Consistency, Verification, and Validation of Turbulence Models for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Applications

In current practice, it is often difficult to draw firm conclusions about turbulence model accuracy when performing multi-code CFD studies ostensibly using the same model because of inconsistencies in model formulation or implementation in different codes. This paper describes an effort to improve the consistency, verification, and validation of turbulence models within the aerospace community through a website database of verification and validation cases. Some of the variants of two widely-used turbulence models are described, and two independent computer codes (one structured and one unstructured) are used in conjunction with two specific versions of these models to demonstrate consistency with grid refinement for several representative problems. Naming conventions, implementation consistency, and thorough grid resolution studies are key factors necessary for success

Successes and Challenges for Flow Control Simulations

A survey is made of recent computations published for synthetic jet flow control cases from a CFD workshop held in 2004. The three workshop cases were originally chosen to represent different aspects of flow control physics: nominally 2-D synthetic jet into quiescent air, 3-D circular synthetic jet into turbulent boundary-layer crossflow, and nominally 2-D flow-control (both steady suction and oscillatory zero-net-mass-flow) for separation control on a simple wall-mounted aerodynamic hump shape. The purpose of this survey is to summarize the progress as related to these workshop cases, particularly noting successes and remaining challenges for computational methods. It is hoped that this summary will also by extension serve as an overview of the state-of-the-art of CFD for these types of flow-controlled flow fields in general

Turbulence Modeling Verification and Validation

Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) software that solves the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations has been in routine use for more than a quarter of a century. It is currently employed not only for basic research in fluid dynamics, but also for the analysis and design processes in many industries worldwide, including aerospace, automotive, power generation, chemical manufacturing, polymer processing, and petroleum exploration. A key feature of RANS CFD is the turbulence model. Because the RANS equations are unclosed, a model is necessary to describe the effects of the turbulence on the mean flow, through the Reynolds stress terms. The turbulence model is one of the largest sources of uncertainty in RANS CFD, and most models are known to be flawed in one way or another. Alternative methods such as direct numerical simulations (DNS) and large eddy simulations (LES) rely less on modeling and hence include more physics than RANS. In DNS all turbulent scales are resolved, and in LES the large scales are resolved and the effects of the smallest turbulence scales are modeled. However, both DNS and LES are too expensive for most routine industrial usage on today's computers. Hybrid RANS-LES, which blends RANS near walls with LES away from walls, helps to moderate the cost while still retaining some of the scale-resolving capability of LES, but for some applications it can still be too expensive. Even considering its associated uncertainties, RANS turbulence modeling has proved to be very useful for a wide variety of applications. For example, in the aerospace field, many RANS models are considered to be reliable for computing attached flows. However, existing turbulence models are known to be inaccurate for many flows involving separation. Research has been ongoing for decades in an attempt to improve turbulence models for separated and other nonequilibrium flows. When developing or improving turbulence models, both verification and validation are important steps in the process. Verification insures that the CFD code is solving the equations as intended (no errors in the implementation). This is typically done either through the method of manufactured solutions (MMS) or through careful step-by-step comparisons with other verified codes. After the verification step is concluded, validation is performed to document the ability of the turbulence model to represent different types of flow physics. Validation can involve a large number of test case comparisons with experiments, theory, or DNS. Organized workshops have proved to be valuable resources for the turbulence modeling community in its pursuit of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Workshop contributors using different CFD codes run the same cases, often according to strict guidelines, and compare results. Through these comparisons, it is often possible to (1) identify codes that have likely implementation errors, and (2) gain insight into the capabilities and shortcomings of different turbulence models to predict the flow physics associated with particular types of flows. These are valuable lessons because they help bring consistency to CFD codes by encouraging the correction of faulty programming and facilitating the adoption of better models. They also sometimes point to specific areas needed for improvement in the models. In this paper, several recent workshops are summarized primarily from the point of view of turbulence modeling verification and validation. Furthermore, the NASA Langley Turbulence Modeling Resource website is described. The purpose of this site is to provide a central location where RANS turbulence models are documented, and test cases, grids, and data are provided. The goal of this paper is to provide an abbreviated survey of turbulence modeling verification and validation efforts, summarize some of the outcomes, and give some ideas for future endeavors in this area

The NASA Juncture Flow Test as a Model for Effective CFD/Experimental Collaboration

The NASA Juncture Flow test, whose purpose is CFD validation for wing juncture trailing edge separation and progression, was designed from the outset to be a highly collaborative effort between CFD computationalists and experimentalists. This paper highlights key aspects of the planning and execution of the project, which has recently completed its first phase of wind tunnel testing. The joint CFD/experimental team is described, and its accomplishments to date are summarized

Apparent Transition Behavior of Widely-Used Turbulence Models

The Spalart-Allmaras and the Menter SST kappa-omega turbulence models are shown to have the undesirable characteristic that, for fully turbulent computations, a transition region can occur whose extent varies with grid density. Extremely fine two-dimensional grids over the front portion of an airfoil are used to demonstrate the effect. As the grid density is increased, the laminar region near the nose becomes larger. In the Spalart-Allmaras model this behavior is due to convergence to a laminar-behavior fixed point that occurs in practice when freestream turbulence is below some threshold. It is the result of a feature purposefully added to the original model in conjunction with a special trip function. This degenerate fixed point can also cause nonuniqueness regarding where transition initiates on a given grid. Consistent fully turbulent results can easily be achieved by either using a higher freestream turbulence level or by making a simple change to one of the model constants. Two-equation kappa-omega models, including the SST model, exhibit strong sensitivity to numerical resolution near the area where turbulence initiates. Thus, inconsistent apparent transition behavior with grid refinement in this case does not appear to stem from the presence of a degenerate fixed point. Rather, it is a fundamental property of the kappa-omega model itself, and is not easily remedied

