Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

TENZOR (ANSYS Channel Partner) Blog –

Mechanical Analysis to the Level of ART

Understanding The Spalart-

Allmaras Turbulence Model

ON APRIL 25, 2017AUGUST 5, 2018 / BY TOMER AVRAHAM ☇

Most of nowadays CFD simulations are conducted with the Reynolds

Averaging approach. Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
(h ps://drive.google.com
/open?id=1wWgcdLfH74swYcan8w3HVAeYuoQ R-B) simulation is
based on the Reynolds decomposition according to which a flow
variable is decomposed into mean and fluctuating quantities. When the
decomposition is applied to Navier-Stokes equation an extra term
known as the Reynolds Stress Tensor arises and a modelling
methodology is needed to close the equations. The “closure problem” is
apparent as higher and higher moments of the set of equations may
be taken, more unknown terms arise and the number of equations
never suffices. This is of course an obvious consequence to the fact that
taking these higher moments is simply a mathematical endeavor and
has no physical contribution what so ever.

1 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

Reynolds-stress tensor

Levels of modeling are related to the number of differential equations

added to Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations in order to
“close” them.
0-equation (algebraic) models are the simplest form of turbulence
models, a turbulence length scale is specified in advance through
experimenting. 0-equations models are very limited in applications as
they fail to take into account history effects, assuming turbulence is
dissipated where it’s generated, a direct consequence of their algebraic
nature.

1-equation and 2-equations models, incorporate a differential

transport equation for the turbulent velocity scale (or the related the
turbulent kinetic energy) and in the case of 2-equation models another
transport equation for the length scale (or time scale), subsequently
invoking the “Boussinesq Hypothesis”
(h ps://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/29/the-bousinesq-
hypothesis-thinking-out-of-the-box/) relating an eddy-viscosity analog to
its kinetic gasses theory derived counterpart (albeit flow dependent and
not a flow property) and relating it to the Reynolds stress through the
mean strain.
In this sense 2-equation models can be viewed as “closed” because
unlike 0-equation and 1-equation models (with exception maybe of
1-equations transport for the eddy viscosity itself) these models possess
sufficient equations for constructing the eddy viscosity with no direct
use for experimental results.

RANS differential equation closure models do however contain many

assumptions along the way for achieving the final form of the transport
equations and as such are calibrated to work well only according to
well-known features of the applications they are designed to solve.
Nonetheless although their inherent limitations. Nonetheless the
modeling methodology strength has proven itself for wall bounded
a ached flows at high Reynolds number (thin boundary layers) due
to calibration according to the “law-of-the-wall”.

2 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

The turbulent boundary-layer and the “law of the wall”

(h ps://drive.google.com/open?id=1mCpgIzIbu8yxkAPlvVAiRWXl-_Xt-WlZ)

Near wall cell size calculation (h ps://drive.google.com

/open?id=1jG1LdQUFR2pozowOpQxSEvMl51falRhe)

3 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

As RANS is already a working horse but has shown poor performance

due its inherent limitation applied to flows of which strong instabilities
and large unsteadiness occurs and it does not seem that a breakthrough
in achieving a universal modeling methodology is expected soon (or at
all…), researchers have shifted much of the a ention and effort
to hybrid formulations incorporating RANS and LES in certain ways.
The Spalart-Allmaras model serves also as the basis for the formulation
of perhaps the most popular hybrid simulation model, Detached Eddy
Simulation (DES) (h ps://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/03
/19/detached-eddy-simulation-an-a ractive-methodology-to-rans-in-
the-aid-of-les/)

Eddy Viscosity Transport Equation

Turbulence Models

Eddy viscosity transport equation turbulence models are a special kind

of 1-equation models in as much that they posses completeness (one
differential equation for the eddy viscosity to be related directly to the
Reynolds Stresses). It is actually very straightforward to derive an eddy
viscosity transport equation from a 2-equation closure. As an example, I
shall present such a simple procedure to be followed (I shall call it “my
1-eq eddy viscosity transport closure stunt” ):

4 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

5 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

The simple derivation above incorporates some interesting features as

the “Bradshaw hypothesis” and the Von-Karman length
scale, alterations that are important for shear stress transport and
unsteadiness (not to say that they are actually exploited by this
specific model).

