STUDY OF ROBUST AND EFFICIENT TURBULENCE CLOSURES

FOR AEROSPACE APPLICATIONS

Carlos Junqueira Junior
a
, Joo L.F. Azevedo
b
, Edson Basso
b
and Leonardo C. Scalabrin
c
a
ITA - Instituto Tecnolgico de Aeronutica, Praa Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, Vila das Accias,
12.228-900, So Jos dos Campos, SP, Brazil, junior.hmg@gmail.com
b
IAE - Instituto de Aeronutica e Espao, Praa Marechal Eduardo Gomes, 50, Vila das Accias,
12.228-900, So Jos dos Campos, SP, Brazil, joaoluiz.azevedo@gmail.com , edsonbss@gmail.com
c
EMBRAER, Av. Brigadeiro Faria Lima, 2170, 12227-901, So Jos dos Campos, SP, Brazil,
leonardo.scalabrin@embraer.com.br
Keywords: CFD, Turbulence Modeling, Spalart-Allmaras, URANS, Aerospace Applications
Abstract. The present work is concerned on developing a novel ow simulation tool, which
incorporates several advances in current CFD practice, including parallel processing. The work
addresses the issues of implementing and validating an advanced turbulence model for high
Reynolds number aerospace applications. Since the development of a general purpose compu-
tational code comprises the aim of the long-term overall effort, it must be demonstrated that the
model can behave in a robust manner for the classes of aerospace problems of interest. Cur-
rently, the turbulence closure under consideration is the one-equation, eddy viscosity, Spalart-
Allmaras model. The paper discusses in detail the theoretical and numerical formulation of the
selected model, as well as the validation studies.
NOMENCLATURE
a : Speed of the sound;
A : Jacobian matrix of the inviscid ux;
B : Jacobian matrix of the viscous ux;
C
ij
: Cross-tensor;
C
p
: Specic heat at constant pressure;
C
v
: Specic heat at constant volume;
d : Molecular diffusion and turbulent transport;
d
k
: Distance of k-th face to the nearest wall;
e : Total energy per unit volume;
e
i
: Internal energy;
F
e
: Inviscid ux vector;
F
v
: Viscous ux vector;
h : Static enthalpy;
H : Total enthalpy;

i
x
,

i
y
,

i
z
: cartesian-coordinate orthonormal vector basis;
k : Turbulent kinetic energy;
L : Matrix of eigenvectors from the left;
m : Normal vector to the nearest wall;
n : Normal vector;
nf : Number of faces of a given volume;
p : Static pressure;
Pr : Prandtl number;
Pr
t
: Turbulent Prandtl number;
q
H
: Heat transfert vector;
q
t
H
: Turbulent heat transfert vector;
Q : Conserved variable vector;
R : Matrix of eigenvectors from the right;
R : Residue;
: Gas constant;
S = {S
x
, S
y
, S
z
} : Outward-oriented area vector;
S : Destruction term;
S
ij
= : Deformation Tensor;
t : Time;
T : Temperature;
v = {u, v, w} : Velocity vector in the cartesian coordinate;
V : Volume;
w : Switch of the Steger and Warming scheme;
Greek Characters
: Switch factor;
: Viscous force work and heat transfert term;

t
: Turbulent viscous force work, heat transfert and diffusion;

ij
: Kronecker delta;
Articial dissipation;
: Ratio of specic heats;
: Thermal conductivity coefcient;
: Eigenvalue of the Jacobian matrix;
: Diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues of the Jacobian;
: Dynamic molecular viscosity coefcient;

t
: Dynamic eddy viscosity coefcient;
: Modied dynamic eddy viscosity coefcient;
: Kinematic molecular viscosity coefcient;

t
: Kinematic eddy viscosity coefcient;
: Modied kinematic eddy viscosity coefcient;
: Density;

ij
: Shear-stress tensor;

t
ij
: Reynolds-stress tensor;
Subscripts
av : Averaged property;
i, j : Differential of i in the j direction;
ij : Array of tensor indexing;
: Freestream property;
cl : Cell on the left side of the face;
cr : Cell on the right side of the face;
k : Index of the cell face;
n : Normal;
Superscripts
( )

: Reynolds-averaged uctuation;
( )

: Mass-averaged uctuation;
( ) : Reynolds-averaged mean;

