Dr.

Florian Menter

Reproduced from:

https://www.ansys.com/products/fluids/turbulence-modeling/ask-the-expert

What is the best turbulence model to use?

There is no single best turbulence model. Ansys believes in providing the widest range of
turbulence modeling capabilities so the user can choose the right tools for the specific job at
hand. While today’s CFD simulations are mainly based on Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) turbulence models, it is becoming increasingly clear that certain classes of flows are
better covered by models in which all or a part of the turbulence spectrum is resolved in at least
a portion of the numerical domain. Such methods are termed scale-resolving simulation
(SRS) models.

When should SRS models be used?

There are two main motivations for using SRS models in favor of RANS formulations. First,
users need additional information that just cannot be obtained from RANS simulations. For
example, acoustics simulations can include turbulence-generated noise sources, which cannot
be extracted with accuracy from RANS simulations. Other examples include unsteady heat
loading in unsteady mixing zones of flow streams at different temperatures — which can lead to
material failure — or multi-physics effects like vortex cavitation, in which the unsteady
turbulence pressure field is the cause of cavitation. In such situations, SRS can deliver more
engineering insight even in cases where the RANS model would, in principle, be capable of
computing the correct time-averaged flow field.

The second reason for using SRS models is related to accuracy. RANS models are strongest
for wall-bounded flows, where the calibration according to the law of the wall provides a sound
foundation for further refinement. But their performance is limited in other flow situations.

Where do RANS models show their limitations?

For free shear flows, the performance of RANS models is much less uniform. There are a wide
variety of such flows, ranging from simple, self-similar flows such as jets, mixing layers, and
wakes to impinging flows, flows with strong swirl, massively separated flows, etc. Considering
that RANS models typically have limitations covering the most basic self-similar free shear flows
with a single set of constants, there is little hope that even the most advanced Reynolds stress
models (RSM) will eventually provide a reliable foundation for all such flows.

Typically, for free shear flows, it is much easier to resolve the largest turbulence scales, as they
are of the order of the shear layer thickness. Within wall boundary layers, however, the
turbulence length scale near the wall becomes very small relative to the boundary layer
thickness (increasingly so — at higher Re numbers). This poses severe limitations for large
eddy simulations (LES), as the computational effort required far exceeds the computing power
available to industry. For this reason, hybrid models are being developed to resolve large eddies
away from walls, cover wall boundary layers by a RANS model. Examples of such global hybrid
models are detached eddy simulation (DES) and scale-adaptive simulation (SAS). More recent
developments are the shielded detached eddy simulation (SDES) and the stress-blended eddy
simulation (SBES) proposed by the Ansys turbulence team.

Are there other hybrid modeling approaches?

An additional step is to apply a RANS model to only the innermost part of the wall boundary
layer, and then to switch to a LES model for the main part of the boundary layer. Such models
are termed wall-modelled LES (WMLES). Finally, for large domains, it is frequently necessary to
cover only a small portion with SRS models, while the majority of the flow can be computed in
RANS mode. In such situations, zonal or embedded LES methods are attractive as they allow
the user to specify ahead of time the region where LES is required. Such methods are typically
not new models in the strict sense, but they combine existing models/technologies in a flexible
way indifferent portion of the flow field. Important elements of zonal models are interface
conditions, which convert turbulence from RANS mode to resolved mode at pre-defined
locations. In most cases, this is achieved by introducing synthetic turbulence based on the
length and time scales from the RANS model.

There are many hybrid RANS-LES models — often with somewhat confusing naming
conventions — that resolve eddies of different sizes. SRS models are very challenging in their
proper application to industrial flows.

The models typically require special attention to various details, including:

1. Model selection
2. Grid generation
3. Numerical settings
4. Solution interpretation
5. Post-processing
6. Quality assurance

How should engineers choose their turbulence model? How do you get the right model
for the job at hand?

Unfortunately, no unique model covers all industrial flows, and each individual model poses its
own set of challenges. The user of a CFD code must understand the intricacies of the SRS
model formulation in order to select the optimal model and use it efficiently.

Ansys provides Theory and User documentation that describes in detail how to select and
activate these models in Ansys CFD. We also provide a best practices application brief for a
general understanding of the underlying principles and the associated limitations of each of the
described modeling concepts. It also pairs flow types with suitable models, and identifies which
combinations should be avoided. The impact of numerical settings on model performance is
also discussed.

READ THE APPLICATION BRIEF: SCALE-RESOLVING SIMULATIONS IN ANSYS CFD

https://www.ansys.com/resource-library/application-brief/best-practice-scale-resolving-
simulations-in-ansys-cfd-version-20

What is new with Turbulence modeling?

A new, single-equation laminar transition model is making a buzz in the industry.

Modeling the transition from laminar to turbulent flow has been one of the most difficult
challenges of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), even though many industrial flows have
Reynolds numbers in the range of 10^4 to 10^6 — regimes in which significant portions of the
boundary layers can be laminar. Our Ansys team succeeded in solving this problem about 10
years ago with the local-correlation-based transition modeling (LCTM) approach. LCTM
successfully introduced transition effects into general CFD. The first model (named γ-ReΘ)
solved two transport equations and incorporated experimental correlations to trigger the
transition onset. The model formulation was strictly local and, therefore, fully compatible with
modern general-purpose CFD codes.

We recently published a second-generation model that simplifies the original γ-ReΘ model of
the LCTM concept, by reducing the number of equations to be solved from two to one. The new
transition model (called the γ-model) is now available in Ansys CFD solutions.

By reducing the number of transport equations to be solved, the new γ-model substantially
decreases the complexity and solution time of boundary layer simulations. The γ-model is also
more robust because an even wider range of flows, both generic and industrial, was considered
during model calibration, relative to the γ-ReΘ model.

About Dr. Florian Menter

A world-recognized expert in turbulence modeling, Dr. Menter developed the widely used shear-
stress transport (SST) turbulence model, which has set a milestone in the accurate prediction of
aerodynamic flows. He has also contributed to the formulation of one-equation turbulence
models, and advanced near- wall treatment of turbulence equations, transition modelling and
unsteady flow models. He has been in charge of the turbulence modeling program at Ansys for
more than 17 years and has been involved in a wide range of industrial modeling challenges.
He has published more than 50 papers and articles at international conferences and in
international journals. Most recently, Dr. Menter has been involved in the implementation of new
turbulence models for unsteady flow simulations, including scale-adaptive simulation (SAS) and
embedded/zonal LES models. These models are particularly relevant for the many industrial
applications where time-varying information is essential to the engineering outcomes
(aerodynamics, acoustics, combustion, fluid-structure coupling, etc.).

Dr. Florien Menter