Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations
Sodabunlu Ativich1, Hammarratchata Chayuttra2, Gabire Tseganeh Wabela3
Central South University, China
Abstract —Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes
computations using several million grid points have
become commonplace today. While many practical
problems can be solved to acceptable accuracy with
such methods at these resolutions, the drive to more
complex problems and higher accuracy is requiring
the solution of ever larger problems. For example,
the flow over aircraft configurations in off-design
configurations, such as high-lift, has been computed
with up to 25 million grid points, and cases
involving up to 108 grid points can be anticipated in
the near future.
Keywords: Reynolds-averaged, Navier-Stokes,
Osborne Reynolds
1. INTRODUCTION
Before study RANS we should know about Osborne
Reynolds who invent Reynolds-averaging and using
the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations.
Osborne Reynolds FRS (23 August 1842 –
21 February 1912) was a prominent Irish-born
British innovator in the understanding of fluid
dynamics. Separately, his studies of heat transfer
between solids and fluids brought improvements in
boiler and condenser design. He spent his entire
career at what is now the University of Manchester.
He was born in Belfast and moved with his parents
soon afterward to Dedham, Essex. His father
worked as a school headmaster and clergyman, but
was also a very able mathematician with a keen
interest in mechanics. The father took out a number
of patents for improvements to agricultural
equipment, and the son credits him with being his
chief teacher as a boy. Reynolds showed an early
aptitude and liking for the study of mechanics. In his
late teens, for the year before entering university, he
went to work as an apprentice at the workshop of
Edward Hayes, a well-known shipbuilder in Stony
Stratford, where he obtained practical experience in
the manufacture and fitting out of coastal steamers
(and thus gained an early appreciation of the
practical value of understanding fluid dynamics).
Osborne Reynolds attended Queens' College,
Cambridge and graduated in 1867 as the
seventh wrangler in mathematics.[1] He had chosen
to study mathematics at Cambridge because, in his
own words in his 1868 application for the
professorship, "From my earliest recollection I have
had an irresistible liking for mechanics and the
physical laws on which mechanics as a science is
based.... my attention drawn to various mechanical
phenomena, for the explanation of which I
discovered that a knowledge of mathematics was
essential. For the year immediately following his
graduation from Cambridge he again took up a post
with an engineering firm, this time as a practicing
civil engineer in the London (Croydon) sewage
transport system. In 1868 he was appointed
professor of engineering at Owens College in
Manchester (now the University of Manchester),
becoming in that year one of the first professors in
UK university history to hold the title of "Professor
of Engineering". This professorship had been newly
created and financed by a group of manufacturing
industrialists in the Manchester area, and they also
had a leading role in selecting the 25–year–old
Reynolds to fill the position.
For the fluid mechanics, Reynolds most
famously studied the conditions in which the flow of
fluid in pipes transitioned from laminar
flow to turbulent flow. In 1883 Reynolds
demonstrated the transition to turbulent flow in a
classic experiment in which he examined the
behavior of water flow under different flow rates
using a small jet of dyed water introduced into the
center of flow in a larger pipe.
The larger pipe was glass so the behavior of the layer
of dyed flow could be observed, and at the end of
this pipe there was a flow control valve used to vary
the water velocity inside the tube. When the velocity
was low, the dyed layer remained distinct through
the entire length of the large tube. When the velocity
was increased, the layer broke up at a given point
and diffused throughout the fluid's cross-section.
The point at which this happened was the transition
point from laminar to turbulent flow.
From these experiments came the
dimensionless Reynolds number for dynamic
similarity—the ratio of inertial forces
to viscous forces. Reynolds also proposed what is
now known as Reynolds-averaging of turbulent
flows, where quantities such as velocity are
expressed as the sum of mean and fluctuating
components. Such averaging allows for 'bulk'
description of turbulent flow, for example using
the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations.
 Now we will come back for introduce
about RANS, The Reynolds-averaged Navier–
Stokes equations (or RANS equations) are time-
averaged equations of motion for fluid flow. The
idea behind the equations is Reynolds
decomposition, whereby an instantaneous quantity
is decomposed into its time-averaged and fluctuating
quantities, an idea first proposed by Osborne
Reynolds. The RANS equations are primarily used
to describe turbulent flows.
The Navier–Stokes equations, named
after Claude-Louis Navier and George Gabriel
Stokes, describe the motion of viscous
fluid substances. Navier–Stokes equations are
useful because they describe the physics of many
phenomena of scientific and engineering interest.
They may be used to model the weather, ocean
currents, water flow in a pipe and air flow around
a wing. The Navier–Stokes equations, in their full
and simplified forms, help with the design of aircraft
and cars, the study of blood flow, the design of
power stations, the analysis of pollution, and many
other things. Coupled with Maxwell's equations,
they can be used to model and
study magnetohydrodynamics.
The Navier–Stokes equations are also of great
interest in a purely mathematical sense. Despite their
wide range of practical uses, it has not yet been
proven whether solutions always exist in three
dimensions and, if they do exist, whether they
are smooth – i.e. they are infinitely differentiable at
all points in the domain. These are called
the Navier–Stokes existence and