( ) : Mass-averaged mean;
( ) + : Positive part of a split property;
( ) : Negative part of a split property;
n : Index of iteration in time;
p : Index of iteration for the point implicit time integration;
t : Turbulent property;
1 INTRODUCTION
Computational Fluid Dynamics, also know as CFD, despite being a relatively new science,
has been used widely by the aerospace industry worldwide in aerodynamics, aeroacoustics,
combustion, heat transfer, chemical reactions, and many other important areas of engineering.
According to the literature, in order to develop or to apply a numerical simulation, one has to
dene ve major steps, namely: (1) Select the mathematical model, choosing the approximation
of the physical phenomenon to reality, (2) Mesh generation and discretization of the equations,
(3) Study of stability, numerical accuracy and convergence acceleration techniques, (4) Choice
of time-marching and, nally, (5) Graphic post-processing of numerical data to interpret the re-
sults. The present paper will focus on the rst step, more specically, in the aspect of turbulence
modeling. In the context of developing a novel ow simulation tool, which incorporates several
advances in current CFD practice, including parallel processing, the present work addresses the
issues of implementing and validating an advanced turbulence model for high Reynolds number
aerospace applications. Since the development of a general purpose computational code com-
prises the aim of the long-term overall effort, it must be demonstrated that the model can behave
in a robust manner for the classes of aerospace problems of interest. Currently, the turbulence
closure under consideration includes the Spalart-Allmaras model (Spalart and Allmaras, 1992).
A new CFD code, developed at the University of Michigan by Scalabrin (Scalabrin, 2007), is
being used for aerospace applications by researchers and engineers at Instituto de Aeronutica
e Espao (IAE). The code, named LeMans (Le Michigan Aerothermodynamic Navier-Stokes
Solver), is a nite-volume CFDsolver based on the StegerWarming ux vector splitting (Steger
and Warming, 1981) (MacCormack, 1985, 1988). The original code (Scalabrin, 2007) was
developed for reentry applications and, therefore, did not include any turbulence modeling,
because for very high altitudes the Reynolds number is sufciently low that the ow can be
considered laminar.
There is interest at IAE in using this code for the simulation of ows at lower altitudes.
Hence, the Reynolds number is considerably higher and a tubulence closure is required in order
to correctly represent the physics of the ow. Hence, the interest in the present work is to
implement the Spalart-Allmaras model (Spalart and Allmaras, 1992; Spalart and Rumsey, 2008)
into the LeMans code. The paper discusses in detail the theoretical and numerical formulation of
the selected model, as well as the results for test cases which are representative of the intended
application.
2 THEORETICAL FORMULATION
The adequate physical model for the problems of interest here are the unsteady Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes (URANS) formulation. This set of equations is obtained by "separat-
ing" the ow into a mean part and uctuating part by a time-ltering procedure applied to the
original Navier-Stokes equations. The turbulence modeling is responsable for representing the
effect of the additional turbulent transport which is contained in the uctuating terms.
The RANS equations are written in their conservative vector form as
Q
t
+ (F
e
F
v
) = 0 (1)
The vector of conserved variables, Q , the inviscid ux vector, F
e
, and the viscous ux vector
F
v
are given by
Q =
_

u
v
w
e
_

_
F
e
=
_

_
v
uv + p

i
x
vv + p

i
y
wv + p

i
z
(e + p) v
_

_
F
v
=
_

_
0
(
xi
+
t
xi
)

i
i
_

yi
+
t
yi
_

i
i
(
zi
+
t
zi
)

i
i
(
i
+
t
i
)

i
i
_

_
(2)
where is the density, v = {u, v, w} is the velocity vector, p is the static pressure, e is total
energy per unit volume and is given by:

i
=
ij
u
j
q
H
i
(3)
The

i
x
,

i
y
and

i
z
are the Cartesian coordinate orthonormal vector basis. The shear stress tensor,

xi
, is given by

ij
=
__
u
i
x
j
+
u
j
x
i
_

2
3
u
m
x
m

ij
_
(4)
The heat ux vector, q
H
i
, is written as
q
H
j
=

Pr
(e
i
)
x
j
(5)
where e
i
is the internal energy, dened as
e
i
= C
v
T (6)
The time-ltering procedure generates the turbulence quantities,
t
ij
and
t
i
, in Eq. (2). The rst
uctuating term is dened as

t
ij
= u

i
u

j
(7)
Linear eddy viscosity models use the Boussinesq hypothesis to model Eq. (7), resulting in