Overview and Summary of the Third AIAA High Lift Prediction Workshop

The third AIAA CFD High-Lift Prediction Workshop was held in Denver, Colorado, in June 2017. The goals of the workshop continued in the tradition of the first and second high-lift workshops: to assess the numerical prediction capability of current-generation computational fluid dynamics (CFD) technology for swept, medium/high-aspect-ratio wings in landing/takeoff (high-lift) configurations. This workshop analyzed the flow over two different configurations, a clean high-lift version of the NASA Common Research Model, and the JAXA Standard Model. The former was a CFD-only study, as experimental data were not available prior to the workshop. The latter was a nacelle/pylon installation study that included comparison with experimental wind tunnel data. The workshop also included a 2-D turbulence model verification exercise. Thirty-five participants submitted a total of 79 data sets of CFD results. A variety of grid systems (both structured and unstructured) as well as different flow simulation methodologies (including Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes and Lattice-Boltzmann) were used. This paper analyzes the combined results from all workshop participants. A statistical summary of the CFD results is also included

Flow Control Predictions using URANS Modeling: A Parametric Study

A computational study was performed for steady and oscillatory flow control over a hump model with flow separation to assess how well the steady and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations predict trends due to Reynolds number, control magnitude, and control frequency. As demonstrated previously, the hump model case is useful because it clearly demonstrates a failing in all known turbulence models: they under-predict the turbulent shear stress in the separated region and consequently reattachment occurs too far downstream. In spite of this known failing, three different turbulence models were employed to determine if trends can be captured even though absolute levels are not. The three turbulence models behaved similarly. Overall they showed very similar trends as experiment for steady suction, but only agreed qualitatively with some of the trends for oscillatory control

Seven Keys for Practical Understanding and Use of CGNS

We present key features of the CGNS standard, focusing on its two main elements, the data model (CGNS/SIDS) and its implementations (CGNS/HDF5 and CGNS/Python). The data model is detailed to emphasize how the topological user oriented information, such as families, are separated from the actual meshing that could be split or modified during the CFD work flow, and how this topological information is traced during the meshing process. We also explain why the same information can be described in multiple ways and how to handle such alternatives in an application. Two implementations, using HDF5 and Python, are illustrated in several use examples, both for archival and interoperability purposes. The CPEX extension formalized process is explained to show how to add new features to the standard in a consensual way; we present some of the next extensions to come. Finally we conclude by showing how powerful a consensual public approach like CGNS can be, as opposed to a stand-alone private one. All throughout the paper, we demonstrate how the use of CGNS could be of great benefit for both the meshing and CFD solver communities

Parametric Study of Flow Control Over a Hump Model Using an Unsteady Reynolds- Averaged Navier-Stokes Code

This is an expanded version of a limited-length paper that appeared at the 5th International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena by the same authors. A computational study was performed for steady and oscillatory flow control over a hump model with flow separation to assess how well the steady and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations predict trends due to Reynolds number, control magnitude, and control frequency. As demonstrated in earlier studies, the hump model case is useful because it clearly demonstrates a failing in all known turbulence models: they under-predict the turbulent shear stress in the separated region and consequently reattachment occurs too far downstream. In spite of this known failing, three different turbulence models were employed to determine if trends can be captured even though absolute levels are not. Overall the three turbulence models showed very similar trends as experiment for steady suction, but only agreed qualitatively with some of the trends for oscillatory control

Turbulence Model Behavior in Low Reynolds Number Regions of Aerodynamic Flowfields

The behaviors of the widely-used Spalart-Allmaras (SA) and Menter shear-stress transport (SST) turbulence models at low Reynolds numbers and under conditions conducive to relaminarization are documented. The flows used in the investigation include 2-D zero pressure gradient flow over a flat plate from subsonic to hypersonic Mach numbers, 2-D airfoil flow from subsonic to supersonic Mach numbers, 2-D subsonic sink-flow, and 3-D subsonic flow over an infinite swept wing (particularly its leading-edge region). Both models exhibit a range over which they behave 'transitionally' in the sense that the flow is neither laminar nor fully turbulent, but these behaviors are different: the SST model typically has a well-defined transition location, whereas the SA model does not. Both models are predisposed to delayed activation of turbulence with increasing freestream Mach number. Also, both models can be made to achieve earlier activation of turbulence by increasing their freestream levels, but too high a level can disturb the turbulent solution behavior. The technique of maintaining freestream levels of turbulence without decay in the SST model, introduced elsewhere, is shown here to be useful in reducing grid-dependence of the model's transitional behavior. Both models are demonstrated to be incapable of predicting relaminarization; eddy viscosities remain weakly turbulent in accelerating or laterally-strained boundary layers for which experiment and direct simulations indicate turbulence suppression. The main conclusion is that these models are intended for fully turbulent high Reynolds number computations, and using them for transitional (e.g., low Reynolds number) or relaminarizing flows is not appropriate