there is no marginal separation to challenge the model.
In addition, grid refinement does not indicate grid independence on the smaller components, such
as the tail surfaces.
The automobile geometry is also complete, a feat of the grid generator and solver rather
than of DES (Mendonça et al. 2002). The two regions of the DES are especially well visualized:
steady attached boundary layers and striking LES content around the wheels and the important A
pillar and outside mirror. The drag is dependent on the separation line near the end of the roof,
and the accuracy of the RANS model matters. At the same time, the LES function is indispensable
to predict the aerodynamic noise and in fact the drag. These two studies reflect the broad diffusion
of DES.
182 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
LES since 1997, and RANS is simply necessary for the large extent of thin boundary layers (the
thicker parts are discussed below).
The objection to pure RANS is not as limpid because it arises from a negative assessment of
models and the relentless attempts to build into them first-principle content and rational ideas. In
this view, RANS models can be adjusted to predict boundary layers and their separation well, but
not large separation regions, whether behind a sphere or past buildings, vehicles, in cavities, and
so on. Observers are hopeful for a new perspective that could erase this objection soon. However,
since 1997, researchers have tended to shift their effort from RANS to LES and hybrid methods.
A second motivation for DES over RANS appears in situations that, even if RANS were accurate,
would need unsteady information for engineering purposes (e.g., vibration and noise).
The original reasons to believe in DES can also be revisited. The original version of DES, which
we refer to as DES97 here, was defined as “a three-dimensional unsteady numerical solution using
a single turbulence model, which functions as a subgrid-scale model in regions where the grid
density is fine enough for a large-eddy simulation, and as a Reynolds-averaged model in regions
where it is not” (Travin et al. 2000a). A working definition is that the boundary layer is treated
by RANS, and regions of massive separation are treated with LES; the space between these areas,
known as the gray area, may be problematic unless the separation is abrupt, often fixed by the
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
geometry. A single model, with a RANS origin but sensitized to grid spacing via a DES limiter,
provides the desired function in both the RANS and LES limits. The mixing length then can be
limited by two constraints: the wall distance and the grid spacing. When neither constraint is felt,
the model follows its own natural RANS history; this is the case for free shear flows when they
have a grid too coarse to use LES for that particular layer.
The capability of LES in free shear flows is not in question, which does not imply that any
geometry has allowed grid convergence. Few groups have conducted grid refinement, with at
best a factor of 2 in each direction, except in homogeneous turbulence. There is only consensus
that finer grids improve the physics and that grid refinement, away from walls, has not created
bad surprises. Refinement reduces the eddy viscosity, and a plausible view of LES is that the eddy
viscosity is an error, of order 4/3 in the Kolmogorov situation. Reducing also reduces numerical
errors because the cutoff is further down the spectrum, and velocity scales like 1/3 .
RANS development has been static, as almost all the models used in DES date back to 1992.
In a natural DES, with RANS function extending to the separation line, perfection cannot be
reached, and grid refinement brings no improvement beyond the accuracy barrier of the model.
The computing cost of the RANS region is easily manageable, as expected, and the principal
difficulty may be to generate grids that cover all of the boundary layer well in terms of thickness.
Initially, the Spalart-Allmaras model was used, but DES now draws on several other models
(Strelets 2001) (see Section 4.1).
The gray area drew complaints as soon as 2000 in an application to an overexpanded nozzle,
although there were none for DES’s first application, which was to a thin airfoil, in 1999 (Shur
et al. 1999). Surprisingly, users quickly encountered grid spacings that disturbed the RANS model
(see Section 3.2). This motivated a relatively deep change in its formulation with shielded DES
and delayed DES (Menter & Kuntz 2002, Spalart et al. 2006) as the DES length-scale limiter now
depends on the solution, rather than on the grid only. Nonetheless, these methods are aimed at
better fulfilling the original mission of DES.
NRV365-FL41-11
ARI
184
Spalart
12 November 2008
14:57
f
c
e
a
d
b
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
simulation of flow past a circular cylinder and similar cases. The situation is not as simple as
it appeared in 1997. It was then considered obvious that unsteady RANS (URANS) solutions
suppressed three-dimensionality over two-dimensional (2D) geometries, and it had been found
that drag and lift fluctuations were overpredicted by URANS, although the shedding frequency
was accurate. The term URANS here means running an unmodified (grid-insensitive) transport-
equation turbulence model, in unsteady mode and with periodic spanwise conditions. Recent
findings have revealed that under fairly general conditions, these simulations in fact sustain three-
dimensionality and are more accurate than 2D URANS (Shur et al. 2005a). Figure 2 illustrates
the classic steady RANS (an unstable solution) and 2D URANS and includes the newer 3D
URANS. The three-dimensionality is much coarser than in DES and does not become finer
on a finer grid, which it does in DES. URANS largely suppresses three-dimensionality, but
not completely. Shur et al. (2005a) also cite and demonstrate “a troublesome sensitivity to the
spanwise period and to the turbulence model,” making 3D URANS with standard models a
weak contender for this simulation. There is no evidence that the lateral length scales in the 3D
URANS field are physical. Besides the cylinder, these authors treated an airfoil and a rounded
square.
