LowDissipation Simulation Methods and Models for Turbulent Subsonic Flow
 141 Downloads
Abstract
The simulation of turbulent flows by means of computational fluid dynamics is highly challenging. The costs of an accurate direct numerical simulation (DNS) are usually too high, and engineers typically resort to cheaper coarsegrained models of the flow, such as largeeddy simulation (LES). To be suitable for the computation of turbulence, methods should not numerically dissipate the turbulent flow structures. Therefore, energyconserving discretizations are investigated, which do not dissipate energy and are inherently stable because the discrete convective terms cannot spuriously generate kinetic energy. They have been known for incompressible flow, but the development of such methods for compressible flow is more recent. This paper will focus on the latter: LES and DNS for turbulent subsonic flow. A new theoretical framework for the analysis of energy conservation in compressible flow is proposed, in a mathematical notation of squareroot variables, inner products, and differential operator symmetries. As a result, the discrete equations exactly conserve not only the primary variables (mass, momentum and energy), but also the convective terms preserve (secondary) discrete kinetic and internal energy. Numerical experiments confirm that simulations are stable without the addition of artificial dissipation. Next, minimumdissipation eddyviscosity models are reviewed, which try to minimize the dissipation needed for preventing subgrid scales from polluting the numerical solution. A new model suitable for anisotropic grids is proposed: the anisotropic minimumdissipation model. This model appropriately switches off for laminar and transitional flow, and is consistent with the exact subfilter tensor on anisotropic grids. The methods and models are first assessed on several academic test cases: channel flow, homogeneous decaying turbulence and the temporal mixing layer. As a practical application, accurate simulations of the transitional flow over a delta wing have been performed.
Mathematics Subject Classification
65M08 65M12 76F65 76F06 76G251 Introduction
Reduction of the aerodynamic drag of aircraft is a formidable task, because viscous friction forces are subject to the chaotic process of turbulence, which engineers would like to better understand. Although the Navier–Stokes equations for turbulent flow have been known since 1822, and can be written in a few lines of mathematics, it seems that the origin and evolution of turbulence can only be understood either through detailed physical experiments or through computer simulation of the Navier–Stokes equations. This paper focuses on the latter.
1.1 Convection Versus Diffusion
The common physical explanation of turbulence is that it is a cascade of progressively smaller and more complex flow structures. The driving force of the turbulent cascade is the nonlinear convective term \(\nabla \cdot (\rho {\mathbf{u}}\otimes {\mathbf{u}})\). This term models the transfer of momentum to smaller scales (energy cascade) and conserves both momentum and kinetic energy, i.e. it only redistributes kinetic energy over the scales of motion.
The diffusion term of the Navier–Stokes equations, \(\nabla \cdot \sigma\), models the viscous friction in a fluid. This term conserves momentum, but dissipates kinetic energy. The diffusion of the viscous terms is stronger for smaller scales of motion. For flows at turbulent Reynolds numbers, the viscous diffusion hardly affects the energy of the larger scales. The cascade of kinetic energy to smaller flow structures continues until they become so small that the viscous diffusion becomes noticeable: the socalled Kolmogorov scales.
1.2 Turbulence Modeling
The challenging part of flow simulation is the modeling of turbulence. Depending on the amount of flow details that are being resolved, several modeling levels can be distinguished, ranging from RaNS to DNS.
1.2.1 Direct Numerical Simulation
A direct numerical simulation (DNS) of a turbulent flow intends to capture the cascade of kinetic energy from the largest to the smallest Kolmogorov scales. To give a rough indication, the computational complexity of a DNS of homogeneous isotropic turbulence scales with the Reynolds number as \(Re^{11/4}\) [11, 16, 65]. Thus, increasing the Reynolds number by a factor 10 increases the computational complexity of a DNS by a factor of approximately 1000.
In spite of its high computational costs, DNS is already feasible for flows at moderate Reynolds numbers. As an example, below an accurate simulation of the transitional flow over a delta wing at a chord Reynolds number of \(Re_{\mathrm{c}} = 150{,}000\) will be described. For practical engineering purposes at higher Reynolds numbers, however, a DNS is currently often too expensive. Therefore, engineers usually resort to cheaper coarsegrained models of turbulent flow: for example the Reynoldsaveraged Navier–Stokes model, the largeeddy simulation model, or hybrid models.
1.2.2 Reynolds–Averaged Navier–Stokes Models
A cheap way of modeling turbulence is by means of Reynolds averaging the Navier–Stokes equations (RaNS). In a RaNS all turbulent flow scales are being modeled. Successful models for aerodynamic applications are Menter’s SST k–\(\omega\) model [48], and the Spalart–Allmaras model [82]. In spite of their simplicity, such models can give satisfactory results for attached flow in aircraft cruise conditions. However, RaNS models have insufficient accuracy in simulations in offdesign conditions. Especially flows with large separation regions are challenging to capture [83]. Also, RaNS models are not appropriate if timedependent quantities, such as vibrations or acoustic waves, are of primary interest [37].
1.2.3 LargeEddy Simulation
A more sophisticated coarsegrained flow model is used in largeeddy simulation (LES). In a LES, the larger scales in a flow are computed explicitly, but the effect of the smaller unresolved scales is modeled [47]. The basic ingredient of LES modeling is a model for the subgrid dynamics in terms of the resolved velocity field \({\mathbf{u}}\): a socalled eddyviscosity model. An important example of an eddyviscosity model for LES is the classical Smagorinsky model [80]. The Smagorinsky model gives good results for homogeneous isotropic turbulence, but removes too much kinetic energy from laminar and transitional flows. This can delay the transition to turbulence of a shear layer. LES models give more accurate results than RaNS models for flows with massive separation. However, this increased accuracy comes at the cost of a higher computational complexity. Therefore, hybrids between LES and RaNS have been developed, of which the most popular one is detachededdy simulation (DES) in various variants [15, 56, 81, 83].
Attempts to improve the Smagorinsky model have led to the development of a class of lowdissipation models, such as the dynamic Smagorinsky model [22], the walladapting local eddyviscosity WALE model [58], the Vreman model [106], several regularization models [24, 29, 89, 95] and the QR model [96]. The theoretical background and performance of such models is one of the topics of this paper.
1.3 EnergyConserving Discretization
In CFD the coarsegrained flow models and the full Navier–Stokes equations are solved by a computational method. It is difficult to identify a best allround CFD method, as it may differ significantly from one application to the other. A criterion specific to LES is that energy errors of the numerical method should not overwhelm the energy dissipation of the LES model [7, 39, 51]. Too much artificial dissipation can delay transition to turbulence of shear layers, and can also cause bad predictions of the nearwall shear stress. In computational aeroacoustic simulations, too much dissipation can inadequately damp the radiated acoustic waves, which causes predictions of lower sound levels [13, 37].
These numerical errors cannot be addressed by only increasing the order of accuracy of a method: even in fifthorder accurate upwind methods the numerical dissipation can still overwhelm the dissipation of the LES model [51]. The need for good accuracy and low energy errors resulted in a quest for higherorder accurate central discretization methods without numerical energy dissipation.
The favorable influence of energyconserving discretizations was already recognized halfway the 20th century. In 1956, the meteorologist Phillips [63] observed that simulations of the vorticity equation became unstable due to spurious generation of energy and enstrophy. He concluded that the numerical instability is related to the spatial discretization of the nonlinear convective term, and called it a nonlinear numerical instability. To stabilize the simulations, Phillips proposed to damp the instability by application of a numerical smoothing process [63]. This initiated the study of the influence of discrete convection on stability.
An early example of an energyconserving, and hence stable, finitevolume discretization of the twodimensional incompressible Navier–Stokes equations is the staggered discretization for uniform rectangular grids by Harlow and Welch, developed in the 1960s [28]; see also [64]. Closely related is Arakawa’s method from 1966 [4], in which he adapted Phillips’ spatial discretization of the vorticity equation such that boundedness of the discrete solution could be proved, without the need for numerical smoothing. He also emphasized the conservation of enstrophy next to energy [5]. Generalization of these ideas to nonuniform and curvilinear grids took several decades.
As a starting point for this paper, we mention the higherorder accurate energyconserving discretization methods developed in the 1990s. Notable examples of fourthorder accurate methods with small energy errors for threedimensional incompressible flow are the fourthorder accurate method of Morinishi et al. [55], which conserves momentum and kinetic energy to fourthorder accuracy on staggered uniform rectangular grids, and the fourthorder symmetrypreserving method of Verstappen and Veldman [98, 99, 100] which exactly conserves momentum and kinetic energy on nonuniform staggered rectangular grids. The discrete kinetic energy can only decrease in the latter method, as the numerical solution \({\mathbf{u}}\) satisfies a discrete energy bound \(\partial _t {\mathbf{u}}_h^2 \le 0\) (where \(\cdot _h\) denotes the discrete \(L_2\)norm over the flow domain). I.e. the method is stable in a discrete energy norm, and it preserves the mathematical skew–symmetry of the convective terms at the discrete level, as we will see below.