smoothness problems. The Clay Mathematics
Institute has called this one of the seven most
important open problems in mathematics.
The Navier–Stokes equations have 2
properties as 1. Nonlinearity => The Navier–Stokes
equations are nonlinear partial differential
equations in the general case and so remain in
almost every real situation. In some cases, such as
one-dimensional flow and Stokes flow (or creeping
flow), the equations can be simplified to linear
equations. The nonlinearity makes most problems
difficult or impossible to solve and is the main
contributor to the turbulence that the equations
model.
The nonlinearity is due to convective acceleration,
which is an acceleration associated with the change
in velocity over position. Hence, any convective
flow, whether turbulent or not, will involve
nonlinearity. An example of convective
but laminar (nonturbulent) flow would be the
passage of a viscous fluid (for example, oil) through
a small converging nozzle. Such flows, whether
exactly solvable or not, can often be thoroughly
studied and understood.
2. Turbulence => Turbulence is the time-
dependent chaotic behavior seen in many fluid
flows. It is generally believed that it is due to
the inertia of the fluid as a whole: the culmination of
time-dependent and convective acceleration; hence
flows where inertial effects are small tend to be
laminar (the Reynolds number quantifies how much
the flow is affected by inertia). It is believed, though
not known with certainty, that the Navier–Stokes
equations describe turbulence properly.[19]
The numerical solution of the Navier–Stokes
equations for turbulent flow is extremely difficult,
and due to the significantly different mixing-length
scales that are involved in turbulent flow, the stable
solution of this requires such a fine mesh resolution
that the computational time becomes significantly
infeasible for calculation or direct numerical
simulation. Attempts to solve turbulent flow using a
laminar solver typically result in a time-unsteady
solution, which fails to converge appropriately. To
counter this, time-averaged equations such as
the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes
equations (RANS), supplemented with turbulence
models, are used in practical computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) applications when modeling
turbulent flows. Some models include the Spalart–
Allmaras, k–ω, k–ε, and SST models, which add a
variety of additional equations to bring closure to the
RANS equations. Large eddy simulation (LES) can
also be used to solve these equations numerically.
This approach is computationally more expensive—
in time and in computer memory—than RANS, but
produces better results because it explicitly resolves
the larger turbulent scales.
2. APPLICABILITY
The Navier–Stokes equations assume that the fluid
being studied is a continuum (it is infinitely divisible
and not composed of particles such as atoms or
molecules), and is not moving at relativistic
velocities. At very small scales or under extreme
conditions, real fluids made out of discrete
molecules will produce results different from the
continuous fluids modeled by the Navier–Stokes
equations. For example, capillarity of internal layers
in fluids appears for flow with high gradients. For
large Knudsen number of the problem,
the Boltzmann equation may be a suitable
replacement. Failing that, one may have to resort
to molecular dynamics or various hybrid methods.
Another limitation is simply the complicated nature
of the equations. Time-tested formulations exist for
common fluid families, but the application of the
Navier–Stokes equations to less common families
tends to result in very complicated formulations and
often to open research problems. For this reason,
these equations are usually rewritten for Newtonian
fluids where the viscosity model is linear; truly
general models for the flow of other kinds of fluids
(such as blood) do not exist.
Currently, The Navier–Stokes equations are used
extensively in video games in order to model a wide
variety of natural phenomena. Simulations of small-
scale gaseous fluids, such as fire and smoke, are
often based on the seminal paper "Real-Time Fluid
Dynamics for Games" by Jos Stam, which
elaborates one of the methods proposed in Stam's
earlier, more famous paper "Stable Fluids" from
1999. Stam proposes stable fluid simulation using a
Navier–Stokes solution method from 1968, coupled
with an unconditionally stable semi-
Lagrangian advection scheme, as first proposed in
1992.
More recent implementations based upon this work
run on the game systems graphics processing
unit (GPU) as opposed to the central processing
unit (CPU) and achieve a much higher degree of
performance.[36][37] Many improvements have been
proposed to Stam's original work, which suffers
inherently from high numerical dissipation in both
velocity and mass.
3. RELATED WORK
More than fifty years after Reynolds laid the ground
for RANS turbulence models (Reynolds, 1895),
Chou derived the governing equations for the
individual Reynolds stress components (Chou,
1945). Rotta then analysed the pressure-strain
redistribution term in great detail and suggested a
simple return-to-isotropy model for the slow term
which still forms the basis for most closures today
(Rotta, 1951). Also, he took up considerations by
Kolmogorov about local isotropy of turbulence at
high Reynolds numbers which lead to isotropic
dissipation models for the Reynolds stresses.
An early solution to the transport equations for the
Reynolds stresses and the dissipation rate of
turbulent kinetic energy was presented by Daly and
Harlow. They computed the set of equations
simplified for the case of flow between two parallel
flat plates (Daly & Harlow, 1970). One of the first
full differential Reynolds stress closures was
presented by Hanjali´c & Launder (1972). Their
strategy was a term-by-term modelling of the
Reynolds stress and dissipation equations. The
pressure-strain correlation was an early version of
one of the most cited pressure-strain models,
published three years later by Launder et al. (1975)
(LRR). The blocking effect of a solid wall had to be