Although it was very simple to derive, the calibration of the constants

shall be not less important to achieve a physically meaningful
turbulence model or specifically tuned for the range of validity in flows
of interest. I shall return to that in the following paragraphs.

The Original Spalart-Allmaras

Turbulence Model

The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model has been developed mainly for

aerodynamic flows. The formulation blends from a viscous sublayer
formulation to a logarithmic formulation based on y+. In as such, no
addition of highly non-linear damping functions for laminar/viscous
sublayer modeling is in use.

The methodology for obtaining the 1-equation eddy viscosity transport

model was somewhat different from the usual derivation of 2-equation
models, regularly achieved by pure mathematical operations to be
subsequently simplified by physical reasoning.
As for every transport equation, such is for the Reynolds stresses and
after Relating the eddy viscosity to the mean strain rate:

The various terms in an equation for the transport of the eddy

viscosity can be identified as convection, diffusion, production and
destruction.

6 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

In the spalart-allmaras methodology, surgical physics based

assumptions were made concerning each of the various terms such as
diffusion, production and destruction to the final aim of achieving a
complete transport equation for the eddy viscosity:

Diffusion

Spalart-allmaras representation of the diffusion terms kicks off with the

classical diffusion operator as ∇·([νt/σ]∇νt) where σ is a turbulent
Prandtl number. Then, as to achieve an aerodynamic flow oriented
diffusion behavior it is pointed out that there is no reason for the
integral of the eddy viscosity to be conserved due to cross terms
between ∇k and ∇ε for example (as seen from the above derivation
emanating from a 2-equation model), hence a non-conservative term is
added to the classical diffusion description:

Production

The representation of the production term is analogue to the

production of turbulent energy, assuming that it shall rise with an
increase in total viscosity and with the increase of the mean vorticity.
The subtlety is in the consideration of the relation between the
production and which form of mean vorticity is to be chosen in the
quest for most favorable effect. In the case of Spalart-Allmaras the
favorable effect is to serve aerodynamic flows in which turbulence is
found only where vorticity is. Therefore the magnitude of vorticity is
chosen as the representation of the mean vorticity (it should be noted
that future advancements of the original model to account for various
flow features may consider other forms for its representation) and the
production takes the form:

7 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

where:

Destruction

As for destruction, it is assumed for the eddy viscosity that “the ability
of a turbulent flow to transport momentum and the ability must be
directly related to the general ”level of activity“, therefore to the
turbulent energy to construct the destruction term” (taken from Nee
and Kovasznay – 1969). It’s also claimed in the surgical process of
deriving the destruction term that there is a “blocking effect” from a
wall that is felt at a distance by the pressure and acts as a destruction
entity for the Reynolds shear stress, therefore the use of a
wall proximity parameter in the representation is mandatory under
these assumptions (as a side note, the wall proximity parameter shall
serve well in constructing future hybrid DES and especially its
advancements as described in my former post: Detached Eddy
Simulation – an a ractive methodology to RANS in the aid of LES
(h ps://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/03/19/detached-eddy-
simulation-an-a ractive-methodology-to-rans-in-the-aid-of-les/) ).
The above assumption, and under proper calibration of the constants
seem to reproduce an accurate log layer. On the other hand, the skin
friction it produces for a flat plate boundary layer is underestimated, a
consequence of the rate of decay of the destruction term in the outer
portion of the boundary layer. Therefore, the Spalart-Allmaras
destruction term contains a function (which is equal to 1 in the log-
layer) to control this rate of decay and takes the final form of the
destruction representation:

where d is the wall proximity parameter, cw1 the constant to be

calibrated and fw is the control function.

Calibration

Subsequently to performing the surgical identification of the different

terms in the transport equation for the eddy viscosity (and by relation
the Reynolds Stress), it should be remembered that we are still left out

8 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

with some added constants to be calibrated and a control function to be

matched. In turbulence modeling calibration of the model is at least as
important as the derivation of the model itself. Calibration is achieved
with the help of experimental and numerical results of the type of flow
that should be modeled. The calibration process is also the first step in
which the range of validity of the model would be revealed to close
inspection and not just postulated from physical reasoning.
Saying all that, the process of calibrating the model is much more
complicated than the description of the main steps given below.