1.4 Outline of the Paper
After formulating the equations for compressible flow in Sect. 2, the symmetry principles behind energyconserving discretization are explained in Sect. 3. Therafter, the energyconserving discretization methods for incompressible flow are generalized to compressible flow in Sect. 4. A new framework is developed for the analysis of energyconserving methods for compressible flow. This will lead to discretization methods that conserve the primary variables mass, momentum and total energy; but also they convectively conserve the secondary variables kinetic and internal energy. Also, the time integration method can be designed to conserve total energy. As these methods do not numerically dissipate kinetic energy by convection, energy dissipation is exclusively given by molecular diffusion or the subgrid dissipation of an LES model.
As argued above, also the dissipation of LES models should be confined. In Sect. 6.2 a number of lowdissipation LES models is being reviewed. Also, a new anisotropic minimumdissipation (AMD) model is proposed. This model generalizes the earlier proposed minimum dissipation QRmodel (Sect. 7.2) to anisotropic grids which are often used in engineering applications.
The proposed methods and models are extensively validated in simulations of academic test cases: DNS results are presented in Sects. 5.1 and 5.2, whereas LES results are presented in Sects. 6.3 and 7.3. To also obtain practical experience with the developed lowdissipation methods, as ‘proofofthepudding’, DNS simulations of the transitional flow over a triangular delta wing at \(Re \approx 150{,}000\) are presented in Sect. 5.3.
2 The Compressible Navier–Stokes Equations
2.1 Primary Conservation
The second term at the lefthand sides is the convective term, which models the transport of a quantity with the local flow velocity. The third term at the lefthand sides describes the effects of pressure differences. The first term at the righthand sides models how viscous friction resists local flow velocity differences. Finally the last term in the total energy equation models how heat is diffused.
The Navier–Stokes equations are closed by the standard thermodynamical relations for a calorically perfect gas: the pressure is related to the temperature T by the equation of state \(p = \rho RT\), where R is the gas constant; the internal energy is given by \(e = c_v T\), where \(c_v\) is the specific heat at constant volume; the latter is related to the specific heat at constant pressure \(c_p\) by the specific heat ratio \(\gamma \equiv c_p /c_v \approx 1.4\) for air at room temperature.
In Eq. (2), the Navier–Stokes equations for compressible flow have been expressed in conservative form. This form directly expresses conservation of mass, momentum, and total energy in a flow, because all the terms in the equations of motion are either in divergence or gradient form. Therefore they are called primary conservation laws.
2.2 Secondary Conservation
Some terms of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations also conserve quantities which are not given by primary conservation laws. Such conservation laws are called secondary conservation properties. In this paper, the secondary conservation properties of the convective terms are of special interest.
Conservation of kinetic and internal energy are important secondary conservation properties of convective transport, and they will be preserved by the discretization without artificial dissipation that is developed in the next section.
3 Energy Stability and Mathematical Symmetries
Studies of the energy errors and numerical stability of simulation methods for compressible flow, including attempts to control the energy error have been published, often inspired by an early reformulation of the flow equations by Feiereisen et al. [19]. Some authors have proposed to discretize the entropy or internal energy equation instead of the total energy equation [30]. However, this does not yet allow for simultaneous conservation of other physical quantities. From 2008 on, methods have been proposed that preserve both primary as well as secondary conservation properties of the convective term [31, 34, 37, 54, 67, 86]. Below, such methods are summarized.
3.1 Incompressible Flow and Symmetries
We will start the quest for energyconserving discretizations for compressible flow, by first describing similar methods for incompressible flow. A difference is that the latter are usually defined on staggered rectangular computational grids, needed to avoid numerical oddevendecoupling of the Poisson equation. A disadvantage of rectangular grids is that they do not allow boundaryfitted simulations of flow around practical complex geometries. However, recently also practical energyconserving methods for collocated curvilinear computational grids have been proposed [37, 67], so that this aspect does not pose fundamental problems (Sect. 4.1). Also, energyconserving variants for unstructured grids, staggered as well as collocated, have been developed [32, 91].
The property of skew–symmetry is closely related to the summationbyparts (SBP) property introduced by Strand [84], which includes the influence of boundaries. Some (mixed and spectral) finiteelement methods also take discrete kinetic energy conservation into account; see for example [61].
3.2 Generalization to Compressible Flow
As mentioned above, several attempts to achieve primary and secondary conservation started from a reformulation of the momentum equation. Either from a skew–symmetric form in primitive variables (e.g. [18, 54, 93]), or by transformation into other variables (such as the entropy variables in [30]). In all cases, the conservation of mass plays an essential role in showing the analytical equivalence of these formulations. Consistency between discrete conservation of mass and discrete conservation of momentum is then a key ingredient for success.
The present approach follows a different route, in which a skew–symmetric basic formulation leads to all desired (primary and secondary) conservation properties. As we will see below, this generates not only the desired properties of the spatial discretization, but it will also allow an energyconserving time integration (Sect. 4.2) as well as an energyneutral regularization turbulence model (Sect. 6.2).
3.2.1 SquareRoot Variables
3.2.2 Skew Symmetry and Conservation of Products
Now that all interesting conservation properties have been expressed as a mathematical property, it is possible to develop discretization methods with similar properties. It will be no surprise that the methods to be developed correspond with finitevolume methods with more conservation properties than usual (i.e. supraconservative). We will describe this relation in Sect. 4.1.
4 EnergyConserving Discretization
 1.
mass,
 2.
(linear) momentum,
 3.
kinetic energy,
 4.
internal energy, and (therefore)
 5.
total energy
The proposed analysis of energyconserving methods is theoretical, but one of the objectives is to implement the discretizations in the finitevolume method Enflow of the Netherlands Aerospace Centre NLR [8, 37]. Firstly, the discretization of the convective terms is discussed. The use of the squareroot variables is analyzed, and new secondorder accurate discretizations on collocated grids are proposed. Also, the road from secondorder accurate to higherorder accurate energyconserving discretizations is discussed.
4.1 Skew–Symmetric Discretization on a Collocated Curvilinear Grid
4.1.1 Discretization of the Convective Terms
A spatial discretization on a curvilinear grid can be derived most easily using a transformation from physical space coordinates \({\mathbf{x}} = (x_1,x_2,x_3)\) to computational space coordinates \({\xi } = (\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3) \, .\) The curvilinear grid in physical space \({\mathbf{x}}\) is considered to be a continuously differentiable and invertible image \({\mathbf{x}} ({\xi })\) of a uniform grid in computational space \({\xi }\), and the order of accuracy is expressed in terms of the mesh spacing \({\varDelta \xi }\) in computational space.
For further technical details we refer to Rozema’s PhD thesis [71]. Also, details about the implementation of the pressure terms, the viscous terms and the heat diffusion can be found there.
4.1.2 Relation to Existing FiniteVolume Discretizations
By its construction, a skew–symmetric discretization of the convective terms in squareroot variables conserves mass, momentum, kinetic energy, internal energy, and total energy. A finitevolume discretization of the convective terms in standard variables conserves only mass, momentum, and total energy. Thus, it will be no surprise that a skew–symmetric discretization of the convective terms leads to a finitevolume discretization of the convective terms.
4.1.3 HigherOrder Accurate Discretizations
The energyconserving discretizations proposed in the previous sections are secondorder accurate. As for many computational problems, higherorder accurate methods can be more efficient [37, 87, 103], below we will create fourthorder accurate discretizations of the inviscid terms of the Navier–Stokes equations.
4.2 Conservative TimeIntegration Methods
A symmetrypreserving spatial discretization eliminates conservation errors from the discretization of spatial derivatives, assuming exact time integration. However, in practice a discrete timeintegration method is used, thereby possibly introducing discrete conservation errors. We will show that the squareroot variables allow timeintegration methods that discretely preserve conservation laws upon time stepping.
Timeintegration methods that preserve energy are called symplectic methods. Recently, Runge–Kutta variants have been applied as conservative timeintegration methods for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations by Sanderse [77]. An important example is the secondorder accurate midpoint rule. For variabledensity incompressible flow, an early observation of conservation of discrete energy using midpoint integration combined with the square root \(\sqrt{\rho }\) was made by Guermond and Quartapelle [26]. They, however, sacrificed momentum conservation, while the present approach conserves both primary and secondary quantities.
The above midpoint integration generates a secondorder accurate conservative timeintegration method. Also higherorder accurate symplectic timeintegration methods exist [77], and so the proposed squareroot variables allow for straightforward derivation of timeintegration methods of arbitrary order. This has also been observed, independently, by Reiss et al. [9, 68].
It must be stressed, however, that symplectic RungeKutta methods are implicit, and therefore conservative time integration can be considerably more expensive than using an explicit timeintegration method; their efficiency depends on the application. In this paper, implicit time integration is not used. Instead, a small time step is used to keep the conservation errors due to explicit time integration sufficiently small [38].