considered explicitly in the model by modifications
of the redistribution term. The model, which is linear
in the velocity gradient and Reynolds stress tensors,
formed the basis of many more sophisticated
closures developed later on. Investigations of
decaying anisotropic turbulence, however, showed
that the return-to-isotropy process cannot be
described accurately by a linear model. Hence,
Speziale et al. (1991) (SSG) suggested a quadratic
pressure-strain model which has prevailed in some
form in many modern closures.
Even in the late 1990s and early 2000s, thirty years
after the first full DRSMs were suggested, they were
still not sufficiently used to assess their advantages
over LEVMs with respect to turbomachinery
applications (Bradshaw, 1996). Especially low-
Reynolds closures had not yet been widely adopted
(Leschziner et al., 2000). However, there are more
recent developments which show encouraging
results for the application of those models to
industrially relevant configurations.
One area of research towards the application in
complex geometries is the removal of wall geometry
related parameters. Craft & Launder (1996)
formulated a model in- dependent of the wall
geometry by replacing the wall-normal vector,
which is usually found in wall modifications, by the
gradient of a turbulence anisotropy parameter. A
modified version of this model was applied to
compressible flows involving shock-
wave/boundary-layer interaction. The complex flow
around a blunt-fin/flat-plate junction could be
simulated successfully and showed superior results
compared to the Menter SST k-ω model as well as
the DRSM of Hanjali´c and Jakirli´c (Batten et
al.,1999). The approach of Craft and Launder was
also adopted by Gerolymos and his co-workers who
published a series of papers about DRSMs applied
to turbomachinery-related flows. They extended
their model (Gerolymos & Vallet, 1997) in a similar
fashion, to obtain a “wall-normal free” model
(Gerolymos et al., 2002; Gerolymos & Vallet,
2002). Based on this model, they were able to obtain
a superior predictive accuracy compared to eddy
viscosity models (Gerolymos & Vallet, 2007;
Gerolymos et al., 2010).
Other authors choose a different approach and focus
primarily on the prediction of mean flow quantities.
Wilcox (2006) developed a high Reynolds,
compressible DRSM based on the most recent
version of his 𝑘 − 𝜔 LEVM. It was calibrated for
boundary-layer flows and a range of homogeneous
turbulence flows. No wall-reflection terms are
employed in the pressure-strain model because,
according to the author, they are not required to
obtain the boundary layer profile if the 𝜔-equation
is used in contrast to 𝜖-equation in original LRR-
model. The model was intensively tested and
compared to other DRSMs by Sciberras & Coleman
(2007). In plane turbulent channel flow, it was found
that the model has serious deficits in normal-stresses
prediction, but, due to cancellation of errors, the
mean velocity profile and skin friction coefficient
are predicted successfully. However, the authors
state that correct normal stress prediction is essential
especially for flows with separation.
Eisfeld (2006) developed his model for the
application in industrially relevant external
aerodynamic flows. He followed the approach of
Menter and combined the SSG model for free shear
flows with the Stress-ω model for wall bounded
flows using the blending function developed by
Menter for his SST k-ω model. Hence, close to solid
walls, the model inherits the deficiencies of the
Stress-ω model concerning the prediction of normal-
stresses (Morsbach et al., 2012). Mean flow features
of complex 3D flows, however, are captured more
accurately than with standard LEVM approaches as
shown for the ONERA M6 wing (C´ecora et al.,
2012). Furthermore, Eisfeld (2010a) studied the
influence of the scale-determining equation on the
prediction of the shock-position for the RAE 2822
aerofoil. It was found that it can have a larger
influence than the choice of pressure-strain model.
Nguyen et al. (2011) developed near-wall extensions
for the model to overcome the deficiencies in
normal-stress prediction.
The complex 3D structure of the flow through a
linear compressor cascade with tip clearance was
investigated using the DRSM of Hanjali´c &
Jakirli´c (1998) by Borello et al. (2007). As
expected, simulations using the DRSM resulted in
improved predictive accuracy of the mean velocity
profiles at most measured stations. The most
significant improvements could be seen in the
representation of the interacting vortices where the
flow is 3D and the turbulence is anisotropic. Thus,
according to the authors, DRSMs are the most
adequate form of RANS turbulence modelling.
4. MATHEMATICAL MODEL
The Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations
can be used with approximations based on
knowledge of the properties of flow turbulence to
give approximate time-averaged solutions to
the Navier–Stokes equations. For a stationary,
incompressible Newtonian fluid, these equations
can be written in Einstein notation in Cartesian
coordinates as:
The left hand side of this equation
represents the change in mean momentum of fluid
element owing to the unsteadiness in the mean
flow and the convection by the mean flow. This
change is balanced by the mean body force, the
isotropic stress owing to the mean pressure field, the
viscous stresses, and apparent stress owing
to the fluctuating velocity field, generally referred to
as the Reynolds stress. This nonlinear Reynolds
stress term requires additional modeling to close the
RANS equation for solving, and has led to the
creation of many different turbulence models. The
time-average operator is a Reynolds operator.
Derivation of RANS equations
The basic tool required for the derivation of
the RANS equations from the instantaneous Navier–
Stokes equations is the Reynolds decomposition.
Reynolds decomposition refers to separation of the
flow variable (like velocity ) into the mean (time-
averaged) component and the fluctuating
component . Because the mean operator is
a Reynolds operator, it has a set of properties. One
of these properties is that the mean of the fluctuating