Nishino et al. (2008) present a thorough URANS and DES study of a cylinder near a wall,
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
which strongly supports the idea that URANS, even if 3D, is less accurate than DES and (when
applicable) LES. More effective RANS models could be devised. Still, URANS is vulnerable to
the criticism that its partial differential equations are known, but the (Reynolds?) averaging it
actually represents is not known, in the absence of a spectral gap. A somewhat similar challenge
can be directed at DES, a point to which we return.
In spite of its failings, there are reasons to be familiar with URANS. First, some researchers do
believe in its capabilities and would dispute our conclusions from Figure 2. Second, in a complex
geometry, sometimes the DES grid and time step only allow, effectively, URANS near the smaller
components. Examples include the wiper blade on a car and the active-flow-control slot on an
aircraft (Spalart et al. 2003). It is desirable for hybrid methods to handle such situations gracefully,
even with the knowledge that the geometric detail ideally would be granted LES content on its
length scales and timescales through a finer grid and a shorter time step.
Figure 2 also vividly illustrates the response of DES to grid refinement in its LES region.
Finally, it confirms that DES solutions with different base RANS models are not sensitive to
model choice in the LES region (as opposed to the RANS region, particularly if separation occurs).
This has been verified quantitatively in many cases (e.g., a backward-facing step) and is a valuable
feature. The boundary layers being laminar, Figure 2 does not reflect DES’s value in treating
turbulent boundary layers in a manner LES cannot, but subsequent figures do.
2. STRENGTHS
This section aims to verify the soundness of DES quantitatively in the important respects of
comparison with experiment and response to grid refinement.
←−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−
Figure 2
Vorticity isosurfaces by a circular cylinder: Re D = 5 × 104 , laminar separation. Experimental drag
coefficient Cd = 1.15–1.25. (a) Shear-stress transport (SST) turbulence model steady Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS), Cd = 0.78; (b) SST 2D unsteady RANS, Cd = 1.73; (c) SST 3D unsteady RANS,
Cd = 1.24; (d ) Spalart-Allmaras (SA) detached-eddy simulation (DES), coarse grid, Cd = 1.16; (e) SA DES,
fine grid, Cd = 1.26; ( f ) SST DES, fine grid, Cd = 1.28. Figure courtesy of A. Travin.
0.4
G2 (2.7 M cells)
0.2
0.1
G1 (1.2 M cells)
0
0 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00
X/c
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
Figure 3
(a) Flow visualizations and (b) resolved turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) for a sharp-edged delta wing at a 27◦ angle of attack, chord
Reynolds number 1.56 × 106 (Morton 2003). Figure courtesy of S. Morton.
186 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
b 1.00
c
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
0.5
0.50
y/D
Re = 1.1 × 106 0
0.00
Cp
–0.5
–0.50 Re = 105
0 1 2
–1.00 x/D
–1.50
0 30 60 90 120 150 180
θ
Figure 4
Simple bluff bodies. (a) Flow visualizations and (b) pressure distributions for a sphere. Re = 105 and 1.1 × 106 . Open circles and
diamonds denote experiments, whereas the dotted and dashed lines denote detached-eddy simulation (DES) on two grids. Panels a and
b courtesy of K. Squires. (c) Phase-averaged vorticity contours for a cylinder. Color gradations denote DES conducted by Mockett et al.
(2008), and the solid line denotes experiments by the same authors.
RANS model could reproduce the dimple effect accurately, and this will require direct numerical
simulation (DNS), at least of the dimple flow proper.
This is part of a general challenge stemming from the range of scales in fluid mechanics.
Compared with DNS, LES addresses the Kolmogorov viscous scale limitation, and wall modeling
addresses the similar viscous-sublayer scale. In its RANS mode, DES in addition addresses the
boundary-layer eddies of all sizes. These eddies are numerous and fairly universal. However, if
they become dependent on geometry, be it on the shape of a wiper blade or that of a dimple, LES
treatment of their scales becomes necessary for high accuracy so that many problems, in particular
active flow control, simply exceed even current grids in excess of 108 points.
Travin et al.’s (2000a) circular-cylinder study similarly included laminar- and turbulent-
separation cases and a surprise-free grid-refinement study, which added confidence after Shur
et al.’s (1999) initial thin-airfoil work. Figure 4c compares DES and experiment behind a
circular cylinder (Mockett & Thiele 2007); the DES visualizations are close to those shown in
Figure 2e, f. The agreement on the phase-averaged flow pattern is excellent.
2.2. Applications
DES has been applied often with good results to cavities over a range of Mach numbers (Allen et al.