5 DNS Results
The symmetrypreserving discretization for incompressible flow is known to be a stable and accurate method for simulations of channel flow [100]. To test if these properties generalize to compressible flow, simulations of (subsonic) compressible channel flow are performed. Also, simulations of decaying grid turbulence at a high Reynolds number are performed. These test cases also assess the sensitivity of the results to the grid resolution, in particular with respect to underresolved grids. Here, we present an overview of some results; a more detailed description can be found in [73].
5.1 Turbulent Channel Flow at \({\text{Re}}_{\tau} \approx 180\)
5.1.1 Set Up of Simulations
5.1.2 Numerical Parameters
The simulations in this section have been performed with the fourthorder accurate dispersionrelationpreserving discretization proposed in Sect. 4.1.3 [36, 37]. Time integration is performed with a lowstorage Runge–Kutta method, and the time step size is set so that the Courant number is below unity. All the simulations have been performed without artificial dissipation.
The computational grids for the turbulent channel flow simulations
Grid  \(N_x \times N_y \times N_z\)  \({\varDelta x}^+\)  \({\varDelta y}^+_{\mathrm{min}}\)  \({\varDelta y}^+_{\mathrm{max}}\)  \({\varDelta z}^+\) 

A  \(256\times 128\times 128\)  8.7  0.6  9.5  8.7 
B  \(128\times 128\times 128\)  17.5  0.6  9.5  8.7 
C  \(128\times 64\times 64\)  17.5  1.2  18.5  17.5 
D  \(32\times 32\times 32\)  69.9  3.4  30.6  35.0 
E  \(64\times 64\times 64^{\mathrm{{a}}}\)  38.5  2.6  40.7  19.3 
The computed friction Reynolds numbers in simulations with the symmetrypreserving discretization on a grid ranging from a fine grid (A) to a relatively coarse grid (D). Also the relative difference with the friction Reynolds number from a DNS [57] is given
Grid  A  B  C  D  DNS 

\(Re _{\tau }\)  178.7  177.8  179.3  182.3  178.1 
Rel. err.  0.3%  0.1%  0.6%  2.4% 
5.1.3 Simulation Results
The coarser grids C and D do not completely resolve the turbulent energy cascade in this channel flow. In general such simulations can give unstable or erroneous results. However, the simulations with the symmetrypreserving discretization are stable without artificial dissipation, and even though the results obtained on the coarser grids C and D are not perfectly accurate, they are definitely acceptable. The error in the friction Reynolds number is below \(3\%\), and the slope of the mean velocity profile computed on the grids C and D in the log layer deviates only slightly from the results of the DNS: in particular, the log layer is somewhat shorter.
For channel flow, nomodel simulations with the symmetrypreserving discretization can give more accurate results than simulations with an LES model on coarse grids [49]. In the current simulations, the relatively accurate predictions of mean flow velocities on a coarse grid D seem to go hand in hand with an overprediction of the streamwise velocity fluctuations near the wall of the channel. A similar tradeoff of accuracy in mean flow and overshoot of the nearwall flow fluctuations has also been observed in underresolved simulations with the incompressible symmetrypreserving discretization [100].
5.2 Decaying Grid Turbulence
To assess the applicability of the symmetrypreserving simulation method to underresolved flow, simulations of the decaying grid turbulence experiment by ComteBellot and Corrsin [14] have been performed. They generate turbulence by placing a grid with a mesh spacing of \(M = 5.08{\hbox{ cm}}\) in a flow of mean velocity \(U_0 = 1000{\hbox{ cm s}}^{1}\) [14]. As the grid turbulence is convected with the mean flow, its intensity gradually decreases. Energy spectra are measured at three stations 42M, 98M, and 171M downstream of the grid.
5.2.1 Set Up of Simulations
The simulations can be simplified by considering the flow inside a small box that moves along with the mean flow. This box of turbulence is assumed to pass the grid at \(t= 0\,{\hbox{s}}\). Thus, the turbulence in the box is expected to match the measured energy spectra at \(t = 42 M / U_0\), \(t = 98 M / U_0\), and \(t = 171 M / U_0\), respectively. The size of the box is set to \(11 M \times 11 M \times 11 M\), and the computational grid is uniform with 64 cells in each direction. All the quantities are nondimensionalized by the length of the box \(L_{ ref } = 11 M = 55.08\,{\hbox{cm}}\), and a reference velocity \(u_{ ref } = \sqrt{3/2} \sqrt{\overline{u_1^2}}_{t=42 M /U_0} = 27.19\,{\hbox{cm s}}^{1}\). Thus, the dimensionless computational domain is the unit cube \([0,1]^3\) and the dimensionless measurement times are \(t' = 0.104\), \(t' = 0.242\), and \(t' = 0.423\). The Reynolds number based on the reference length \(L_{ ref }\) is 10, 129. The dimensionless time step size of the simulations is set to \({\varDelta t}' = 1.59 \times 10^{3}\).
The initial condition of the simulations is set equal to the flow at the first measurement station. The initial condition is generated by fitting a realvalued and divergencefree velocity field with randomized phases to the energy spectrum measured at the first station [40]. The random phases are adjusted by performing a preliminary simulation from \(t = 0\) to \(t = 42 M / U_0\) with the generated initial condition. Then the amplitudes of the Fourier modes of the solution at \(t = 42 M / U_0\) are rescaled to the desired spectrum as in [33]. The resulting rescaled field is used as the initial condition at time \(t = 42 M / U_0\).
5.2.2 Simulation Results
In contrast with the accurate results obtained in underresolved simulations of channel flow, the underresolved simulation of decaying grid turbulence with the symmetrypreserving discretization disagrees with the experimental measurements. The initial energy decay is considerably smaller than in the experiment, which leads to overprediction of the total kinetic energy at the second and third measurements station. The computed energy spectra show a considerable accumulation of kinetic energy near the grid cutoff.
The kinetic energy of the turbulent structures near the scale of a grid cell is on average transferred to smaller subgrid scales. However, the symmetrypreserving discretization conserves this energy, so that it is trapped in the simulation, and has to be distributed over the resolved scales. This gives a smaller energy decay rate compared to the experimental data, and the results are unsatisfactory due to pileup of kinetic energy at the scale of a grid cell. In the sequel (Sect. 6), it is shown that the accuracy of a simulation of decaying grid turbulence on a coarse grid can be improved considerably by using an LES model.
5.3 DNS of Flow Over a Delta Wing
The above examples are oftenstudied academic model problems to validate turbulent flow simulation. In the sections to follow, we will extend the above discussion of lowdissipation discretization methods with lowdissipation turbulence models. The same test cases will there be studied in conjunction with various modern models (Sects. 6 and 7).
But first, to illustrate the current stateoftheart of DNS, we demonstrate the applicability of the developed discretization methods to largescale (direct numerical) simulation of practical turbulent flows. Therefore simulations of the subsonic transitional flow over a simple delta wing at \({\text{Re}} = 150,000\) have been performed. In particular, the slender sharpedged delta wing used in the experiments by Riley and Lowson [69] is studied. The simulations have a high computational complexity, and have been performed on the Dutch national supercomputer at SARA in Amsterdam.
5.3.1 The Delta Wing and Its Aerodynamics
The focus of this simulation is on the transition to turbulence of the flow above a delta wing. Therefore, the chord Reynolds number, Mach number, and angle of attack have been selected to exclude other aerodynamic phenomena.
The wing has a root chord length of \(c = 471\,\)mm and a thickness of \(t = 11.5\,\)mm. The sweep angle is \(\varLambda = 85^\circ\), which makes the delta wing very slender. The bevel angle is \(30^\circ\). The simulations have been performed at a relatively small angle of attack \(\alpha = 12.5^\circ\). The Reynolds number \(Re _{\mathrm{c}} =\rho _\infty u_\infty c/\mu _\infty\) based on the chord length c of the delta wing is set to 150,000; in [71] also simulations at \({\text{Re}}_{\mathrm{c}} = 211,200\) are presented. The freestream Mach number is \({\mathrm{M}} = 0.3\). At these parameter values, the vortical flow structures do not break down above the wing, as the angle of attack is relatively small [44, 50]. Also, shock waves are absent [3].
An interesting effect of the primary vortex is its breakup into discrete subvortices and transition to full turbulence. Figure 4 shows axial slices of the instantaneous vorticity magnitude obtained in simulations on a fine grid (see below). Figure 5 shows isosurfaces of the Qcriterion (the second invariant of the velocity gradient). The figures depict the timeaveraged vortical tubes as pairs of substructures: a thin substructure with a high vorticity and a substructure with low vorticity. These vortical tubes corotate with the flow, just as the steady subvortices observed in the LDV measurements by Riley and Lowson [69]. In the simulations by Visbal and Gordnier [104], timeaveraged subvortices that corotate with the flow have also been observed.