quantity is equal to zero . Thus,
is the position vector. Some author prefer
using in stead of for the mean term (since an
overbar is sometimes used to represent a vector). In
this case, the fluctuating term is represented
instead by .This is possible because the two terms
do not appear simultaneously in the same equation.
To avoid confusion, the
notation will be used to represent
the instantaneous, mean, and fluctuating terms,
respectively.
The properties of Reynolds operators are useful in
the derivation of the RANS equations. Using these
properties, the Navier–Stokes equations of motion,
expressed in tensor notation, are (for an
incompressible Newtonian fluid):
where is a vector representing external forces.
Next, each instantaneous quantity can be split into
time-averaged and fluctuating components, and the
resulting equation time-averaged, [4] to yield:
The momentum equation can also be written as
On further manipulations this yields,
where, is the mean
rate of strain tensor.
Finally, since integration in time removes the time
dependence of the resultant terms, the time
derivative must be eliminated, leaving:
5. RANS LIMITATION
RANS is the most widely used approach for
industrial flows. RANS turbulence models are the
only modeling approach for steady state simulation
of turbulent flows. The family of Reynolds-averaged
Navier-Stokes (RANS) models is the largest in the
field of turbulence. These models attempt to close
the turbulence equations using viscosity terms. A
common variable calculated in these models is k, or
the kinetic energy per unit mass of turbulent
fluctuations.
Generally, there are some limitations with RANS
models as they are based on the definition of
turbulent viscosity. These limitations are:
 Lack of physical description
 Turbulence-induced secondary flows
 Streamlined curvatures
 Swirling flows or flows with rotations
 Transitional flows between turbulent and
laminar
 Unsteady flows like internal combustion
engines
 Stagnant regions in flows
For many applications, steady state solutions are
preferable, and for many applications a good RANS
model with a good quality grid will provide all the
required accuracy. RANS is an industry standard,
Inexpensive for most engineering applications and
Well established with numerous models. However,
for some flows, challenges associated with RANS
modeling can limit the level of accuracy that it is
possible to attain. It is limited to steady state and
requires a significant modelling effort to close the
system of equations. Using RANS, the
computational costs can be reduced by solving
the statistically averaged equation system, which
requires closure assumptions for the higher
moments. RANS models have a computing time
of only about 5% of the LES. Sophisticated RANS
models like EASM are able to capture important
flow features correctly. At low computational
costs that makes them already a useful tool in
industrial design.
To gain a deeper understanding of the limitations
and strengths of RANS models, we will see variety
of models which are based on RANS.
RANS Single-Equation Model: Spalart-Allmaras:
“Spalart-Allmaras (SA) is a one-equation turbulence
model that has been developed specifically for
aerodynamic flows such as transonic flow over
airfoils,” said Baglietto.
The model is based on kinematic eddy viscosity and
mixing length. This mixing length defines the
transport of the turbulent viscosity.
“When we look at the benefits and drawbacks, the
Spalart-Allmaras model has historically been a
strength … due to its speed and robustness,” said
Corson.
Figure 1 Simulation of the turbulent flow around a
NACA profile calculated using Spalart-Allmaras
within COMSOL. (Image courtesy of COMSOL.)
“Because we are only solving a single equation for
turbulence,” Corson added, “the non-linear
convergence is outstanding and the model is very
forgiving of poor quality mesh, particularly in the
near wall region. The drawback is that it does have
some limitations due to the single-equation
formulation. The turbulence length and time scales
are not as well defined as they are in other models
such as SST.”
Limitations of Spalart-Allmaras include:
 Shear flows
 Under predicting separation
 Decaying turbulence
RANS Two-Equation Model: Standard k-epsilon,
Realizable k-epsilon, RNG k-epsilon
“In [the standard k-epsilon model] we solve for two
variables, the turbulent kinetic energy, k, and the
rate of dissipation of kinetic energy, epsilon [ε],”
said Valerio Marra, marketing director at COMSOL.
Marra explained that the model uses wall functions
to analytically account for the fluid velocity in the
viscous sublayer near the wall.
The technique offers good convergence and isn’t
memory-intensive. Marra also explained that the
model is typically used for external flows with
complex geometry. However, it is also a good
general-purpose model.
Baglietto noted that the equation for epsilon is
postulated, so it isn’t perfect. Nonetheless, the model
is used for the largest number of applications. This
is partly because many of the model’s limitations are
well-known.
Figure 2 Turbulent flow around a car-like model
calculated in COMSOL using a k-epsilon model.
(Image courtesy of COMSOL.)
Limitations of k-epsilon include:
 No-slip walls
 Adverse pressure gradients
 Strong curvatures
 Jet flows
 Difficulty solving for epsilon
Despite this, the model is reliable due to its
predictability and numerous variants that aim to
improve the model for several applications.
Perhaps the most famous variation of the model is
the realizable k-epsilon model. This variation
modifies the equation for epsilon and introduces the
effect of the mean flow distortion on turbulent
dissipation.
“[Realizable k-epsilon] is the default
recommendation in mainstream commercial
packages, therefore represents the most proven,
well-quantified and widely-documented of all
closures,” said Baglietto. “The model has improved
performance for planar surfaces, round jets, rotation,
recirculation and streamline curvature. It also
improves the boundary layer under strong adverse
pressure gradients or separation. But it cannot do
magic as it’s still based on [turbulent] viscosity.”