2005, Hamed et al. 2003, Langtry & Spalart 2007, Mendonça et al. 2003, Shieh & Morris 2001),
ground vehicles (Kapadia et al. 2003, Maddox et al. 2004, Roy et al. 2004, Spalart & Squires
2004, Sreenivas et al. 2006), a simplified landing-gear truck (Hedges et al. 2002), active flow
control by suction/blowing (Krishnan et al. 2004, Spalart et al. 2003), space launchers (Deck &
Thorigny 2007, Forsythe et al. 2002), vibrating cylinders with strakes (Constantinides & Oakley
2006), cavitation in jets (Edge et al. 2006), buildings (Wilson et al. 2006), air inlets (Trapier
et al. 2008), aircraft in a spin (Forsythe et al. 2006), high-lift devices (Cummings et al. 2004),
jet-fighter tail buffet (Morton et al. 2004), and wing-wall junctions (Fu et al. 2007). Peng &
Haase (2008) report on many promising applications at various stages of maturity: wing high-lift
systems, helicopters, combustors, and afterbodies. Chalot et al. (2007) reveal a vigorous line of
work in another aircraft company, Dassault. Slimon (2003) obtained positive results with (zonal)
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
DES in a turn-around duct; DES did much better than RANS with simple models, however, which
may not be expected to capture curvature effects. Publications aimed at educating users and code
writers have, appropriately, focused on grid generation (Spalart 2001) and on thorough testing of
the codes (Bunge et al. 2007, Squires 2004). The terminology Euler region, RANS region, focus
region, and departure region, introduced by Spalart, may be of help. Grid adaptation in DES and
LES is a future challenge.
Another promising direction is taken by Mockett et al. (2008) and Greschner et al. (2008):
aerodynamic noise. Such studies will contribute both to interior noise in vehicles and aircraft
and to community noise (airframe noise to the airline industry). We note above the industrial
importance of the turbulence adjacent to the driver’s window (Figure 1b). Mockett et al. (2008)
studied the flow in the slat cove of an airfoil in landing configuration; the visualization with
density gradient in Figure 5a vividly reveals much fine-scale turbulence and sound. Actual sound
predictions are not included.
Greschner et al. (2008) provide sound predictions for the flow past a cylinder, placed ahead
of an airfoil so that its turbulent wake impinges on it (see Figure 5b). At low Mach numbers,
this impingement, which causes wall-pressure fluctuations, is the dominant noise mechanism.
Various Ffowcs-Williams-Hawkings surfaces are used to extract far-field noise. Flow visualizations
resemble those in Figure 2, without as fine a level of resolution. This case is more onerous
because the turbulence needs to be carried all the way to the airfoil, 10 diameters downstream;
the focus region is much larger. Figure 5c compares the sound spectrum with experiment. An
adjustment was made in the vertical direction: In 2D geometries, there is an unsolved problem
when comparing an experiment of finite length (with some end conditions) to a simulation with
periodic boundary conditions, invariably quite narrow (in contrast, no adjustment was needed for
the spectra inside the turbulence region). Once this correction is accepted, the agreement on the
shape of the spectrum, over five octaves, is quite amazing.
Figure 6 (Chauvet et al. 2007) is of interest for two reasons. First, the LES-content development
in the mixing layer is nearly immediate, which is positive, although it may be excessively 2D (see
Section 3.4). Second, the simulation is simultaneously free enough of numerical dissipation to
welcome LES content and robust enough to capture shocks. This result has also been achieved by
Shur et al. (2006) in jets and by Ziefle & Kleiser (2008) in a supersonic channel with hills. These
188 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
Δ
a | p'|
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
b Y
X
Z
c 100
80
Experiment
PSD (dB)
60
DES + FWH
40
20
θ = 90°
0
10–1 100
St = f × D/u∞
Figure 5
Complex bluff bodies. (a) Schlieren picture near a slat. Panel a courtesy of C. Mockett. (b) Vorticity
isosurfaces for a rod-cylinder case. (c) Far-field spectrum. PSD, power spectral density. Panels b and c
courtesy of B. Greschner.
a 1 b1
y/D
0 0
–1 –1
1 2 3 0 1 2 3
X/D X/D
Figure 6
(a) Experimental schlieren (view through flow) and (b) numerical schlieren (contours in center plane) for a
supersonic jet. Figure taken from Chauvet et al. 2007.
studies remove the concern that LES might be barred from supersonic flows, therefore widening
the range expected for DES, given a powerful numerical method.