5.3.2 Numerical Method
A cubic computational domain with a length of 21 chord lengths has been used. At the boundaries of the computational domain, farfield boundary conditions based on Riemann invariants are applied. The initial condition of the simulations is obtained by performing a RaNS simulation with a k–\(\omega\) model. No perturbations are added to the initial condition.
The origin of the coordinate system is at the apex of the delta wing: the xaxis is aligned with the chord line, the zaxis is normal to the upper surface, and the yaxis is aligned with the span. The simulations at chord Reynolds number \(Re _{\mathrm{c}} = 150,000\) have been performed on a coarse (20 million cells), medium (44 million cells), and fine (133 million cells) computational grid.
The grids used are approximately isotropic throughout the primary vortex downstream from the leading edge region (after \(x \approx 65\,\)mm), as this is the most interesting region of the flow. Also the boundary layers are captured with sufficient resolution. To give an impression, the dimensions of the grid cells of the fine grid in the primary vortex increase approximately linearly from \(\varDelta x = 0.08\,\)mm, \(\varDelta y = 0.05\,\)mm, and \(\varDelta z = 0.10\,\)mm at the end of the leading edge wedge block to \(\varDelta x = 0.57\,\)mm, \(\varDelta y = 0.40\,\)mm, and \(\varDelta z = 0.44\,\)mm at the trailing edge.
The simulations have been performed with the fourthorder accurate dispersion–relation–preserving finitevolume discretization from Sect. 4.1.3 [37]. As the grid is still a bit coarse for a genuine DNS, the use of some background artificial or modeled dissipation is appropriate [38], although from the stability pointofview this is not necessary. Sixthorder artificial dissipation with \(k_6 = 1/8\) preserves the fourthorder accuracy of the scheme, and localizes the dissipation at the small turbulent structures [38].
Explicit time stepping is used for the simulations. The time step size normalized by the freestream flow velocity and the chord length of the wing is \(\varDelta t\,u_\infty /c = 8.0 \times 10^{6}\) on the coarse grid, \(\varDelta t\,u_\infty /c = 4.5 \times 10^{6}\) on the medium grid, and \(\varDelta t\,u_\infty /c = 2.2 \times 10^{6}\) on the fine grid. The simulations on the coarse and medium grid are performed from time \(t u_\infty /c = 0\) to \(t u_\infty /c = 20\), which corresponds to 20 convective time units. The simulation on the fine grid is performed for 17 convective time units. After 2 convective time units the flow has transitioned to turbulence, and the collection of flow statistics starts. More details on these simulations can be found in Rozema’s PhD thesis [71].
5.3.3 Grid Convergence
Velocity Profiles For an accurate simulation, grid convergence of the timeaveraged velocity field is expected. Figure 6 shows the timeaveraged axial velocity on a vertical line through the core of the primary vortex for the three grids. Although the agreement is not perfect, overall the timeaveraged velocity obtained on the coarse grid agrees with the time average obtained on the medium and fine grids.
Turbulent Flow Statistics A more challenging test is to monitor the behavior of the turbulent flow statistics upon grid refinement. They have been recorded for 18 convective time units on the coarse and medium grid, and for 15 convective time units on the fine grid. These time intervals were found long enough for the statistics to settle [71].
6 LargeEddy Simulation
6.1 EddyViscosity Models
When a direct numerical simulation (DNS) is not feasible, a (much) cheaper alternative is a largeeddy simulation (LES), e.g. [23, 47]. In LES, the computational grid resolves only the large eddies in a flow, and the effect of the smaller scales is modeled. In the common mathematical explanation of LES, this is formalized by application of a spatial filter to a solution \({\mathbf{u}}\) of the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. In practice the filter is often related to the computational grid by setting the filter width equal to the local mesh spacing, so that the filtered solution \(\bar{\mathbf{u}}\) can be captured on the computational grid with sufficient accuracy. The residual \({\mathbf{u}'} = {\mathbf{u}} \bar{\mathbf{u}}\) represents subgrid scales which cannot be accurately captured on the computational grid.
The subgrid tensor \(\tau ({\mathbf{v}})\) approximates \(\overline{\mathbf{u}\otimes {\mathbf{u}}}  \bar{\mathbf{u}} \otimes \bar{\mathbf{u}}\) and is present because the nonlinearity in the convective term does not commute with the spatial filter. The challenge of LES is to find a suitable model for the subgrid tensor in terms of the resolved LES solution \({\mathbf{v}}\).
Currently, there is no consensus on a best LES model, or even on what a proper model should do [66]. Moreover, the results of a practical LES are not completely determined by the subgrid model, but also by for example the used numerical method, the implementation of the subgrid model, the computational grid, and the applied boundary conditions. This makes a meaningful comparison of LES models based on results from the literature difficult. Nonetheless, in this section results from some subgrid models are given, with emphasis on models with low eddy dissipation.
The textbook explanation of the turbulent energy cascade suggests that the larger scales in turbulence (on average) transfer kinetic energy to the subgrid scales, and therefore the effect of the subgrid scales on the large eddies is essentially dissipative. Eddyviscosity models mimic the dissipative nature of the subgrid scales by adding an eddy viscosity \(\nu _e\) to the molecular viscosity \(\nu\). This is equivalent to selecting an LES model of the form \(\tau ({\mathbf{v}}) = 2\nu _e S\), where S is the resolved rateofstrain tensor.
These experiences motivate the developments of LES models that give eddy dissipation more appropriately. Because such models generally aim at delivering smaller eddy dissipation, we call these models lowdissipation models. We will shortly describe several of them in the following subsection. Thereafter, we will introduce a new model that minimizes the amount of eddy viscosity on anisotropic grids.
6.2 LowDissipation Turbulence Models
Below, we will review a number of lowdissipation LES models, i.e. models that are economical in adding eddy dissipation. We start with some early models: the dynamic Smagorinsky model [22, 43], Nicoud’s WALE [58] and \(\sigma\)models [59] and the Vreman model [106]. Thereafter, regularization models are presented [20, 24, 90], which do not add any eddyviscosity at all, and as a consequence are found to not always produce sufficient dissipation. In Sect. 6.3 some results with these models are presented, thereby motivating the quest for models that try to restrict eddy viscosity to a bare minimum: QR [96] and AMD [75].
The Dynamic Smagorinsky Model The issues with the Smagorinsky model have been addressed in different ways. An important improvement is the dynamic procedure [22, 43]. It assumes scale invariance of the Smagorinsky constant \(C_s\) in the inertial range and introduces a coarser filter level by coarsegraining the LES solution with a test filter. By scale invariance the Smagorinsky constant should be equal at the two filter levels, and this can be used to estimate the value of \(C_s\) (the resulting expression is rather complicated and will be omitted here).
There are some perceived disadvantages of the dynamic Smagorinsky model. The Smagorinsky model requires explicit application of the test filter and evaluation of the model on the filtered field, which increases its computational complexity compared to the static Smagorinsky model. Also, often spatial averaging and clipping is required for stability [45]. Nonetheless, the dynamic Smagorinsky model can give accurate results in simulations of homogeneous isotropic turbulence [53], turbulent channel flow [22], and a turbulent mixing layer [105].
The WALE Model An alternative way to improve upon the static Smagorinsky model is to replace the eddy viscosity in Eq. (26) with a function which appropriately adapts to the LES solution, for instance by switching off (i.e. giving no eddy dissipation) in transitional and laminar flow. An example of this is the walladapted WALE model, which by construction vanishes at a desired rate near solid walls, so that the use of an additional wall damping function is not required [58].
The Vreman Model The idea of an eddyviscosity model which switches off in laminar flow has been formalized mathematically by Vreman [106]. Vreman derives the flows for which the exact eddy dissipation vanishes, and constructs a model that switches off for the same flows.
The Vreman model gives positive eddy dissipation in flows where the exact eddy dissipation is negative (back scatter) and in solid body rotation [59]. This results in a model which is competitive with the dynamic Smagorinsky model in simulation of the turbulent mixing layer and turbulent channel flow, as we will see below.
Another model based on singular values, but now on those of the rateofstrain tensor S, i.e. the symmetric part of the velocity gradient tensor, is Verstappen’s QRmodel [96]. It will be discussed in Sect. 7, including its generalization to anisotropic grids AMD [75].
For incompressible flow, Verstappen [29, 95] introduced the regularization (27c) which preserves the symmetries of the convective discretization when the filter is selfadjoint. Therefore, this regularization conserves energy and hence is unconditionally stable. Additionally, this regularization convectively conserves helicity and in twodimensional flow also enstrophy. Because the squareroot form of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations (9) has a convective term as in (27), the incompressible regularization straightforwardly generalizes to compressible flow [73, 74, 76]
6.3 Example: LES of Turbulent Channel Flow
Some results generated with the methods described above have been collected in this section, to give a rough indication their performance. More comparisons can be found in monographs like [66] and the vast literature on the subject. To allow comparison with the DNS methods discussed above, the earlier test case on turbulent channel flow from Sect. 5.1 is being discussed again.