t
ij
=
t
__
u
i
x
j
+
u
j
x
i
_

2
3
u
m
x
m

ij
_

2
3
k
ij
(8)
where
t
is the eddy viscosity coefcient, calculated in a different way by each turbulent clo-
sure and k is the mean specic turbulent kinetic energy. The Boussinesq hypothesis associates,
algebraically and linearly, the Reynolds stress tensor components with the mean velocity gra-
dient eld (Bigarella, 2007; Bigarella and Azevedo, 2009). The second uctuating term,
t
i
, is
dened as

t
i
=
t
ij
u
j
q
t
H
i
+ d
t
i
(9)
where
q
t
H
i
= u

i
h , d
t
i
= u

j
_

ji

j
u

i
2
_
(10)
and h is the enthalpy given by:
h = e
i
+
p

(11)
Using the classical Reynolds analogy (Wilcox, 1998), the turbulent heat-ux vector, q
t
H
i
, is
written as
q
t
H
j
=

t
Pr
t
(e
i
)
x
j
(12)
For adiabatically external compressible ows the turbulent Prandtl number, Pr
t
, is a constant
value of Pr
t
= 0.9. The usual approach to close the molecular diffusion and the turbulent
transport, d
t
i
, is presented as
d
t
i
=
_
+

t

k
_
k
x
i
(13)
where
k
is dened by the turbulence model.
3 SPATIAL DISCRETIZATION
The nite volume formulation is the rst to be presented and followed by the ux calcula-
tions.
3.1 Finite Volume Formulation
The nite volume formulation is a numerical method applied to represent and evaluate par-
tial differential equations. It is applied by the CFD community to nd the solution of the RANS
equations, Eq. (1). The method is obtained integrating the ow equations for each control vol-
ume within in a given mesh.
_
V
i
Q
t
dV +
_
V
i
(Fe Fv) dV = 0 (14)
Considering a cell-centered formulation, V
i
is a given cell of the given grid. After the integration
it is possible to apply the Gauss theorem over the equation above, resulting in:
_
V
i
Q
t
dV +
_
S
i
(Fe Fv) dS = 0 , (15)
where S
i
is the outward-oriented area vector and it is dened as
S = {S
x
, S
y
, S
z
} . (16)
Considering the mean value of the conserved variables within in the i-th control volume, one
can the write the rst term of the Eq. (15) as
Q
i
=
1
V
i
_
V
i
QdV
i
. (17)
The second term of the Eq. (15) can be written as the sum of all faces of a cell
_
S
i
(Fe Fv) dS =
nf

k=1
_

Fe
k

Fv
k
_

n
k
S
k
, (18)
where the k subscript is the index of the cell face, and nf indicates the number of faces of the
i-th volume. Finally, the RANS equations discretized with nite volume approximation is given
by
Q
i
t
=
1
V
i
nf

k=1
_

Fe
k

Fv
k
_

n
k
S
k
. (19)
For this formulation, the uxes are computed at the face of the control volume, and the con-
served variables are computed in the cell.
3.2 Inviscid Flux Calculation
The inviscid uxes are calculated using the a scheme wich is based on the two classicals
ux vector splitting: the original Steger and Warming (1981) and the modied Steger-Warming
(MacCormack, 1985, 1988). The scheme is presented here to make an introduction and to
clarify, to the reader, the main idea of Scalabrin when the LeMans code was created. The
formulation applied by Lemans to compute the inviscid uxes, is explained in the sequence.
3.2.1 Steger-Warming Flux Vector Splitting
This method, created by Steger and Warming (1981), is an upwind scheme that uses the
homogeneous property of the inviscid ux vector to write

Fe
k

n
k
= Fe
n
=
dFe
n
dQ
Q = AQ , (20)
where Fe
n
is the normal ux at the k-th face, and A is the Jacobian Matrix of the inviscid ux.
This matrix can be diagonalized by the matrices of its eigenvectors from the left and from the
right, L and R
A = LR , (21)
where is the diagonal matrix of the eigenvalues of the Jacobian. The A matrix can be split
into positive and negative parts as
A
+
= L
+
R and A

= L

R . (22)
The split separetes the ux into two parts, the downstream and the upstream ux, in relation to
the face orientation as:

Fe

n = Fe
+
n
+ Fe

n
=
_
A
+
cl
Q
cl
+ A

cr
Q
cr
_
, (23)
where the cl and cr subscripts are the cells on the left and right sides of the face. The eigenvalues
of the Jacobian matrix are given by

=
1
2
_

2
_
. (24)
To avoid sudden sign transitions, the eigenvalues receives a small number , turning the Eq.
(24) into