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
3. WEAKNESSES
190 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
A separate line of critical thought regards the use of the grid spacing in the model. In LES,
of course has been standard, although it has been proposed to dissociate the filter size and grid
spacing. With RANS-LES hybrids, it has even been proposed to dispose with any length scale
of the nature of a filter width or grid scale. This led to scale-adaptive simulation (SAS). Menter
et al. (2003) use an SAS model that appears to have a pure RANS nature but achieves LES
behavior unlike any traditional RANS model. For instance, visualizations over a cylinder look just
like those in Figure 2e, f. Menter et al.’s (2003) model differs from traditional ones in its use of a
higher derivative of the velocity field, which is highly active on short scales. Travin et al.’s (2004)
turbulence-resolving RANS approach has similar features but uses the ratio of strain to vorticity
rather than a high derivative.
Besides a philosophical interest in the true nature of turbulence models, the SAS and
turbulence-resolving RANS work is motivated by the disruptive effects of in DES with ambigu-
ous grids (see Section 3.2). This stimulating controversy is not over. It echoes the one in RANS
modeling over the use of the wall distance [as in the Spalart-Allmaras and shear-stress transport
(SST) models]. Wall distance can be expensive to calculate and has unphysical effects (e.g., with
a thin wire); however, the sustained wide use of these two models suggests that it is manageable
and has a substantial accuracy payoff. Equally active are controversies over the definition of in
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
noncubic grid cells (see Section 4.4). Nonuniqueness issues are most intense with delayed DES
(DDES), as discussed in Section 3.2 and Section 4.3, because even the RANS or LES nature of
the solution is in some cases dependent on initial or inflow conditions.
Finally, the issue of an order of accuracy is clear; careful users are justified in asking for one
because it is, in principle, a key step in CFD quality control; this is related to the desire for
monotonic grid convergence. A typical observation after analyzing a grid-refinement study even
in a simple geometry is the honest but vague statement that the findings are “suggesting a certain
degree of grid convergence” (Nishino et al. 2008).
An order of accuracy has not even been proposed for a simulation using both modes within
DES. In a pure LES, this order exists but depends on the quantity in question, for instance, the
resolved or total turbulent kinetic energy or the dissipation. WMLES does not deal with this
problem much better than DES does. Recent efforts at organizing the quality control of CFD in
the RANS field, in which the differential equation does not depend on the grid, would be defeated
by precisely this dependence in LES and DES.
Whether in DNS, LES, or DES, the difficulty in demonstrating grid convergence is com-
pounded by the residual variations owing to finite time samples; some flows have severe modu-
lations and drift. Figure 7 uses Travin et al.’s (2000a) LS1 cylinder case; the simulation covered
a generous 40 cycles of shedding, after an initial transient. The time-averaged drag coefficient
is 1.083 over the first half of the sample, but 1.033 over the second half; the lift excursions are
also noticeably less intense over the second half. Although the sample is sufficient to capture the
modulations of the lift signal, the drag’s drift is not mastered to better than several percent and
went unnoticed at the time. There is no theory that would extrapolate to infinite sample length.
As a result, searching for grid convergence to 1%, for example, is not possible.
a Instantaneous
b 1.30
Instantaneous
0.6
1.25
0.4 Time-averaged
1.20
0.2
1.15
Cd, Cd
Cι, Cι
0
1.10 Time-averaged
–0.2
1.05
–0.4
1.00
–0.6
0.95
0 40 80 120 160 200 0 40 80 120 160 200
tU/D tU/D
Figure 7
Instantaneous (solid line) and time-averaged (dashed line) values of force coefficients on a cylinder: (a) lift and
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
third level matches the needs of LES in the outer layer and thus of the extended use of DES as
a wall model (see Section 3.3): The grid spacing in all directions is much smaller than δ. The
second level is the troublesome one: small enough for the eddy viscosity to be affected by the DES
limiter but not small enough to support accurate LES content (slow LES development adds to
this difficulty; see Section 3.4). Spalart et al. (2006) coined the term MSD, well after the issue was
detected by S. Deck (personal communication) and by Menter & Kuntz (2002), who pointed out
a consequence of MSD called grid-induced separation (GIS).
Created only one year after Shur et al. (1999) fully defined DES, Figure 8b is an early example
of gradual grid refinement degrading a solution that was rather good when the RANS model was
fully active (S. Deck, personal communication; see also Caruelle & Ducros 2003). Separation in
a nozzle is premature and induces unsteadiness. DES users promptly explored the effects of grid
spacing and sought high accuracy, with disturbing outcomes.
Figure 9 is a visualization of GIS, this time on an airfoil (Menter & Kuntz 2002). Whereas
the RANS solution is steady and quite accurate, even in this case of incipient separation, the DES
solution suffers from early separation. It also is unsteady, but in a shedding mode rather than in
a sound turbulence-resolving mode. The flow field then obeys the URANS equations, but with a
model that has become grid dependent in an obscure and unintended manner.
Menter & Kuntz (2002) proposed a solution applicable to the SST model called shielding, in
which the DES limiter is disabled as long as the flow is recognized as a boundary layer, using
the SST F2 function. Spalart et al. (2006) introduced DDES, which is applicable to most models.