Simulations of two weakly compressible channel flows at \({\mathrm{M}}_{\mathrm{b}} = 0.2\) have been performed using various of the above turbulence models. They correspond to the DNSs at friction Reynolds numbers \(Re _\tau \approx 180\) and \(Re _\tau \approx 395\) by Moser et al. [57]. The set up is similar to the one in Sect. 5.1. The simulations have been performed without model, with the symmetrypreserving regularizations, with the \(\sigma\)model [59] and with Vreman’s [106] eddyviscosity model. For simplicity, the filter width of the regularizations is chosen equal to the mesh spacing.
The bulk Reynolds number based on the halfheight of the channel H is fixed at either \(Re _{\mathrm{b}} = 2800\) or \(Re _{\mathrm{b}} = 6875\) by prescribing a uniform body force. The simulations at the friction Reynolds number \(Re _\tau \approx 180\) are performed on the coarse grid D from Sect. 5.1, and the simulations at \(Re _\tau \approx 395\) are performed on the \(64^3\) grid E which stretches towards the wall. Characteristics of these grids are listed in Table 1.
The friction Reynolds numbers \(Re _{\tau }\) computed in simulations of channel flow with the symmetrypreserving regularizations and various turbulence models
For each of the simulations, time averages are recorded from 800 to 1600 time units. The computed friction Reynolds numbers are listed in Table 3. The averaged mean velocity and turbulent fluctuations normalized by the computed friction velocity are shown in Fig. 8 for \(Re _\tau \approx 180\) and Fig. 9 for \(Re _\tau \approx 395\). The results obtained without model predict a friction Reynolds number which is slightly higher than the actual value. The normalized (using the friction velocity) mean velocity profiles obtained without model differ from results for the DNS by Moser et al. [57], especially for the simulation at \(Re _\tau \approx 395\). Note that for the latter case the flow details are smaller, hence the grid is relatively coarser.
The simulations with Leray regularization lower the wall friction compared to the \(c_2\) regularization and the simulation without model. Simulations with eddyviscosity models are in general more dissipative and lower the friction Reynolds number compared to the regularization models. This effect seems stronger when the relative resolution of the grid is better (at lower bulk Reynolds number). At poorer resolution, the \(c_2\) regularization and the simulation without model overpredict the wall friction. As a preliminary (and not really surprising) conclusion, it seems advantageous to reduce the influence of a turbulence model when a grid becomes finer (i.e. better resolving). This observation is in line with the studies of the “error landscape” by Klein et al. [35]; see also [46, 59].
7 Minimum Dissipation EddyViscosity Models
Following the previous conclusions, which basically boil down to being careful with additional viscosity, we next consider eddyviscosity models that give the minimum eddy dissipation required to prevent accumulation of kinetic energy in the LES solution. The first minimumdissipation model is the QR model [96]. This model depends on invariants of the resolved rateofstrain tensor and switches off in laminar and transitional flow. It will be shown that it gives good results on isotropic grids, but insufficient dissipation on anisotropic grids. To address this flaw, a new minimumdissipation model for anisotropic grids AMD [75] is proposed; the text below gives a summary of the modeling. Further considerations on minimizing eddy viscosity by means of invariants can be found in [97] and [92].
7.1 The QR Model
The QR model, introduced by Verstappen [96], is an eddyviscosity model which gives the minimum eddy dissipation required to remove subgrid scales from the LES solution, and is based on the invariants Q and R of the rateofstrain tensor. In the derivation of the QR model, the LES filter width is related to the computational grid from the outset. Also, the subgrid scales are assumed to be periodic over a grid scale, and the eddy viscosity is assumed to be constant over a grid cell. The basic line of reasoning behind this model is a balance between the production of subgrid scale energy by the convective term (related to R) and its dissipation through flow gradients (related to Q).
7.1.1 Derivation from the MinimumDissipation Condition
It can be shown that \(R({\mathbf{v}} )\) vanishes in flows with zero exact eddy dissipation according to the analysis by Vreman for all possible LES filters [106]. In practice, this means that the QR model switches off for laminar and transitional flows. Also, the QR model switches off in twodimensional flows such as solid body rotation. This is considered to be an appropriate property of an LES model [59].
7.1.2 Choice of Filter Width on Anisotropic Grids
7.2 The Anisotropic MinimumDissipation (AMD) Model
The QR model has good theoretical properties on isotropic computational grids as we will show below. However, as mentioned above, the velocity gradient energy used in the derivation of the QR model is dominated by variations in the direction with the smallest mesh spacing, which leads to insufficient damping in the coarse direction.
This flaw can be addressed by realizing that when there is sufficient resolution at a given (small) grid spacing, then in that direction there is no subgrid scale activity to account for. This observation suggests to relate production and dissipation of subgrid energy to the velocity gradient with respect to the grid, i.e. in computational space rather than in physical space. The anisotropic minimumdissipation AMD model is based on this observation. Below we will present its derivation, which follows the derivation of the QR model discussed above. We will also demonstrate that this model is consistent with the gradient model on anisotropic grids.
7.2.1 The Derivation of the AMD Model for Rectangular Grids
Below, in Sect. 7.2.2, it is shown that the tensor B is proportional to the leadingorder term of the Taylor expansion of the exact subgridstress tensor for a separable LES filter when the Poincaré constant is chosen as \(C=1/12\). With this choice, the contraction \(B : S\) is proportional to the eddy dissipation of the gradient model [12] on an anisotropic rectangular grid. Also, this value of C does not differ much from the Poincaré constant for the solution of a Laplace equation \(C=1/\pi ^2\).

With some notational modifications, the above model can also be applied on curvilinear grids [71].

The AMD model has been derived based on the equations in computational space, and not on the equations in physical space which is the usual way for turbulence modeling. This strategy falls in a wider philosophy of first discretizing the basic flow equations and only thereafter take the actions you want to take [94].

There exists an interesting quantitative difference between the QR model and the AMD model for twodimensional flow. The leadingorder term of the exact subgrid tensor gives no eddy dissipation for twodimensional flow on isotropic grids, but may give eddy dissipation for twodimensional flow on anisotropic grids. The derivation of the QR model implicitly assumes an isotropic grid, and switches off for all twodimensional flows [96]. However, the AMD model follows the behavior of the exact subgrid tensor, and does give eddy dissipation for certain twodimensional flows on anisotropic grids.
7.2.2 Consistency with the Anisotropic Gradient Model
Thus, the AMD model gives eddy dissipation exactly if the gradient model gives eddy dissipation. This implies that the AMD model switches off for flows with zero exact eddy dissipation [106]. Hence, consistency with the leadingorder term of the exact subgrid stress is a nice theoretical property. It is to be stressed that this consistency does not hold if \(B:S < 0\), i.e. the AMD model vanishes when the leadingorder term of the gradient model would yield negative dissipation (and becomes unstable in practice) [105].
7.2.3 Discrete Corrections for the Model Constant
In most numerical methods, the derivative in the convective term as used in the numerators of the QR and AMD models is discretized using a central \(2\varDelta x\) stencil. In contrast, the two first derivatives of the dissipative term, related to the denominator in (44) are effectively discretized on a \(\varDelta x\) stencil to prevent decoupling. Another way of saying this, is that the Laplacian induced by the convective discretization has a twice larger stencil than the Laplacian induced by the diffusive discretization.
This discrete difference has to be accounted for in the above analytic reasoning. As a consequence, a correction has to be made to the length scale in the Poincaré inequality. As the length scale appears quadratically, this means that for a secondorder central discretization of convection the model constant should be multiplied by a factor \(2^2=4\). For a fourthorder discretization, a similar correction is required. It has been argued in [71] that this correction equals 2.832.
7.3 QR and AMD Results
To validate the proposed minimumdissipation models, simulations of turbulent channel flow (see Sects. 5.1 and 6.3), decaying grid turbulence (see Sect. 5.2) and a temporal mixing layer are performed. The results obtained with the minimumdissipation models are compared with results obtained with other methods described in this paper, like the Smagorinsky models [43, 80] and the Vreman eddyviscosity model [106].
7.3.1 Turbulent Channel Flow
The studied channel flows are the classical simulations, also studied in Sects. 5.1 and 6.3, at friction Reynolds numbers of approximately 395 and 590 [57].