=
1
2
_

2
+
2
_
. (25)
Numerical simulations presented in this work, pointed that this ux vector splitting is too dissi-
pative and can deteriorate the boundary layer proles.
3.2.2 LeMans Steger-Warming
To avoid articial dissipation, the LeMans code applies a simple modication on the classical
Steger and Warming (1981). It calculates the Jacobian matrices, A
+
and A

, using average
properties,

Fe
k

n
k
= F
+
k
+ F

k
=
_
A
+
av
Q
av
+ A

av
Q
av
_
(26)
where the properties with the av subscript are calculated as,
Q
av
=
Q
cl
+ Q
cr
2
. (27)
Analysing the Eqs. (26) and (27), one can note that the method is now a centered scheme.
It is well known that centered schemes, without articial dissipation, are numerically unstable.
Scalabrin (2007) used a pressure switch to smoothly shift one scheme into the original one, and
maintaining the numerical stability as presented in the following formulation,

Fe
k

n
k
= F
+
k
+ F

k
=
_
A
+
k
+
Q
k
+ + A

Q
k

_
, (28)
where
Q
k
+ = (1 w)Q
cl
+ wQ
cr
and Q
k
= (1 w)Q
cr
+ wQ
cl
. (29)
The switch, w, is given by
w =
1
2
1
(p)
2
+ 1
and p =
|p
cl
p
cr
|
min(p
cl
, p
cr
)
. (30)
Therefore for small p regions, w = (1 w) = 0.5, LeMans runs with a centered scheme,
and for larger values of p, w = 0 and (1 w) = 1, LeMans works with the original Steger-
Warming. For the Eq. (30), Scalabrin (2007) suggests = 6, but some problems may require
larger values.
Articial Dissipation
LeMans was created with interest on studying ows over reentry capsules. For such partic-
ular case, with very strong shock waves, is very common to nd solutions with numerical and
non-physical structures such as carbuncle. To avoid this numerical problems, articial dissipa-
tion was added to the method using , by the equation:

k
=
_
0.3(a
k
+|

u
k
|) d
k
> d
0
,
0.3(1 |

n
k

m
k
|)(a
k
+|

u
k
|) d
k
< d
0
,
(31)
where d
k
is the distace of the k-th face, to the the nearest wall boundary, d
0
is setted by the
user and must but smaller than the boundary layer thickness and larger than the shock stand-off
distance.

m
k
is the normal vector of the nearest wall, and

n
k
is normal vector to the k-th face.
The Eq. (31) applies the term (1 |

n
k

m
k
|) to decrease the value at the faces parallel to the
wall inside the boundary layer (Scalabrin, 2007). This articial dissipation presented to play an
important role in the prediction of boundary layer prole.
3.3 Viscous Flux Calculation
The viscous terms are calculated using the values of properties at the cell centers and at
the nodes (Jawahar and Kamath, 2000). The property values at the nodes are calculated using
a simple average of the values of the cells that share that node. The use of this method in-
creases the stencil used in the derivative calculations which avoids loss of accuracy when using
unstructured meshes.
4 TIME INTEGRATION
Simulations of turbulent ows can become very stiff which limitates, substantially, the use
of large time steps. One classical solution is the use of implicit time integration. The Lemans
code applies an implicit integration based on the backward Euler method, given by
Q
n
i
t
V
i
=
_

nf

k=1
_

Fe
k

Fv
k
_

n
k
S
k
_
n+1
= R
n+1
i
, (32)
where i is the cell index and R
n+1
i
is the residue at the i-th cell. One can linearize the residue at
time n + 1 as a function of n.
Q
n
i
t
V
i
= R
n
i

nf

k=1
_
_
_
_
_

Fe

n
_
Q
_
_
n
k
Q
n
i

_
_

Fv

n
_
Q
_
_
n
k
Q
n
i
_
_
_
S
k
. (33)
From the spatial discretization the inviscid terms can be written as
_
_

Fe

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
=
_
_

Fe
+

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
+
_
_

Fe

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
, (34)
with
_
_

Fe
+

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
= A
+
k
+
Q
i
(35)
and
_
_

Fe

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
= A

Q
cr
. (36)
The formulation above assumes

Fe

n
_
Q
= A

, (37)
which is not true and can decrease the numerical stability of the method. The LeMans code
uses the true Jacobians of the split uxes in the place of A

to calculate the implicit operator.