Malan clarifies that k-epsilon has also become the

“de facto” standard two-equation model because its
two-layer formulation has improved its applicability
to well-resolved boundary layers. It also has
improved results for complex separated industrial
flows.

Another popular modification is the renormalization
group (RNG) k-epsilon model. The model was
originally derived by attempting to solve for epsilon
using the Navier-Stokes equation. The result was
very much like the original equation. However, an
update of the method added a term to the epsilon
equation that accounts for the mean flow distortion
of turbulence dissipation.
RANS Two-Equation Model: Standard k-omega and
SST k-omega
Another popular two-equation model pairs k with
the specific rate of dissipation of kinetic energy, or
omega (ω). Baglietto explained that the aim of the
standard k-omega model is to model near-wall
interactions more accurately than k-epsilon models.
However, he noted that k-omega can over-predict
shear stresses of adverse pressure gradient boundary
layers and that the model has issues with free stream
flows. The model is also very sensitive to inlet
boundary conditions, which is a disadvantage not
seen in k-epsilon.
Figure 3 Left: Simulation of a turbulent flow
modeled with the shear stress transport (SST) k-
omega turbulence model in Altair AcuSolve. Right:
Comparison of the convergence rate for the model
solved using Spalart-Allmaras, SST k-omega and
standard k-omega model
“The most significant advantage of the k-omega
model is that it may be applied throughout the
boundary layer without further modification,” said
Baglietto. “Furthermore, the standard k-omega
model can be used in this mode without requiring the
computation of wall distance.”
“[k-omega] is a popular model for turbomachinery
simulations and for simulations where strong
vortices are present such as those originating from
wing tips,” said Mann. “[It] performs well for
swirling flows and in the near wall region, but it
over-predicts separation.”
Limitations of k-omega include:
 Difficulty of convergence compared to k-
epsilon
 Sensitivity to initial conditions

One variant of k-omega that has gained popularity,

especially in the aeronautics area, is the shear stress
transport (SST) model. The model has gained this
popularity based on its ability to predict separation
and reattachment better when compared to k-epsilon
and the standard k-omega.

“The SST k-omega model is an enhancement of the

original k-omega model and addresses some specific
flaws of the base model, such as the sensitivity to
freestream turbulence levels,” explained Malan. “It
has the advantage that it can be applied to the
viscous-affected region without further