The mesh spacing of the computational grids in wall units based on friction Reynolds number obtained in direct numerical simulations of turbulent channel flow [57]
\(Re _{\mathrm{b}}\)  \(Re _\tau\)  \({\varDelta x}^+\)  \({\varDelta y}^+_{ min }\)  \({\varDelta y}^+_{ max }\)  \({\varDelta z}^+\) 

6875  392.2  38.5  2.6  40.7  19.3 
10,975  587.2  57.6  3.9  61.0  28.8 
The friction Reynolds numbers obtained in the channel flow simulations at bulk Reynolds numbers of 6875 and 10, 975 with the QR model with different filter width approximations, the AMD model, the Vreman model, and without an LES model. Also friction Reynolds numbers obtained from a DNS are listed
The friction Reynolds numbers computed in the channel flow simulations are listed in Table 5. The mean flow velocity and the turbulent fluctuations normalized by the computed friction velocity at both Reynolds numbers are shown in Figs. 10 and 11. For both channel flows, the simulations without an LES model predict a friction Reynolds number which considerably exceeds the actual Reynolds number. The Vreman model and the AMD model give good results for the studied channel flows. For these models, the error in the predicted friction Reynolds number is smaller than 3%, and the normalized mean flow velocity profiles agree accurately with the DNS.
7.3.2 Decaying Grid Turbulence
To assess the applicability of the minimumdissipation models to decaying turbulence, largeeddy simulations of an experiment by ComteBellot and Corrsin [14] are performed on a coarse \(64^3\) grid. The setup of the simulations is essentially the same as in Sect. 5.2. Simulations with the AMD model are performed with the secondorder accurate collocated method for compressible flow. The model constant for unfiltered results proposed in Eq. (50) is compared with the model constant for boxfiltered results proposed in Eq. (51). Results are compared with experimental measurements, boxfiltered experimental measurements, and results obtained with the dynamic Smagorinsky model in the staggered secondorder accurate method for incompressible flow.
In a similar way, the energy decay obtained with the AMD model with the model constant for boxfiltered results in Eq. (51) closely agrees with the energy decay of the boxfiltered experimental measurements. The energy spectra obtained with this model constant agree with the boxfiltered energy spectra. Also, the results collapse on results obtained with the dynamic Smagorinsky model.
7.3.3 Temporal Mixing Layer
The simulations of the temporal mixing layer have been performed with the collocated fourthorder accurate method for compressible flow employing the proposed minimumdissipation models, with the model constants as proposed in (50). Results obtained with the minimumdissipation models are compared with results obtained with the Vreman model [106], which is considered to be a proper model for the mixing layer. Also, the results are compared with results obtained with the classical Smagorinsky model [80]. For a comparison with the dynamic Smagorinsky model, see [75].
7.3.4 Mixing Layer on an Isotropic Grid
The classical Smagorinsky model is overly dissipative in the transitional regime, and delays transition of the mixing layer. Also, the Smagorinsky model does not predict a linear growth of the mixing layer. These disadvantages of the Smagorinsky model in simulations of the mixing layer are sometimes resolved by using the Smagorinsky constant \(C_s = 0.10\) instead of \(C_s = 0.17\) [17]. However, this Smagorinsky constant gives too little eddy dissipation in the turbulent regime of the mixing layer [105].
To assess the behavior of the minimumdissipation models in the selfsimilar regime, the growth rate of the mixing layer and plots of the velocity fluctuations in the streamwise direction are shown in Fig. 15. The minimumdissipation models predict an approximately constant growth rate of the mixing layer from \(t=80\) to \(t=160\). Plots of the streamwise velocity fluctuations against the normalized normal coordinate computed with the AMD model indeed collapse. This demonstrates that the minimumdissipation models appropriately capture the selfsimilar character of the temporal mixing layer.
Figure 16 shows the kinetic energy spectra at \(t=140\). The energy spectra closely resemble the \(E(k) \sim k^{5/3}\) decay law: no considerable pileup of kinetic energy is observed. In fact, the energy spectra obtained with the minimumdissipation models closely agree with energy spectra obtained with the Vreman model.
7.3.5 Mixing Layer on an Anisotropic Grid
The above results demonstrate that the QR model and the AMD model give good results for the temporal mixing layer on an isotropic grid. To assess the minimumdissipation models on anisotropic grids, the simulations from the previous section are repeated on a grid with dimensions \(90 \times 360 \times 90\). This grid has the same mesh spacing in the streamwise and spanwise directions, but a fourtimes smaller mesh spacing in the normal direction.
Figure 17 shows the evolution of the total kinetic energy in the computational domain and the growth rate of momentum thickness of the temporal mixing layer. Just as on the isotropic grid, results obtained with the AMD model closely agree with results obtained with the Vreman model. On this anisotropic grid, transition of the temporal mixing layer occurs slightly earlier than on the coarser isotropic grid. This is not troublesome, because the transition to turbulence in simulations of a mixing layer is in general very sensitive to grid resolution, the accuracy of the used numerical method, and the perturbation of the initial condition [70].
The differences between the LES models and approximations of the filter width on anisotropic grids can further be studied by examination of the energy spectra in the turbulent regime. Figure 18 shows the streamwise and spanwise energy spectra at the center plane \(y=0\) of the mixing layer at \(t=140\). The Vreman model and the AMD model properly dissipate the energy of subgrid scales on the anisotropic grid, and the obtained energy spectra closely resemble the \(E(k) \sim k^{5/3}\) decay law.
8 Conclusions
In this paper, lowdissipation methods and models for the simulation of turbulent airflow have been studied. Both numerical discretization methods as well as turbulence models have been addressed. Their common theme is the minimal use of additional diffusion, be it as part of the discretization or as part of the turbulence model.
8.1 Discretization Without Artificial Dissipation
 1.
The methods discretely conserve the primary variables mass, momentum and total energy, i.e. they are proper finitevolume methods for compressible flow.
 2.
The convective terms preserve the secondary variables kinetic and internal energy at the discrete level. This property ensures that artificial dissipation cannot overwhelm the eddy dissipation of an LES model. Moreover, it prevents spurious generation of kinetic energy by discrete convection and therefore improves the numerical stability of the method.
 3.
The energyconserving methods can be applied for general (structured) curvilinear grids. Higherorder versions can be obtained through Richardson extrapolation.
 4.
The formulation in squareroot variables allows for straightforward derivation of energyconserving timeintegration methods.
 5.
The squareroot variables also allow to define symmetrypreserving regularization turbulence models.
The symmetrypreserving method has been implemented in the simulation method Enflow of NLR [37], with which largescale simulations of the transitional airflow over a delta wing have been performed. The challenge of these simulations is to accurately capture the development of the shear layer that separates at the leading edge of the wing. Comparison with experiments shows that the onset of unsteady flow and the onset of full turbulence are predicted accurately [71].
8.2 LowDissipation LargeEddy Simulation Models
When the computational grid is not fine enough to accurately capture the smallest turbulent flow structures by means of DNS, coarsegrained turbulent flow models are required. Therefore, in the second part of the paper, an overview of lowdissipation LES models has been given. Regularization models [90, 95], which generate no dissipation at all but which merely redistribute the energy over the scales, are useful on nearlyresolved grids (e.g. in channel flow simulations), but there is possibly pileup of energy near the grid cutoff (e.g. in decaying turbulence). Some amount of energy dissipation appears to be necessary on underresolved grids, but not too much.
The test cases show that the amount of eddy viscosity needed in an LES method is dependent on the resolution of the grid. This information forms the basis for a new class of minimumdissipation models: the QR model [96] and the anisotropic minimum dissipation model AMD [1, 75]. The former has been developed for isotropic grids, whereas the latter is a generalization to anisotropic grids. To deal with the anisotropy, the analytic derivation of the AMD method is carried out in transformed spatial coordinates similar to computational space (as opposed to physical space).
Both models are based on an estimate of the production of subgrid energy, and give just enough dissipation to remove the subgrid scales from the LES solution. They appropriately give eddy viscosity in regions of turbulent flow, but switch off in regions of laminar and transitional flow. The models are consistent with the exact subfilter tensor: the QR method on isotropic grids, the AMD method also on anisotropic grids. This makes the AMD model a good starting point in the research of consistent and practical LES models.
The fundamental simplicity of minimumdissipation models is elegant. However, their application could be limited to flows in which the energy dissipation of forward scatter down to unresolved scales is dominant. Combination with a (energyconserving) regularization model to model back scatter might then be useful. Also, the minimization ideas of AMD could be applied to other models, like the Bardina model, as done by Streher et al. [85]. A further extension could be to include nondissipative terms in the AMD model, e.g. related to the skew–symmetric part of the velocity gradient, while staying consistent with the exact subfilter tensor [78, 79].