To achieve the non-dimensional control function Spalart-

Allmaras route followed the 0-equation mixing length wall
interaction methodology such that the function behavior shall
present satisfactory prediction of the problematic outer-layer of the
boundary layer. Limiting procedure to prevent large value of the
control function which could be problematic for the numerical
simulations are also an inseparable part of the derivation.

After the surgical considerations for the control function supported by

experimental results to also achieve calibration of the constants we are
left with the following:

and for the control function (the phase from g to the control function
represents the limiter effect):

9 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

The second (length scale), third (strain rate tensor) and fourth (friction
velocity) terms in the above are based on assumptions of classical log-
layer definitions which allows to assume equilibrium between
production, diffusion and the destruction as long as the first term is
defined as such.

The Final Form of Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model

Following the surgical derivation of the transport equation, the

calibration of its constants and the identification of the features and
form for the control function one of the most popular turbulence
models for aerodynamic calculations final form may be presented:

Modification of Spalart-Allmaras Closure to Acount for

Rotation and Curvature

A drawback evident in almost all eddy-viscosity models is the inability

to inherently account for rotation and curvature. This drawback is
resulted from relating the Reynolds stress to the mean flow strain
and in fact is the major difference between such a modeling approach
and a full Reynolds-stress model (RSM). The RSM approach accounts
for the important effect of the transport of the principal turbulent shear-
stress. On the other hand, RSM simulations are not computationally
cost-effective, in as much that one does get an improved physical
fidelity that is worth the time and computational resources consumed,
not only that, they often do not converge.
In the aim of accounting for rotation and curvature effect Spalart and
Shur offered a modification for the model based on empirical grounds.
The route for altering the transport equation kicks off with the
identification of the effect of curvature and rotation in two types of
extreme flows:

thin shear flows with weak rotation (compared with the shear rate)
or weak curvature (compared with the inverse of the shear-layer
thickness), highly impacting the level of the turbulent shear stress.
homogeneous rotating shear flow and free vortex cores of
which strong rotation reduces the turbulent shear stress sharply.

Spalart offers an alteration of the original eddy viscosity transport

equation based on reasoning concerning the first type presented above
(thin shear flows) and another empirical alteration added to the former

10 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

to account for the second type of extreme (i.e. homogeneous rotating

shear flow and free vortex cores).

The physical reasoning returns yet again to the chosen way to regard
the eddy viscosity relation to the strain rate and vorticity in a way as to
alleviate non-addressing the discrepancy between the principal axes of
the Reynolds stress tensor and rate of strain tensor.
Subsequently to exploring a satisfactory relationship between strain-
rate and vorticity to be accounted for by a scalar quantity to handle
curvature and rotation for thin shear flows with weak rotation and also
(albeit less reliably but could be improved by empirical additives) for
homogeneous rotating shear flow and free vortex cores, the production
term of the eddy viscosity transport equation is multiplied by a
“rotation function” (constants Cr1, Cr2 and Cr3 are calibrated as 1, 12
and 1 respectively) :

11 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.

Understanding The Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model – TENZOR (... https://cfdisraelblog.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/understanding-the-spalar...

TENZOR – Channel Partner ANSYS (h p://tenzor.co.il/)

12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos (h ps://www.amazon.com

/gp/product/0345816021/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&
creative=9325&creativeASIN=0345816021&linkCode=as2&tag=vromer-
20&linkId=6860efcaf81a84da081e802b02fcb99b)

3 thoughts on “Understanding The

Spalart-Allmaras Turbulence Model”

1. Pingback: Understanding the Local Correlation-Based (LCTM)

Transition Turbulence Model – CFD ISRAEL – Tomerʹs blog

2. Pingback: Detached Eddy Simulation – an a ractive methodology to

RANS in the aid of LES – CFD ISRAEL – Tomerʹs blog

3. Leonardo Guerreiro
Thank you so much, I would take a lot of time trying to understand
spalart-almaras’ paper by myself, it clarified my ideas

NOVEMBER 27, 2017 AT 7:32 PM REPLY

BLOG AT WORDPRESS.COM.

12 of 12 2018-08-07, 10:27 p.m.