modification, which is one reason it has become a
popular choice in aerospace applications where the
flow is deemed too complex for Spalart-Allmaras.”
The SST model accounts for cross-diffusion which
better marries the k-epsilon and k-omega models.
Using a blended function based on wall distance,
engineers can include cross-diffusion when away
from the wall but not near it. In other words, using
the wall distance as a switch, SST works like k-
epsilon in the far field and k-omega near the target
geometry.
“Purists may object strongly that the blending
function crossover location is arbitrary and could
obscure some critical feature of the turbulence,”
noted Baglietto. Clearly the model isn’t perfect; it
also requires limiters to improve the prediction of
stagnant regions of the flow. Additionally, it has
issues predicting turbulence levels and complex
internal flows and it doesn’t take buoyancy into
account.
Malan added, “Some people claim that the model
has superior performance to the k-epsilon model in
simulating boundary layers with adverse pressure
gradients. Ultimately, though, the performance of
SST k-omega is not very different from the
realizable k-epsilon two-layer model. The choice
between the two will typically be made based on
user preference.”
6.APPLICATION
Numerical results– The method has been applied to
compute the steady turbulent flow over a flat plate
and the unsteady turbulent vortex shedding
phenomenon past the trailing edge of a turbine
blade.
6.1. Turbulent boundary layer over a flat plate
The flat plate flow here considered is that reported
by Wieghardt and included in the 1968
AFOSR- IFP Stanford Conference. This test case is
one of the validation cases used by the
NPARC Alliance to evaluate the accuracy of its
CFD codes, in particular the turbulence models
implementations and their sensitivity to near- wall
grid spacing [ 18] . For the purpose of convergence
acceleration, the Mach number ahead of the plate,
equal to 0.096 in the experiment, has been increased
up to 0. 2 in the simulations. The Reynolds number
based on the plate length is equal to 11.110 and
6
the inlet turbulence quantities are determined from
the prescribed turbulence intensity and turbulent
4
Reynolds number, both equal to 10
For our computations we have used the same
grids of the NPARC Alliance study and the results
here presented are those obtained on the grids
 
denoted by y1  10 and y1  30 in the NPARC
study. The above values are representative of the

maximum y1 value at the grid points nearest to the
plate as computed by the NPARC WIND code. The
computational grids are simple Cartesian meshes
and contain 110  80 quadrilateral elements with
96 elements lying on the plate and 14 elements ahead
of the plate leading edge. Grid lines are clustered
both around the plate leading edge and near the wall
surface. The distance of the first grid line parallel to
the plate,
divided by the plate length, is equal to
y1  6.437 107 , y2  4.288 106 , y3  2.543 105
or the three considered grids. The grids are here
labelled as G1, G2 and G3 and we remark that the
y1 values computed by our code over almost the
entire plate are much lower. In fact we have found
y1  0.25, y1  1.67 and y1  10 for the G1,
G2 and G3 grids, respectively. All the solutions have
been computed through a sequence of P0, P1 and P2
approximations, starting from an uniform flow field
at freestream conditions and using the backward
Euler scheme for time integration. In all cases the P0
solution has been run for 500-time steps and after
that the P1 and P2 approximations took just few tens
of time steps to reach fully converged high-order
solutions.
The skin friction distributions of the P1 and P2
solutions computed on the G1, G2 and G3 grids are
compared with the experimental data in Figs. 1 and
2. These figures clearly show that even the P1
solution on the near-wall coarsest G3 grid is very
accurate as far as the skin friction coefficient is
concerned. The near-wall behavior of the P1 and P2
solutions is presented in terms of velocity and
turbulence properties profiles. The quantities
u   u / u , k   k / u2 and     w / u2 are
plotted
as functions of y  yu /  w at x / L  0.923

(the last measuring station of the Wieghardt data).
Notice that the lines of the computed results drawn
in the plots depict the actual high-order
polynomial approximation of the solution inside the
elements.
 that, as w depends on the grid spacing, there are
three curves representing the law-of-the-wall in
the viscous sub-layer.
Figs. 3 and 4 show that all the computed
velocity profiles agree pretty well with each other,
with the exception of the P1, G3 and, to a lesser
extent, of the P2, G3 solutions in the viscous sub-
layer. The turbulent kinetic energy profiles, reported
in Figs. 5 and 6, display plateau and peak values of
k  which are in fairly good agreement with the
‘‘average’’ experimental data reported in.
Notice however that on the G3 grid even the P2
solution is not accurate enough to eliminate the
inaccuracy of the P1 solution in the region of

maximum k .Finally, Figs. 7 and 8 put in evidence
the influence of the near- wall grid resolution and of
the degree of polynomial approximation on
the accuracy of the   solution in the viscous sub-
layer.

6.2 Unsteady vortex shedding behind a turbine blade

In the second test case we consider the

subsonic flow in a cascade of turbine blades with
rounded and thick trailing edges ( TE) . The
experimental investigation of this cascade has been
the