Notes
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Ubbo Emmius Fund of the University of Groningen. The research was carried out at the Johann Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics and Computer Science of the University of Groningen and the Flight Physics and Loads department of the Netherlands Aerospace Centre NLR. We acknowledge sponsoring by the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) for the use of supercomputing facilities. Stanford University is acknowledged for financial support to W.R. and R.V. to attend the Center for Turbulence Research Summer Program 2014.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
References
 1.Abkar M, Bae HJ, Moin P (2016) Minimumdissipation scalar transport model for largeeddy simulation of turbulent flows. Phys Rev Fluids 1(4):041,701Google Scholar
 2.Aljure DE, Lehmkuhl O, Rodriguez I, Oliva A (2014) Flow and turbulent structures around simplified car models. Comput Fluids 96:122–135Google Scholar
 3.Anderson JD (1984) Fundamentals of aerodynamics. McGrawHill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
 4.Arakawa A (1966) Computational design for longterm numerical integration of the equations of fluid motion: twodimensional incompressible flow. Part I. J Comput Phys 1:119–143zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 5.Arakawa A, Lamb VR (1981) A potential enstrophy and energy conserving scheme for the shallowwater equations. Mon Weather Rev 109(1):18–36Google Scholar
 6.Aris R (1990) Vectors, tensors and the basic equations of fluid mechanics. Courier Corporation, North ChelmsfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 7.Beaudan P, Moin P (1994) Numerical experiments on the flow past a circular cylinder at subcritical Reynolds number. Tech. rep., Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
 8.Boerstoel JW, Kassies A, Kok JC, Spekreijse SP (1996) ENFLOW a fullfunctionality system of CFD codes for industrial Euler/Navier–Stokes flow computations. Tech. Rep. NLR TP 96286 U, National Aerospace Laboratory NLRGoogle Scholar
 9.Brouwer J, Reiss J, Sesterhenn J (2014) Conservative time integrators of arbitrary order for skew–symmetric finitedifference discretizations of compressible flow. Comput Fluids 100:1–12MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 10.Chae D (2005) On the spectral dynamics of the deformation tensor and new a priori estimates for the 3D Euler equations. Commun Math Phys 263:789–801MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 11.Choi H, Moin P (2012) Gridpoint requirements for largeeddy simulation: Chapman’s estimates revisited. Phys Fluids 24(011):702Google Scholar
 12.Clark RA, Ferziger JH, Reynolds WC (1979) Evaluation of subgridscale models using an accurately simulated turbulent flow. J Fluid Mech 91(1):1–16zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 13.Colonius T, Lele SK (2004) Computational aeroacoustics: progress on nonlinear problems of sound generation. Progr Aerosp Sci 40:345–416Google Scholar
 14.ComteBellot G, Corrsin S (1971) Simple Eulerian time correlation of full and narrowband velocity signals in gridgenerated, ‘isotropic’ turbulence. J Fluid Mech 48(2):273–337Google Scholar
 15.Cummings RM, Morton SA, McDaniel DR (2008) Experiences in accurately predicting timedependent flows. Prog Aerosp Sci 44:241–257Google Scholar
 16.Davidson PA (2004) Turbulence: an introduction for scientists and engineers. Oxford University Press, OxfordzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 17.Deardorff JW (1970) A numerical study of threedimensional turbulent channel flow at large Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech 41:453–480zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 18.Ducros F, Laporte F, Souleres T, Guinot V, Moinat P, Caruelle B (2000) Highorder fluxes for conservative skew–symmetriclike schemes in structured meshes: application to compressible flows. J Comput Phys 161(1):114–139MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 19.Feiereisen W, Reynolds W, Ferziger J (1981) Numerical simulation of a compressible, homogeneous, turbulent shear flow. Report TF13, Thermosciences Division, Mechanical Engineering, Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
 20.Foias C, Holm DD, Titi ES (2001) The Navier–Stokesalpha model of fluid turbulence. Phys D 152:505MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 21.Garnier E, Adams N, Sagaut P (2009) Large eddy simulation for compressible flows. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 22.Germano M, Piomelli U, Moin P, Cabot WH (1991) A dynamic subgridscale eddy viscosity model. Phys Fluids A 3:1760–1765zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 23.Geurts BJ (2004) Elements of direct and largeeddy simulation. R.T. Edwards, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
 24.Geurts BJ, Holm DD (2003) Regularization modeling for largeeddy simulation. Phys Fluids 15:L13–L16MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 25.Geurts BJ, Holm DD (2006) Leray and LANS\(\alpha\) modelling of turbulent mixing. J Turbul 7:N10MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 26.Guermond JL, Quartapelle L (2000) A projection FEM for variable density incompressible flows. J Comput Phys 165:167–188MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 27.Guermond JL, Oden JT, Prudhomme S (2004) Mathematical perspectives on large eddy simulation models for turbulent flows. J Math Fluid Mech 6:194–248MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 28.Harlow FH, Welch JE (1965) Numerical calculation of timedependent viscous incompressible flow of fluid with free surface. Phys Fluids 8:2182–2189MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 29.Helder J, Verstappen R (2008) On restraining convective subgridscale production in Burgers’ equation. Int J Numer Meth Fluids 56:1289–1295MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 30.Honein AE, Moin P (2004) Higher entropy conservation and numerical stability of compressible turbulence simulations. J Comput Phys 201:531–545zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 31.Jameson A (2008) Formulation of kinetic energy preserving conservative schemes for gas dynamics and direct numerical simulation of onedimensional viscous compressible flow in a shock tube using entropy and kinetic energy preserving schemes. J Sci Comput 34:188–208MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 32.Jofre L, Lehmkuhl O, Ventosa J, Trias FX, Oliva A (2014) Conservation properties of unstructured finitevolume mesh schemes for the Navier–Stokes equations. Numer Heat Transf Part B Fundam 65(1):53–79Google Scholar
 33.Kang HS, Chester S, Meneveau C (2003) Decaying turbulence in an activegridgenerated flow and comparisons with largeeddy simulation. J Fluid Mech 480:129–160MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 34.Kang S, Pitsch H (2009) A robust scheme for compressible flows with a minimum artificial stabilization. In: Annual research briefs 2009, Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, pp 353–365Google Scholar
 35.Klein M, Meyers J, Geurts BJ (2008) Assessment of les quality measures using the error landscape approach. In: Meyers J, Geurts B, Sagaut P (eds) Quality and reliability of largeeddy simulations. Springer, Berlin, pp 131–142Google Scholar
 36.Kok JC (2006) A symmetry and dispersion–relation preserving highorder scheme for aeroacoustics and aerodynamics. Tech. Rep. NLRTP2006525, National Aerospace Laboratory NLRGoogle Scholar
 37.Kok JC (2009) A highorder lowdispersion symmetrypreserving finitevolume method for compressible flow on curvilinear grids. J Comput Phys 228:6811–6832MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 38.Kok JC, van der Ven H (2012) Capturing free shear layers in hybrid RANSLES simulations of separated flow. Tech. Rep. NLRTP2012333, National Aerospace Laboratory NLRGoogle Scholar
 39.Kravchenko AG, Moin P (1997) On the effect of numerical errors in large eddy simulations of turbulent flows. J Comput Phys 131:310–322zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 40.Kwak D, Reynolds WC, Ferziger JH (1975) Threedimensional time dependent computation of turbulent flow. Tech. rep., Stanford UniversityGoogle Scholar
 41.Leray J (1934) Essai sur le mouvement d’un fluide visqueux emplissant l’espace. Acta Math 63:193–248MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 42.Lilly DK (1966) On the application of the eddy viscosity concept in the inertial subrange of turbulence. Tech. rep., National Center for Atmospheric ResearchGoogle Scholar
 43.Lilly DK (1992) A proposed modification of the Germano subgridscale closure method. Phys Fluids A 4(3):633–635Google Scholar
 44.LuccaNegro O, O’Doherty T (2001) Vortex breakdown: a review. Prog Energ Combust 27:431–481Google Scholar
 45.Meneveau C, Katz J (2000) Scaleinvariance and turbulence models for largeeddy simulation. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 32:1–32MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 46.Meneveau C, Lund TS (1997) The dynamic Smagorinsky model and scaledependent coefficients in the viscous range of turbulence. Phys Fluids 9:3932–3934MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 47.Meneveau C, Sagaut P (2006) Large eddy simulation for incompressible flows: an introduction. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
 48.Menter FR (1994) Twoequation eddyviscosity turbulence models for engineering applications. AIAA J 32:1598–1605Google Scholar
 49.Meyers J, Sagaut P (2007) Is planechannel flow a friendly case for the testing of largeeddy simulation subgridscale models? Phys Fluids 19(048):105zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 50.Mitchell AM, Délery J (2001) Research into vortex breakdown control. Prog Aerosp Sci 37:385–418Google Scholar