Either modification successfully prevents GIS by extending the RANS region, exploiting a history
effect. Secondary effects are covered in Section 4.3.
192 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
1.0
a
y/δ
0.5
0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
x/δ
1.0 1.0
y/δ
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
x/δ x/δ
0.05
b
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
0.04
0.03
DES computation PR40
0.02
SA-URANS
computation PR40
0.01
LEA steady experimental
data PR41.3
0
0 10 20
X/rt
Figure 8
(a) Types of grids in boundary layers. The dashed line represents the velocity profile. (b) Pressure
distribution in a supersonic nozzle. Figure courtesy of S. Deck. DES, detached-eddy simulation; LEA,
Laboratoire d’Etudes Aérodynamiques; SA-URANS, Spalart-Allmaras unsteady RANS.
Nikitin et al. (2000) attempted. The results were not perfect, but the study was successful in key
respects. The model was robust, with no need for averaging or danger of negative values. LES
content was sustained even with coarse grids, because = h/10 in most runs, where h is the
half-width of the channel. Very high Reynolds numbers were reached at little additional cost.
Figure 10a illustrates the response of Nikitin et al.’s method to Reynolds number and grid
spacing. An increase in Reynolds number on a fixed grid (same but refinement in y to retain a
first y + near 1) lengthens the modeled part of the profile, which blends into the modeled log layer
( y + roughly from 70 to 700). Grid refinement, conversely, lengthens the resolved-turbulence part
of the profile, which blends into the resolved log layer ( y + roughly from 3000 to 15,000). The
Reynolds shear stress comprises modeled stress and resolved stress, which trade places as the grid
is varied (Figure 10b).
a b
0
Velocity
–5.00
–10.00
Figure 9
Vorticity contours over an airfoil: (a) Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes and (b) detached-eddy simulation.
Arrows indicate separation. Figure taken from Menter & Kuntz 2002.
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
The imperfection is that the two log layers are misaligned, by almost three wall units of velocity
U + . The probability that this log-layer mismatch would be zero was nil because this study used
the pure DES97 model, adjusted for other purposes. (The study was also marked by deliberate
constraints, such as equal grid spacing in the wall-parallel directions, to ensure the findings would
translate into practice.) All other wall-modeling approaches have required adjustments to align
their log layers. Nikitin et al. (2000) mentioned the ensuing error of the order of 15% for the
skin-friction coefficient but did not mention that the slope dU/d y is too high by 65% at y = .
Locally, this is highly inaccurate. In addition, grid refinement merely moves the same amount of
mismatch closer to the wall. This is different from MSD in a near-RANS boundary layer, which
1.0
40 a b
35 0.8
30
0.6
25
U+
τ+
20 0.4
15
0.2
10
5 0
101 102 103 104 105 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
y+ y/h
Figure 10
Channel-flow, wall-modeled large-eddy simulation. (a) Velocity: Reτ = 2000 and 20,000. Each profile is
shifted by five U + units. The lower two curves use approximately 140,000 grid points, and the upper curve
uses approximately 1,000,000 points. The dashed line represents the log law. (b) Modeled and resolved shear
stress: coarser grid (dashed line) and finer grid (solid line). Reτ = 20,000. Figure adapted from Nikitin et al.
2000.
194 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
a b
1 1
0 0
y
y
–1 –1
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
x x
Figure 11
Vorticity in a jet: (a) standard detached-eddy simulation and (b) implicit large-eddy simulation, eddy viscosity disabled. Figure courtesy
of M. Shur.
becomes more severe as the grid is refined. Follow-on work by Piomelli and his group also showed
that the near-wall solution has poor LES content. The practical advantages of wall modeling by
DES, and the understanding that in practice thick wall-bounded layers lead to LES grids in the
sense of Figure 8a, motivate efforts to resolve log-layer mismatch (Piomelli & Balaras 2002,
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
4. RECENT PROPOSALS
196 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
Nonuniqueness, however, is not unknown in RANS practice. Some flows, such as airfoils
near maximum lift, have hysteresis both in real-world situations and in CFD. More striking is
the behavior of models in the tripless mode (Travin et al. 2000a), which is an essential tool for
capturing the drag crisis of smooth bluff bodies. The mature solution depends on the level of the
turbulence variables in the initial field.
which of course reduces , but its physical justification is thin. Chauvet et al.’s (2007) length scale
≡ Nx2 yz + Ny2 xz + Nz2 xy, where N is the unit vector aligned with vorticity, is
aimed at the situation in which the vorticity is closely aligned with one of the grid lines.
The debate is whether promoting the 2D Kelvin-Helmholtz instability, knowing that the true
switch to 3D turbulence occurs only once the mixing-layer thickness has caught up with the lateral
grid spacing, is far superior to letting the mixing layer thicken in the RANS mode. For instance, the
RANS mode creates no sound, but the near-2D LES mode could create too much. The reduced
length scales have an advantage over the implicit LES approach shown in Figure 11 as they are
not zonal and can reverse to the normal scale when the grid is not strongly anisotropic.