In the plots of the near- wall u and  profiles we

 

have also drawn the corresponding law-of-the-

wall profiles according to the equations

Where   0.41 is the von Karman constant,

B  5 and  * and  are model constants.
Observe
topic of a European research project, aimed at
studying the unsteady wakes behind the
trailing edge of turbine blades. The experimental
results have shown that the dominant vortex
shedding frequency does not appear as a single peak
in the frequency spectrum but rather as a
bandwidth. The frequency range is strongly
influenced by the thickness and by the type (laminar,
turbulent or transitional) of the boundary layers that
develop on the blade pressure (PS) and
suction (SS) sides.
According to the experiments, this test case has been
computed for a downstream
isentropic Mach number M 2is  0.4 a Reynolds
number based on the downstream isentropic
conditions and on the blade chord
ReC 2is  2 106 and an inlet turbulence intensity
Tuin  1.15 102 .The computational grid, shown
in Figs. 9 and 10, contains 5411 triangular
elements and consists of a layer of anisotropic
elements all around the blade surface connected
with the set of isotropic elements that fill the rest of
the computational domain.
The solution has been computed by using P0, P1 and
P2 elements. Starting from an initial flow
field at rest, the P0 solution is advanced in time for
700 time steps by means of the backward Euler
scheme. The time step magnitude t in this phase
corresponds to about 1/20 of the vortex
shedding period T . Starting from the computed P0
flow field the integration in time continues for
800 time steps using the P1 approximation, the
second-order Runge–Kutta scheme and a time step
t T / 80 .Then the solution switches to P2
approximation and continues, using the same
integration scheme and the same time step of the P1
solution, for about 100 vortex shedding
periods. For comparison purposes also the P1
computation has been continued for the same
number of vortex shedding cycles of the P2 solution.
Figs. 11 and 12 show a snapshot of the
Mach number and of the turbulence intensity fields
of
the P2 solution. In these figures the alternate vortex
shedding structure and the marked widening of the
turbulent wake are clearly evident. Fig. 13 presents
the evolution of the density field during
 say that, whereas the computed average pressure
compares favorably with the experimental
data, the RMS of the computed pressure fluctuations
is largely overestimated, especially
for the P2 approximation, with respect to the
experiments. This discrepancy has also
been observed by other authors, who have used
different numerical methods and

a vortex shedding cycle. The vortex shed by the

pressure side appears to be stronger than that shed
by the suction side. This is due to the different
boundary layer development on the two sides of the
blade.
Next we focus on the pressure field around
the TE, where the origin of the curvilinear
coordinates, pointing towards the PS, is fixed on the
center of the TE. The base pressure distribution

turbulence models. However it is worth mentioning

that subsequent experimental investigations
on the same blade at an higher Mach number
resulted in much greater pressure fluctuations.
The pressure fluctuations at the PS and SS
separation points are displayed in Figs. 16 and 17 for
is illustrated by Figs. 14 and 15, which show the time both P1 and P2 solutions. Figs. 18 and 19 show the
averaged pressure distribution, made results of the FFT analysis of the pressure
non- dimensional by the inlet total pressure, and the
RMS of the pressure fluctuations, made
non- dimensional by the downstream dynamic
pressure. The averaging time interval corresponds
to the last 28 vortex shedding periods out of the more
than 100 that have been computed.
The experimental data, are not indicated in the
figures. However, we can
fluctuations shown in Figs. 16 and 17. Maximum
peaks occur in the range of Strouhal numbers
S  fDTE / v2is  between 0. 26 and 0. 29. This
result is in excellent agreement with the
experimental
data reported.
Despite the large number of computed
vortex shedding cycles, Figs. 16 and 17 indicate that
the flow regime is not periodic. This is in
disagreement with the computational results
reported
where the authors claim that flow periodicity is
obtained after a number of shedding
cycles lower than the one of the present work. This
discrepancy could be explained by considering
turbulence effects are accounted for by means of
algebraic models, whereas
in the present work we use the 𝑘–𝜔 model which
can simulate the transition in the boundary layer. We
have noticed, in fact, that the pressure fluctuations in
the trailing edge region propagate upstream and
influence the location of the boundary layer
transition.
However, the most striking feature of these
figures is the fact that pressure fluctuations appear
to be modulated in amplitude. This phenomenon
surely deserves a deeper investigation in order to
clarify both physical and numerical aspects that
could have determined it.
Finally, the residuals time histories shown
in Figs. 20 and 21 confirm that a perfectly periodic
flow regime has not been reached yet.