The viscous terms can written in the same form as
_
_

Fv

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
=
_
_

Fv

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i

_
_

Fv
+

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
. (38)
In this work the viscous jacobians are represented by B,
_
_

Fv

n
_
Q
_
_
k
Q
i
= B

Q
cr
B
+
k
+
Q
i
(39)
The true Jacobians, for A

and B

, are provided by Scalabrin (2007). The system can be

written as,
_
V
i
t
+
nf

k=1
_
A
+
k
+
+ B
+
k
+
_
S
k
_
Q
n
i
+
_

nf
k=1
_
A

_
S
k
_
Q
n
cr,k
= R
n
cl,k
. (40)
To simplify, one can write as
M
i
Q
n
i
+
nf

k=1
N

k
Q
n
cr,k
= R
n
i
, (41)
where M
i
and N

k
are given by
M
i
=
V
i
t
nf

k=1
N
+
k
N

k
=
_
A

_
S
k
. (42)
However, the LeMans code is an unstructured solver, which results in a system of equations
with a sparse matrix of blocks, where each block is a square matrix of size of the number of
equations to be solved. The solution of such system is too expensive and depending on the size
of the domain, it is not pratical. A less expensive implicit method is applied by LeMans, the
point implicit (Gnoffo, 2003) (Venkatakrishnan, 1995) (Wright, 1997).
4.1 Point Implicit
The main idea of the point implicit is to move all the terms off-diagonal to right hand side
and solve the resulting system iteratively.
M
i
Q
n+1,p
i
= R
n
i

nf

k=1
N

k
Q
n+1,p1
cr,k
. (43)
LeMans assumes Q
n+1,0
= 0 and takes four iteration in the process as Wright (1997) suggests.
The time step is computed by
t = CFL
l
||

v || + a
(44)
where CFL is a parameter set to ensure stability of the time integration method, l is the size of
the cell and ||

v || + a is the largest wave speed in the cell.
5 TURBULENCE MODEL FORMULATION
The turbulence closure coupled to LeMans, is the Spalart and Allmaras (1992) model. It is
originally a linear Eddy-Viscosity turbulence model for incompressible ows that solves one
transport equation for the modied eddy viscosity . The model uses eight closure coef-
cients and three closure functions derived along intuitive and empirical lines, relying heavily on
calibration by reference to a wide range of experimental data (Bigarella, 2007; Bigarella and
Azevedo, 2009).

t
+
( u
j
)
x
j
= c
b1

S c
w1
f
w
_

d
_
2
+
1

x
j
_
( + )

x
j
_
+
c
b2

x
k

x
k
(45)
The kinematic eddy viscosity is dened as

t
= f
v1
(46)
The classical approximation used by the CFD community to write this single equation model in
conservative form for compressible ows consists in multiplying Eq. (46) by , which yields

t
+
( u
j
)
x
j
= c
b1

S c
w1
f
w

_

d
_
2
+
1

x
j
_
( + )

x
j
_
+
c
b2

x
k

x
k
(47)
The new variable to be solved is , dened as = . Its very important to point here that
and are not uid properties but ow properties. The closure coefcients and auxiliary
relations are given by
c
b1
= 0.1355, c
b2
= 0.622, c
v1
= 7.1, =
2
3
c
w1
=
c
b1
k
2
+
1 + c
b2

, c
w2
= 0.3, c
w3
= 2.0, k = 0.41
(48)
f
v1
=

3

3
+ c
3
v1
, f
v2
= 1

1 + f
v1
, f
w
= g
_
1 + c
6
w3
g
6
+ c
6
w3
_1
6
=

, g = r + c
w2
_
r
6
r
_
, r =

Sk
2
d
2

S = S +

k
2
d
2
f
v2
, S =
_
2
ij

ij
(49)
where d is the distance from the closest surface and is the magnitude of the vorticity vector
given by

ij
=
1
2
_
u
i
x
j

u
j
x
i
_
(50)
One should know that the SA turbulence model uses only one equation, whose variable is
or , and does not include the mean specic turbulent kinetic energy, k, turning the Eq. (8) and
Eq. (9) in

t
ij
=
t
__
u
i
x
j
+
u
j
x
i
_

2
3
u
m
x
m

ij
_
(51)

t
i
=
t
ij
u
j
q
t
H
i
(52)
This model is been used by the CFD community for 3-D compressible ow with good agree-
ment to experimental data.
5.1 General Turbulence Model Formulation
Before discussing the nite volume formulation for the SA model, it is important to present
the general turbulence equations in order to identify the various terms in the model and their
correspondence with the generic formulation. In general terms, turbulence is modeled by trans-
port equations, intending to represent turbulent properties being carried by the mean ow. These
transport equations have advection, diffusion, source, production and destruction terms such as
ones indicated in the equation:
Dq
Dt
= P
q
S
q
+ D
q
+ CD
q
(53)
where q is the turbulence property, P
q
is the production term, S
q
is the destruction term, D
q
is
the diffusion term, and CD
q
is the cross-diffusion-like term.
One should note that the Eq. (53), represents incompressible ows. The same approximation
used before in Eq. (47) is applied here. Therefore, the formulation for compressible ows can
be written as