 51.Mittal R, Moin P (1997) Suitability of upwindbiased finite difference schemes for largeeddy simulation of turbulent flows. AIAA J 35:1415–1417zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 52.Moin P, Kim J (1982) Numerical investigation of turbulent channel flow. J Fluid Mech 118:341–377zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 53.Moin P, Squires K, Cabot W, Lee S (1991) A dynamic subgridscale model for compressible turbulence and scalar transport. Phys Fluids A 3(11):2746–2757zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 54.Morinishi Y (2010) Skewsymmetric form of convective terms and fully conservative finite difference schemes for variable density lowMach number flows. J Comput Phys 229:276–300MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 55.Morinishi Y, Lund TS, Vasilyev OV, Moin P (1998) Fully conservative higher order finite difference schemes for incompressible flow. J Comput Phys 143:90–124MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 56.Morton SA (2003) High Reynolds number DES simulations of vortex breakdown over a 70 degree delta wing. In: 21st Applied aerodynamic conference, Orlando, AIAA20034217Google Scholar
 57.Moser RD, Kim J, Mansour NN (1999) Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to Re\(_{\tau }\) = 590. Phys Fluids 11:943–945zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 58.Nicoud F, Ducros F (1999) Subgridscale stress modelling based on the square of the velocity gradient. Flow Turbul Combust 62:183–200zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 59.Nicoud F, Toda HB, Cabrit O, Bose S, Lee J (2011) Using singular values to build a subgridscale model for large eddy simulations. Phys Fluids 23(085):106Google Scholar
 60.Olver PJ (1982) A nonlinear Hamiltonian structure for the Euler equations. J Math Anal Appl 89(1):233–250MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 61.Palha A, Gerritsma M (2017) A mass, energy, enstrophy and vorticity conserving (MEEVC) mimetic spectral element discretization for the 2D incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. J Comput Phys 328:200–220MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 62.Payne L, Weinberger HF (1960) An optimal Poincaré inequality for convex domains. Arch Ration Mech Anal 5:286–292zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 63.Phillips NA (1959) An example of nonlinear computational instability. In: Bolin B (ed) The atmosphere and the sea in motion. The Rockefeller Institute Press, New York, pp 501–504Google Scholar
 64.Piacsek S, Williams G (1970) Conservation properties of convection difference schemes. J Comput Phys 6:392–405zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 65.Pope SB (2000) Turbulent flows. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
 66.Pope SB (2004) Ten questions concerning the largeeddy simulation of turbulent flows. New J Phys 6:35Google Scholar
 67.Reiss J (2015) A family of energy stable, skew–symmetric finite difference schemes on collocated grids. J Sci Comput 65:1–18MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 68.Reiss J, Sesterhenn J (2014) A conservative, skew–symmetric finite difference scheme for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations. Comput Fluids 101:208–219MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 69.Riley AJ, Lowson MV (1998) Development of a threedimensional free shear layer. J Fluid Mech 369:49–88MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 70.Rogers MM, Moser RD (1994) Direct simulation of a selfsimilar turbulent mixing layer. Phys Fluids 6:903–923zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 71.Rozema W (2015) Lowdissipation methods and models for the simulation of turbulent subsonic flow. PhD thesis, University of GroningenGoogle Scholar
 72.Rozema W, Kok JC, Verstappen RWCP, Veldman AEP (2013) A symmetrypreserving discretization and regularization model for compressible flow. In: Eighth international symposium on turbulence and shear flow phenomena (TSFP8), p COMP2EGoogle Scholar
 73.Rozema W, Kok JC, Verstappen RWCP, Veldman AEP (2014a) A symmetrypreserving discretisation and regularisation model for compressible flow with application to turbulent channel flow. J Turbul 15(6):386–410MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
 74.Rozema W, Verstappen RWCP, Kok JC, Veldman AEP (2014b) Discretizations and regularization models for compressible flow that preserve the skew–symmetry of convective transport. In: 6th European conference on computational fluid dynamics (ECFD VI)Google Scholar
 75.Rozema W, Bae HJ, Moin P, Verstappen R (2015a) Minimumdissipation models for largeeddy simulation. Phys Fluids 27(085):107Google Scholar
 76.Rozema W, Verstappen RWCP, Kok JC, Veldman AEP (2015b) A symmetrypreserving discretization and regularization subgrid model for compressible turbulent flow. In: Fröhlich J, Armenio V, Kuerten H (eds) Direct and largeeddy simulation IX. Springer, Berlin, pp 319–325Google Scholar
 77.Sanderse B (2013) Energyconserving Runge–Kutta methods for the incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. J Comput Phys 233:100–131MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 78.Silvis M, Trias F, Abkar M, Bae H, LozanoDurán A, Verstappen R (2016) Exploring nonlinear subgridscale models and new characteristic length scales for largeeddy simulation. In: Proceedings of the CTR summer program 2016. Center for Turbulence Research, Stanford University, pp 265–274Google Scholar
 79.Silvis MH, Remmerswaal RA, Verstappen R (2017) Physical consistency of subgridscale models for largeeddy simulation of incompressible turbulent flows. Phys Fluids 29(015):105Google Scholar
 80.Smagorinsky J (1963) General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: I. The basic experiment. Mon Weather Rev 91:99–164Google Scholar
 81.Spalart PR (2009) Detachededdy simulation. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 41:181–203zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 82.Spalart PR, Allmaras SR (1992) A oneequation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. In: 30th Aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, AIAA920439Google Scholar
 83.Spalart PR, Jou WH, Strelets M, Allmaras SR (1997) Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. Adv DNS/LES 1:4–8Google Scholar
 84.Strand B (1994) Summation by parts for finite difference approximations for d/dx. J Comput Phys 110:47–67MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 85.Streher LB, Silvis MH, Verstappen R (2018) Mixed modeling for largeeddy simulation: the minimumdissipation Bardina model. preprint arXiv:180611317
 86.Subbareddy PK, Candler GV (2009) A fully discrete, kinetic energy consistent finitevolume scheme for compressible flows. J Comput Phys 228:1347–1364MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 87.Tam CKW (1995) Computational aeroacoustics: issues and methods. AIAA J 33:1788–1796zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 88.Tam CKW, Webb JC (1993) Dispersion–relation–preserving finite difference schemes for computational acoustics. J Comput Phys 107:262–281MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 89.Trias FX, Verstappen RWCP (2011) On the construction of discrete filters for symmetrypreserving regularization models. Comput Phys 40:139–148MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 90.Trias FX, Verstappen RWCP, Gorobets A, Soria M, Oliva A (2010) Parameterfree symmetrypreserving regularization modeling of a turbulent differentially heated cavity. Comput Fluids 39:1815–1831zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 91.Trias FX, Lehmkuhl O, Oliva A, PérezSegarra CD, Verstappen RWCP (2014) Symmetrypreserving discretization of Navier–Stokes equations on collocated unstructured grids. J Comput Phys 258:246–267MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 92.Trias FX, Folch D, Gorobets A, Oliva A (2015) Building proper invariants for eddyviscosity subgridscale models. Phys Fluids 27(6):065,103Google Scholar
 93.van’t Hof B, Veldman AEP (2012) Mass, momentum and energy conserving (MaMEC) discretizations on general grids for the compressible euler and shallow water equations. J Comput Phys 231:4723–4744MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 94.Veldman AEP (1990) ‘Missing’ boundary conditions? Discretize first, substitute next, and combine later. SIAM J Sci Stat Comput 11(1):82–91MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 95.Verstappen R (2008) On restraining the production of small scales of motion in a turbulent channel flow. Comput Fluids 37:887–897MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 96.Verstappen R (2011) When does eddy viscosity damp subfilter scales sufficiently? J Sci Comput 49(1):94–110MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 97.Verstappen R (2016) How much eddy dissipation is needed to counterbalance the nonlinear production of small, unresolved scales in a largeeddy simulation of turbulence? Comput Fluids. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.12.016
 98.Verstappen RWCP, Veldman AEP (1997) Direct numerical simulation of turbulence at lesser costs. J Eng Math 32:143–159zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 99.Verstappen RWCP, Veldman AEP (1998) Spectroconsistent discretization of Navier–Stokes: a challenge to RANS and LES. J Eng Math 34:163–179zbMATHGoogle Scholar
 100.Verstappen RWCP, Veldman AEP (2003) Symmetrypreserving discretization of turbulent flow. J Comput Phys 187:3670–3681MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 101.Vinokur M (1974) Conservation equations of gasdynamics in curvilinear coordinate systems. J Comput Phys 14(2):105–125MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 102.Vinokur M (1989) An analysis of finitedifference and finitevolume formulations of conservation laws. J Comput Phys 81(1):1–52MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
 103.Visbal MR, Gaitonde DV (1999) Highorderaccurate methods for complex unsteady subsonic flows. AIAA J 37(10):1231–1239Google Scholar
 104.Visbal MR, Gordnier RE (2003) On the structure of the shear layer emanating from a swept leading edge at angle of attack. In: 33rd AIAA fluid dynamics conference and exhibit, AIAA 20034016Google Scholar
 105.Vreman AW (1995) Direct and largeeddy simulation of the compressible turbulent mixing layer. PhD thesis, University of TwenteGoogle Scholar
 106.Vreman AW (2004) An eddyviscosity subgridscale model for turbulent shear flow: algebraic theory and applications. Phys Fluids 16(10):3670–3681zbMATHGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.