REFERENCES
[ 1] Bassi F, Rebay S, Mariotti G, Pedinotti S, Savini M.
Ahigh-order accurate discontinuous finite element method
for inviscid and viscous turbomachinery flows. In:
Decuypere R, Dibelius G, editors. 2nd European
Conference on Turbomachinery Fluid Dynamics and
Thermodynamics, Technologisch Instituut, Antwerpen,
Belgium, 1997. p. 99–108.
[ 2] Brezzi F, Manzini M, Marini D, Pietra P, Russo A.
Discontinuous Galerkin approximations for elliptic
problems. Numer Methods Part Different Equat
2000;16:365–78.
[ 3] Arnold D, Brezzi F, Cockburn B, Marini D.
Discontinuous Galerkin methods for elliptic problems. In:
Discontinuous Galerkin methods, theory, computation and
applications. Lecture notes in computational science
and engineering, vol. 11. Springer-Verlag; 2000. p. 89–
101. First International Symposium on Discontinuous
Galerkin Methods, May 24–26, 1999, Newport, RI, USA.
[ 4] Wilcox DC. Turbulence modelling for CFD, DCW
industries Inc., La Ca~nada, CA91011, USA, 1993.
[ 5] Bassi F, Rebay S. GMRES discontinuous Galerkin
solution of the compressible Navier–Stokes equations. In:
Discontinuous Galerkin methods, theory, computation and
applications. Lecture notes in computational science
and engineering, vol. 11. Springer- Verlag; 2000. First
International Symposium on Discontinuous Galerkin
Methods, May 24–26, 1999, Newport, RI, USA.
[ 6] Ilinca F, Pelletier D. Positivity preservation and
adaptive solution for the k– _ model of turbulence. AIAA
J 1996;36(1):44–50.
[ 7] Gerolymos GA, Vallet I. Implicit computation of the
three-dimensional compressible Navier–Stokes equations.
AIAA J 1996;34(7):1321–30. F. Bassi et al. / Computers
& Fluids 34 (2005) 507–540 539
[ 8] Menter FR. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence
models for engineering applications. AIAA J 1994;32(8):
1598–605.
[9] Hellsten A. On the solid-wall boundary condition of x
in the k– x- type turbulence models. Technical Report B–
50, Helsinky University of Technology, Laboratory of
Aerodynamics, 1998.
[10] H€anel D, Schwane R, Seider G. On the accuracy of
upwind schemes for the solution of the Navier–Stokes
equations. AIAA Paper 87- 1105 CP, AIAA, Proceedings
of the AIAA 8th Computational Fluid Dynamics
Conference, July 1987.
[11] Brezzi F, Marini D, Pietra P, Russo A. Discontinuous
finite elements for diffusion problems. In: Francesco
Brioschi ( 1824- 1897) Convegno di Studi Matematici.
Incontro di Studio No. 16, Milano, 22–23 October, 1997,
1st Lomb Acc Sc Lett, 1999. p. 197–217.
[ 12] Bassi F, Rebay S. Ahigh- order accurate
discontinuous finite element method for the numerical
solution of the compressible Navier– Stokes equations. J
Comput Phys 1997;131:267–79.
[ 13] Bassi F, Rebay S. Numerical evaluation of two
discontinuous Galerkin solvers for the compressible
Navier– Stokes equations. Int J Numer Methods Fluids
2002;40:197–207.
[ 14] Iannelli GS, Baker AJ. A stiffly- stable implicit
Runge– Kutta algorithm for CFD applications. AIAA
Paper 88-0416, AIAA, 1988.
[ 15] Bassi F, Rebay S. Ahigh order discontinuous
Galerkin method for compressible turbulent flows. In:
Discontinuous Galerkin methods, theory, computation and
applications. Lecture notes in computational science and
engineering, vol. 11. Springer- Verlag; 2000. First
International Symposium on Discontinuous Galerkin
Methods, May 24–26, 1999, Newport, RI, USA.
[ 16] Wieghardt K, Tillman W. On the turbulent friction
layer for rising pressure. Technical Memorandum 1314,
NACA, 1951.
[ 17] Coles DE, Hirst EA. Computation of turbulent
boundary layers–1968 AFOSR-IFP-Stanford Conference.
Stanford University, 1969.
[ 18] Yoder DA, Georgiadis NJ. Implementation and
validation of the chien k– _ turbulence model in the wind
Navier–Stokes code. AIAA Paper 99-0745, AIAA, 1999.
[19] Patel VC, Rodi W, Scheuerer G. Turbulence models
for near- wall and low Reynolds number flows: a review.
AIAAJ 1985;23(9):1308–18.
[ 20] Cicatelli G, Sieverding CH. The effect of vortex
shedding on the unsteady pressure distribution around the
trailing edge of a turbine blade. ASME Paper 96- GT- 39,
ASME, 1996.
[ 21] Zunino P, Ubaldi M, Campora U, Ghiglione A. An
experimental investigation of the flow in the trailing edge
region of a turbine cascade. In: Decuypere R, Dibelius G,
editors. 2nd European Conference on Turbomachinery
Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics. Technologisch
Instituut, Antwerpen, Belgium, 1997. p. 247–54.
[ 22] Arnone A, Pacciani R. Numerical prediction of
trailing edge wake shedding. ASME Paper 97- GT- 89,
ASME, 1997.
[ 23] Manna M, Mulas M, Cicatelli G. Vortex shedding
behind a blunt trailing edge turbine blade. Int J Turbo Jet
Engines 1997;14(3):145–57.
[24]CD-Adapco, 2009. CD-Adapco Training Material.
Course Notes on Turbulence Modelling. CD-Adapco
https://www.engineering.com : Choosing the Right
Turbulence Model for your CFD Simulation.