Dq
Dt
= (P
q
S
q
+ D
q
+ CD
q
) = P
q
S
q
+ D
q
+ CD
q
(54)
Using the denition of total derivative it is possible to rewrite the Eq. (54) as:

Dq
Dt
=
q
t
+ v q =
(q)
t
q

t
+ (qv) q (v) (55)
From the mass conservation, one knows that
q

t
+ q (v) = 0 (56)
It is possible to rewrite the total derivative as

Dq
Dt
=
(q)
t
+ (qv) (57)
Using Eq. (54) and Eq. (57), the transport equation for compressible ows is given in conser-
vative form as
(q)
t
+ (qv) = P
q
S
q
+ D
q
+ CD
q
(58)
The second term in the left-hand side is the advection term, here dened as C
q
,
C
q
= (qv) (59)
A general form for the isotropic diffusion term is
D
q
= ( q) (60)
Comparing Eqs. (58) and (47), it is easy to identify all the terms previously discussed, i.e.,
C
q
, D
q
, P
q
, S
q
and CD
q
.
(q)
t
=

t
, C
SA
=
( u
j
)
x
j
, P
SA
= c
b1

S
S
SA
= c
w1
f
w

_

d
_
2
, D
SA
=
1

x
j
_
( + )

x
j
_
, CD
SA
=
c
b2

x
k

x
k
(61)
5.2 Numerical Formulation
In order to discretize the SA turbulence model equation, it is necessary to integrate Eq. (58)
in a nite volume context, yielding
_
V
i

t
dV +
_
V
i

_
v
1

_
dV
_
V
i
_
c
b1

S c
w1
f
w

_

d
_
2
_
dV (62)

_
V
i
_
c
b2

x
k

x
k
_
dV = 0
Using the mean property denition
Q
i
=
1
V
i
_
V
i
QdV
i
(63)
and the Green-Gauss theorem, one can rewrite the nite volume equation.

i
t
+
1
V
i
_
S
i
_
v
1

_
dS
_
c
b1

S c
w1
f
w

_

d
_
2
+
c
b2

x
k

x
k
_
= 0 (64)
The production, P
i
, destruction, S
i
, and the cross-diffusion, CD
i
, terms are considered con-
stant in the i-th volume. In order to calculate the surface integral, it is necessary to perform
summations on the faces forming the i-th volume.
1
V
i
_
S
i
_
v
1

_
dS
1
V
i
_
nf

k=1
v S
k

nf

k=1
( ) S
k
_
(65)
S
k
is the outward facing normal area vector.

i
t
+
1
V
i
_
nf

k=1
v S
k

nf

k=1
( ) S
k
_

_
c
b1

S c
w1
f
w

_

d
_
2
_
(66)
+
_
c
b2

x
k

x
k
_
= 0
After the operations, the SA equation is written as

i
t
= RHS
t
(67)
where the residue is
RHS
t
=
1
V
i
_
nf

k=1
v S
k

nf

k=1
( ) S
k
_

_
c
b1

S c
w1
f
w

_

d
_
2
_
(68)

_
c
b2

x
k

x
k
_
5.3 Boundary and Initial Conditions
Boundary conditions for ux computation
The boundary conditions in LeMans are performed using ghost cells. Ghost cells are not
created by the grid generator. Instead, they are logically created by the numerical code and are
associated with a boundary face. The values of its properties are set so that the ux calculation
on the boundary face yields the correct ux. For instance, for a wall boundary face, the correct
inviscid ux calculations should yield zero mass and energy uxes and a momentum ux equal
to the pressure. The viscous ux for the wall boundary face should yield a prescribed diffusion
ux, viscous faces and heat uxes. Only one set of properties is not enough to satisfy all the
constraints. In LeMans, the properties of the ghost cell change according to the ux being
performed. When the inviscid uxes are being calculated, the ghost cells hold properties such
that the inviscid uxes are correct at the boundaries. The same happens at the viscous ux
calculation (MacCormack, 1985, 1988; MacCormack and Candler, 1989) (Scalabrin, 2007).
Turbulent boundary and initial conditions
The turbulent boundary conditions are necessary to obtain the solution of the turbulent trans-
port equation. For the Spalart-Allmaras model the wall boundary condition is given by