5. NUMERICAL REQUIREMENTS
DES codes need qualities that are absent in many RANS codes and others that are absent in many
LES codes. Considering the filiation of the model, it is more common to start from a RANS code.
These codes often have placed a high priority on convergence to a steady state, complex-geometry
compatibility, and shock capturing. The unsteady capability, with resolution of high frequencies
and short waves, has been neglected, and the other demands all benefit from numerical dissipation.
As a result, an extensive testing campaign and modifications to reduce dispersion, dissipation, and
time-integration errors are key (Caruelle & Ducros 2003, Mockett & Thiele 2007, Strelets 2001,
Temmerman & Hirsch 2008). The most effective schemes are structured and hybrid, not only
in their treatment of turbulence, but also in their numerics. The differencing scheme is centered
(nondissipative) or nearly so in the LES region and is more strongly upwind in the Euler and RANS
regions. This hybridization was introduced by Travin et al. (2000b) and is now widely used (e.g.,
Mockett & Thiele 2007). Conversely, the code used in Figure 1a is unstructured and uniformly
based on second-order upwind differencing, but it displays generous LES content. Therefore, it
is best to avoid blanket statements.
If the starting code is an LES code, common obstacles include the limitation to simple geome-
tries, without implicit time integration or multiblock capabilities, let alone unstructured grids.
The addition of a transport-equation turbulence model is not trivial, and few codes have shock-
capturing capability (Hou & Mahesh 2004). The priority was given to high orders of accuracy.
6. OUTLOOK
It is certain that DES has a future and therefore deserves a critique. Greschner et al. (2008)
deem that “DES is still in its infancy and undergoes continuing improvements.” Under one name
or another, a form of a RANS-LES hybrid that is capable of full RANS function in boundary
layers will be in use for the foreseeable future in many industries. It will also remain conceptually
difficult, and efforts toward more predictable behavior under grid variations and better wall-
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
modeling performance will continue. LES-content creation in attached flows will flourish, and
the numerical quality of the codes will receive sustained attention. A clear need in practice is to
organize and facilitate grid generation and to set guidelines for systematic refinement. Programs
such as DESider and focused workshops will be most beneficial to the progress of DES and other
hybrids (Peng & Haase 2008).
An unfortunate trend is that models have moved away from the simplicity of DES97 in terms
of the equations and nonuniqueness of solutions (in DDES and IDDES) and in terms of the user
decision load and need to mark regions (in ZDES). Users by now have identified situations in
which DES gives too little eddy viscosity and others in which it gives too much. Even in DES97,
large steps in the grid spacing can be used to steer the solution toward one mode or the other,
so that grid design can become involved, especially now that the dangers of ambiguous grids are
known. What may be an ideal of CFD, namely that grid refinement will do no harm (in other
words, be monotonic) and follow a known power of the grid size, will remain elusive in DES and
LES (without explicit filtering), except in the simplest of flows.
There are signs that a productive DES user community has formed. We must recognize,
however, a school of thought that considers DES to be a somewhat unsafe activity.
Owing to space limitations, this review does not discuss hybrid RANS-LES methods besides
DES and SAS (e.g., limited numerical scales, very large eddy simulation, flow simulation method-
ology, nonlinear disturbance equations, extra-large eddy simulation, lattice Boltzmann method,
transient RANS, partially averaged Navier-Stokes, semideterministic method, organized eddy
simulation, partially integrated transport model, and the self-adapting model) (some are found in
Sagaut et al. 2006; Frölich & von Terzi 2008). I do not believe that any of these methods provides
a clear remedy to the difficulties discussed here, but this could change in the future. The principal
concerns are GIS and in general the potentially poor knowledge of the nature of the simulation in
each region of a complex flow: driven URANS, spontaneous URANS, or LES. This nature can
change under grid refinement and become ambiguous, and therefore it is not the case that any
grid refinement improves the solution. The nominally universal character of DES makes these
observers justifiably dubious that a sufficiently error-proof approach results, or that the user com-
munity is being properly informed. Such comments are encountered more often in conversations
and anonymous reviews than in publications. It does not detract from their value, and the task
of resolving them is an inspiring one. Locally ambiguous grids may be a permanent feature of
198 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
practical DES. One might ask, is it justified to simulate the flow past a car, when the wiper and
door handle are not well resolved? The answer depends on the purpose of the simulation.
FUTURE ISSUES
1. The numerical resolution over relevant geometries needs improvement, ultimately with
grid adaptation.
2. The link between the DES flow field and the exact or DNS flow field should be estab-
lished.
3. The choice between zonal and nonzonal treatments of the turbulence needs to be ad-
dressed.