wall
= 0 (69)
For the freestream and entrance boundaries, the turbulent properties are set by the users. For
the symmetry boundaries, the shear components related to the boundary face normal direction
are set to zero on this bounding face. A zero-order extrapolation from interior properties is used
for all the other boundary types (Bigarella, 2007; Bigarella and Azevedo, 2009).
The SA model must be started with very low levels of modied eddy viscosity coefcient, in
order to avoid numerical difculties near solid walls (Bigarella, 2007; Bigarella and Azevedo,
2009). Blazek (2001) suggests to use = 0.1
(laminar)
as initial condition and as inlet bound-
ary condition for the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model. The equations used to model the
turbulence effects are relativily simple when compared to the complexity of the phenomenon
studied. A consequence of this situation is that such equations are quite sensitive with respect
to numerical stability. It is, therefore, very important to pay particular attention to the boundary
and initial conditions, and to grid quality in order to achieve good convergence characteristics.
6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Intending to initiate the validation procedure of LeMans with the Spalart-Allmaras formula-
tion, a classical simulation was performed: 2D zero-pressure-gradient ow over a at plate. All
the results are presented and discussed in this section.
The study over the at plate was accomplished to evaluate and compare the dimensionless
form of the boundary layer prole. The results are compared to the analytical formulations of
law of wall (Schilichting, 1978), given by Eq. (70).
_
y
+
< 5 viscous sublayer u
+
= y
+
y
+
< 30 log-law u
+
=
1
5.75
log(y
+
) + 5.5
(70)
The simulation were performed using a grid with approximately 60000 cells and y
+
= 0.5 near
to the wall. The domain covers 0 < y < 3 and 0 < x < 7, the wall extends over 3 < x < 4. The
applied boundaries conditions were as follows. Simetry between the entry and the at plate, at
y = 0 and 0 < x < 3, and between the trailing edge and the outlet, at y = 0 and 4 < x < 7. On
the at plate adiabatic solid wall, and for all the others boundaries the fareld Riemman-type
was imposed.
Figure 1: 2D at plate mesh
As an intial approximation, the cross-diffusion-like term of the Sparlat-Allmaras equation,
the most expensive source term, was not included in the formulation and the inviscid ux was
computed as Scalabrin (2007) originally performed in LeMans. As previously cited in this
work, the Steger and Warming (1981) scheme is too dissipative. Therefore, as expected, the
results of this simulation illustrated in Fig. 2, presented a signicantly understimated boundary
layer prole.
To avoid the dissipation issue, the switch presented in Eq. 30 was shifted intending to force
the method to a centered scheme all over the domain, and the articial dissipation levels de-
creased to = 0, = 0.01 and = 0.5. It is important to point that these modication were
performed only at the right hand side of the formulation, to not decrease the numerical stability
level of the implicit time integration. The Fig. 3 presents the results of simulations with the cen-
tered scheme. Comparing the Figs. 2 and 3, one can remark that despite the present results are
not good enough, the centered scheme provides boundary layer proles closer to the analytical
results than the upwind schemes. It is also very important to point that the articial dissipation
plays an important role on the boundary layer proles. It can improve the log-law zone though
it also can deteriorate the viscous sublayer.
The best results were achived including the cross-diffusion-like term in the Spalart-Allmaras
model and maintaining the centered scheme. The Fig. 4 illustrates that the addition of this
term increases the necessity of articial dissipation. Whereas the latter simulation needs 1,
Figure 2: LeMans and analytical turbulent boundary layer over a at plate
this conguration needs 0.1(a
k
+ |

u
k
|) all over the domain. As present the Fig. 5 and
Tab. 1, the maximum error obtained by simulation No 6 at the log-law zone is about 15% the
analytical value. This level of error is reasonable when compared to the error of all the other
simulation, which are higher than 35% but the No 4, that is about 14% the reference. At the
viscous sublayer all simulation produces a good agreement to the Eq. 70 except the simulation
No 4, what indicates that = 0.5 is too dissipative for its conguration.
Figure 3: LeMans with centered scheme and analytical turbulent boundary layer over a at plate
Table 1: Maximum difference in % between the LeMans results and the analytical value
No Scheme log-law zone viscous sublayer
1 Upwind 60% 60%
2 Centered = 0.0 35% 0.3%
3 Centered = 0.01 35% 0.35%
4 Centered = 0.5 14% 60%
5 Centered = 0.0a + CD term 35% 0.8%
6 Centered = 0.1a + CD term 15% 3.5%
7 CONCLUSIONS
Inspite of this being an initial work, the LeMans code, with the Spalart-Allmaras turbu-
lence model, presented good agreement with the reference (Schilichting, 1978) for the 2D zero-
pressure-gradient ow over a at plate.
The scheme based on the Steger and Warming (1981) ux vector splitting, presented itself
too dissipative, as expected (MacCormack, 1985, 1988). Therefore, it demanded some efforts
on the switch and the articial dissipation, , to shift the upwind method into a centered scheme.
This scheme with the complete formulation of the Spalart-Allmaras turbulent model, presented
better results comparing to the reference, which still can be improved with more studies about
different levels and formulations of the articial dissipation.
For the simulations performed in this work, the Lemans code presented itself very robust
and numerically stable. All numerical studies were executed in approximatly two days using a
CFL = 5000 and eight 2.3GHz processors.
Despite the good results, the solver needs further validation tests, such as friction drag study
of a 2D zero-pressure-gradient ow over a at plate, 2D and 3D ow simulation over NACA
Figure 4: LeMans with the cross-diffusion-like term and centered scheme
airfoils and high lift congurations.
It is possible to resume the Spalart-Allmaras formulation as a simple and practical one-
equation model. Not difcult to implement but, as all the turbulece models, it demands lots of
care with boundaries conditions, initial conditions, mesh quality, computational resources and
articial dissipation.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Coordenao de Aperfeioamento Passoal de Nvel
Superior, CAPES, which partially supported the project.
Figure 5: The difference in % between the LeMans results and the analytical value (Schilichting, 1978) at the
log-law zone
REFERENCES
Bigarella E.D.V. Advanced Turbulence Modeling for Complex Aerospace Applications. D.Sc.
Thesis, Instituto Tecnologico de Aeronautica, So Jos dos Campos, SP, Brasil, 2007.
Bigarella E.D.V. and Azevedo J.L.F. Modelagem de Turbulncia para Aplicaes Aeroespaci-
ais. In Turbulncia, volume 6 of Coleo Cadernos de Turbulncia, chapter 4, pages 215
296. ABCM, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, 1st edition, 2009.
Blazek J. Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principals and Applications. ELSEVIER, Kidling-
ton, Oxford, UK, 2001.
Gnoffo P.A. Computational aerothermodynamics in aeroassist applications. Journal of Space-
craft and Rockets, 40(3):305312, 2003.
Jawahar P. and Kamath H. A High Resolution Procedure for Euler and Navier-Stokes Compu-
tation on Unstructured Grids. Journal of Computational Physics, pages 165203, 2000.
MacCormack R.W. Current Status of Numerical Solutions of the Navier-Stokes Equations.
AIAA Paper, 850032:1417, 1985.
MacCormack R.W. On the Development of Efcient Algorithms for Three Dimensional Fluid
Flow. Revista Brasileira de Cicias Mecnicas, 10 No 4:323346, 1988.
MacCormack R.W. and Candler G.V. The Solution of the Navier Stokes Equations Using Gauss-
Seidel Line Relaxation. Computer and Fluids, 17:135150, 1989.
Scalabrin L.C. Numerical Simulation of Weakly Ionized Hypersonic Flow Over Reentry Cap-
sules. D.Sc. Thesis, University of Michigan, Michigan, USA, 2007.
Schilichting H. Boundary-Layer Theory. McGraw Hill, 7th edition, 1978.
Spalart P.R. and Allmaras S.R. A One-Equation Turbulence Model for Aerodynamic Flows.
AIAA Paper, page 0439, 1992.
Spalart P.R. and Rumsey C.L. Turbulence Model Behavior in Low Reynolds Number Regions
of Aerodynamic Flowelds. 38th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, pages 23
26, 2008.
Steger J.L. and Warming R.F. Flux Vector Splitting of the Inviscid Gasdynamic Equations
with Application to the Finite-Difference Method. Journal of Computational Physics, pages
263293, 1981.
Venkatakrishnan V. Implicit cchemes and parallel computing in unstructured grid cfd. VKI
Lecture Series, 1995.
Wilcox D.C. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. DCW Industries, La Caada, CA, USA, 1998.
Wright M.J. A Family of Data Parallel Relaxation Methods for the Navier-Stokes Equations.
D.Sc. Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1997.