4. The generation of resolved turbulence in attached boundary layers needs to become
routine and efficient.
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any biases that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this
review.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am grateful to Drs. Allmaras, Deck, Mockett, Strelets, Shur, and Travin for their comments on
this manuscript and their partnership over the years.
LITERATURE CITED
Allen R, Mendonça F, Kirkham D. 2005. RANS and DES turbulence model predictions of noise on the M219
cavity at M = 0.85. Int. J. Aeroacoust. 4:135–51
Breuer M, Jovicić N, Mazaev K. 2003. Comparison of DES, RANS and LES for the separated flow around a
flat plate at high incidence. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 41:357–88
Brunet V, Deck SF. 2008. Zonal-detached eddy simulation of transonic buffet on a civil aircraft type config-
uration. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 182–91
Bunge U, Mockett C, Thiele F. 2007. Guidelines for implementing detached-eddy simulation using different
models. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 11:376–85
Caruelle B, Ducros F. 2003. Detached-eddy simulations of attached and detached boundary layers. Int. J. CFD
17:433–51
Chalot F, Levasseur V, Mallet M, Petit G, Reau N. 2007. LES and DES simulations for aircraft design. Presented
at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 45th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2007-0723
Chauvet N, Deck S, Jacquin L. 2007. Zonal detached eddy simulation of a controlled propulsive jet. AIAA J.
45:2458–73
Constantinescu GS, Pacheco R, Squires KD. 2002. Detached-eddy simulation of flow over a sphere. Presented at
AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 40th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2002-0425
Constantinides Y, Oakley OH. 2006. Numerical prediction of bare and straked cylinder VIV. Proc. 25th Int.
Conf. Offshore Mech. Artic Eng., Pap. No. OMAE2006-92334. New York: ASME Int.
Cummings RM, Morton SA, Forsythe JR. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation of slat and flap aerodynamics for a
high-lift wing. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 42nd, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2004-1233
Deck S. 2005. Zonal detached-eddy simulation of the flow around a high-lift configuration with deployed slat
and flap. AIAA J. 43:2372–84
Deck S, Thorigny P. 2007. Unsteadiness of an axisymmetric separating-reattaching flow. Phys. Fluids 19:065103
Edge BA, Trujillo MF, Paterson EG. 2006. Modeling of cavitation inception in high-Reynolds number circular
jets using detached-eddy simulation. Proc. 26th Symp. Naval Hydrodyn., Rome
Egorov Y, Menter F. 2008. Development and application of SST-SAS turbulence model in the DESider
project. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 261–70
Forsythe JR, Hoffmann KA, Squires KD. 2002. Detached-eddy simulation with compressibility corrections applied
to a supersonic axisymmetric base flow. Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 40th, Reno, Pap. No.
AIAA-2002-0586
Forsythe JR, Strang WZ, Squires KD. 2006. Six degree of freedom computation of the F-15E entering a spin.
Presented at AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Meet. Exhib., 44th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2006-0858
Forsythe JR, Squires KD, Wurtzler E, Spalart PR. 2004. Detached-eddy simulation of the F-15E at
First application to a full
high alpha. J. Aircraft 41:193–200
aircraft in a stall, with
Frölich J, von Terzi D. 2008. Hybrid LES/RANS methods for the simulation of turbulent flows. Prog. Aerosp.
good agreement.
Sci. 44:349–77
Fu S, Xiao Z, Chen H, Zhang Y, Huang J. 2007. Simulation of wing-body junction flows with hybrid
RANS/LES methods. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 28:1379–90
Greschner B, Jacob MC, Casalino D, Thiele F. 2008. Prediction of sound generated by a rod-airfoil configu-
ration using EASM DES and the generalised Lighthill/FW-H analogy. Comp. Fluids 37:402–13
Hamed A, Basu D, Das K. 2003. Detached eddy simulation of supersonic flow over cavity. Presented at AIAA Aerosp.
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
200 Spalart
NRV365-FL41-11 ARI 12 November 2008 14:57
Morton SA, Cummings RM, Kholodar DB. 2004. High resolution turbulence treatment of F/A-18 tail buffet.
Presented at AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Struct. Struct. Dyn. Mater. Conf., 45th, Palm Springs,
Calif., Pap. No. AIAA-2004-1676
Nikitin NV, Nicoud F, Wasistho B, Squires KD, Spalart PR. 2000. An approach to wall modeling in
Concise exploration of
large-eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 12:1629–32
DES for wall modeling
Nishino T, Roberts GT, Zhang X. 2008. Unsteady RANS and detached-eddy simulations of flow around a
inside LES.
circular cylinder in ground effect. J. Fluids Struct. 24:18–33
Peng SH, Haase W, eds. 2008. Advances in Hybrid RANS-LES Modelling. Berlin: Springer
Presents a wide
Piomelli U, Balaras E. 2002. Wall-layer models for large-eddy simulations. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 34:349–74
collection of recent
Rogallo R, Moin P. 1984. Numerical simulation of turbulent flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 16:99–137
work on DES and other
Roy CJ, Brown JC, DeChant LJ, Barone MF. 2004. Unsteady turbulent flow simulations of the base of a generic hybrid approaches (but
tractor/trailer. Presented at AIAA Fluid Dyn. Conf. Exhib., 34th, Portland, Pap. No. AIAA-2004-2255 not all).
Sagaut P, Deck S, Terracol M. 2006. Multiscale and Multiresolution Approaches to Turbulence. London: Imp. Coll.
Press
Shieh CM, Morris PJ. 2001. Comparison of two- and three-dimensional cavity flows. Presented at AIAA Aerosp.
Sci. Meet. Exhib., 39th, Reno, Pap. No. AIAA-2001-0511
Shur ML, Spalart PR, Squires KD, Strelets M, Travin A. 2005a. Three-dimensionality in unsteady Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes simulations of two-dimensional geometries. AIAA J. 43:1230–42
Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh. 2005b. Noise prediction for increasingly complex jets. Part I: methods
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
Temmerman L, Hirsch Ch. 2008. Towards a successful implementation of DES strategies in industrial RANS
solvers. See Peng & Haase 2008, pp. 232–41
Trapier S, Deck S, Duveau P. 2008. Delayed detached-eddy simulation and analysis of supersonic inlet buzz.
AIAA J. 46:118–31
Travin A, Shur M, Strelets M, Spalart PR. 2000a. Detached-eddy simulations past a circular cylinder.
First DES with grid
Flow Turbul. Combust. 63:293–313
refinement, fair
agreement on the drag
Travin A, Shur M, Strelets M, Spalart PR. 2000b. Physical and numerical upgrades in the detached-eddy
crisis, and refined simulation of complex turbulent flows. In Advances in LES of Complex Flows, ed. R Friedrich, W Rodi,
definition of DES in pp. 239–54. New York: Kluwer Acad.
appendix. Travin AK, Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh. 2004. On URANS solutions with LES-like behaviour. Presented
at Eur. Cong. Comput. Methods Appl. Sci. Eng., Jyväskylä, Finland
Travin AK, Shur ML, Spalart PR, Strelets MKh. 2006. Improvement of Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation for
LES with wall modelling. Presented at Eur. Conf. CFD, ECCOMAS CDF 2006. Delft, Neth.
Wilcox DC. 1998. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. La Cañada, CA: DCW Ind.
Wilson RP, Haupt SE, Peltier LJ, Kunz RF. 2006. Detached Eddy Simulation of a surface mounted cube at
high Reynolds number. Proc. ASME Joint U.S. Eur. Fluids Eng. Summer Meet. New York: ASME Int.
Yan J, Tawackolian K, Michel U, Thiele F. 2007. Computation of jet noise using a hybrid approach. Presented at
AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoust. Conf., 13th, Pap. No. AIAA-2007-3621
Ziefle J, Kleiser L. 2008. Compressibility effects on turbulent separated flow in streamwise-periodic hill
by Brown University on 01/14/13. For personal use only.
202 Spalart
R365-FM ARI 12 November 2008 17:57
Annual Review of
Von Kármán’s Work: The Later Years (1952 to 1963) and Legacy
S.S. Penner, F.A. Williams, P.A. Libby, and S. Nemat-Nasser p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Optimal Vortex Formation as a Unifying Principle
in Biological Propulsion
John O. Dabiri p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17
Uncertainty Quantification and Polynomial Chaos Techniques
in Computational Fluid Dynamics
Habib N. Najm p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p35
Fluid Dynamic Mechanism Responsible for Breaking the Left-Right
Symmetry of the Human Body: The Nodal Flow
Nobutaka Hirokawa, Yasushi Okada, and Yosuke Tanaka p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p53
The Hydrodynamics of Chemical Cues Among Aquatic Organisms
D.R. Webster and M.J. Weissburg p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p73
Hemodynamics of Cerebral Aneurysms
Daniel M. Sforza, Christopher M. Putman, and Juan Raul Cebral p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p91
The 3D Navier-Stokes Problem
Charles R. Doering p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 109
Boger Fluids
David F. James p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 129
Laboratory Modeling of Geophysical Vortices
G.J.F. van Heijst and H.J.H. Clercx p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 143
Study of High–Reynolds Number Isotropic Turbulence by Direct
Numerical Simulation
Takashi Ishihara, Toshiyuki Gotoh, and Yukio Kaneda p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 165
Detached-Eddy Simulation
Philippe R. Spalart p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 181
Morphodynamics of Tidal Inlet Systems
H.E. de Swart and J.T.F. Zimmerman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 203
v
R365-FM ARI 12 November 2008 17:57
Indexes
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics articles may be found
at http://fluid.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml
vi Contents