Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your CFD Simulation: RANS, k-epsilon, SST & More

Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your... about:reader?url=https://www.engineering.com...
engineering.com
Choosing the Right Turbulence

Model for Your CFD Simulation
ENGINEERING.com
22-27 minutes
Listen to this story
Paused... Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your

CFD Simulation
0:00 / 0:00
00:00
00:00
00:00
01. Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your CFD

Simulation 0:00
Turbulent CFD simulation of the air velocity around landing
1 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
gear. (Image courtesy of CD-adapco/Siemens.)
Since the 19th century, finding a simulation model to

describe turbulence perfectly has proven to be a bumpy
ride.
Despite this, engineers need ways to simulate turbulent fluid

flow to optimize their designs for the real world. Various
empiric or semi-derived turbulence models have been
created to help engineers to find the best model to fit their
system of study, but this process could take a lot of trial,
error and physical testing.
“To make the selection of a turbulence model easier for end

users,” suggested David Corson, director of program
management at Altair, “[here are] what are widely accepted
to be the most accurate general-purpose models: Spalart-
Allmaras, SST and k-omega. For the majority of engineering
applications, these models provide a good trade-off between
[computational] cost and accuracy.”
Unfortunately, engineers need more than just a short list to

make a correct selection. MIT professor Emilio Baglietto
noted the importance of understanding the fundamental
challenges, myths, fallacies, successes and failures of
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) to determine a model
with accuracy.
The Difficulty Defining Turbulent Fluid Flow
Baglietto explained that the mission to find a general

solution to turbulence is known as the turbulence closure
problem. The aim is to close the Navier-Stokes and
2 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
Reynolds stress equations that describe turbulent flow. The

solution has remained elusive, as averaging nonlinear
occurrences of fluctuating quantities will only create new
unknowns without governing equations.
Simulation of the fluid flow in a washing machine using

SIMULIA. (Video courtesy of Dassault Systèmes.)
Turbulence models attempt to close the system of equations

that describe turbulent flows by devising new equations
through experimentation or derivations for specific
applications.
Corson noted that in making a turbulent model, many

assumptions are made to reduce the computational costs of
the simulation. Based on the type of flow being modeled,
different assumptions will be made.
This has created a ballooning number of available turbulent

models. This can make choosing a CFD simulation software
solution a considerable challenge for engineering teams
because while more is not always an advantage, if your
software has too few turbulence models then you might
miss the one you need.
“When someone shops for a CFD code, they might think

that it would be an advantage to have many turbulence
models,” said Paul Malan, director of fluids applications for
SIMULIA R&D. “Let’s say that they make the purchase of
their perfect code with, say, 50 different models. They are
thrilled, because surely at least one of these will give the
right answer. But when he starts to solve a real problem, he
has to choose one of the 50. Which should he choose? And
3 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
once he has made the choice, how does he know it is giving

the right answer?”
The key to choosing the right model is to understand its

strengths, weaknesses and definitions. According to
Corson, “Until there is a single model of turbulence
developed, CFD engineers will always be faced with the
challenge of selecting the right model for the right job.”
The following is a list of turbulent model families and how

they compare.
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes Models
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.
Baglietto explained that there are numerous ways to

perform these closures, but some are much more common
and instructive than others. Typically, algebraic models have
been used with either one or two equations.
“That loss of degrees of freedom bakes in an inherent

assumption that the turbulence is isotropic and not stretched
by the proximity of the wall, strong shear, or swirling flow,”
said David Mann, product manager for STAR-CCM+ at CD-
adapco. “We should look for extra treatments in RANS
models to overcome these limitations, or they will perform
badly for these flows.”
4 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
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
RANS Single-Equation Model: Spalart-Allmaras
Simulation of the turbulent flow around a NACA profile

calculated using Spalart-Allmaras within COMSOL. (Image
courtesy of COMSOL.)
“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
5 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
length. This mixing length defines the transport of the

turbulent viscosity.
Baglietto noted that this popularity is in large part due to the

model’s robustness and fast implementation when modeling
specialized flows. Spalart-Allmaras is not memory-intensive
and has good convergence but it has no wall functions. The
model is also a popular addition to various CFD codes.
“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.
“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
6 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
Turbulent flow around a car-like model calculated in

COMSOL using a k-epsilon model. (Image courtesy of
COMSOL.)
“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.
Limitations of k-epsilon include:
No-slip walls
Adverse pressure gradients
Strong curvatures
Jet flows
7 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
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
8 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
distortion of turbulence dissipation.
The result is that RNG produces lower turbulence levels and

can underestimate the value of k. This produces a less
viscous flow that creates more realistic flow features with
complex geometry. Though the method is popular, Baglietto
notes that it gets on the nerves of many modeling veterans
as it is more accurate for the wrong reasons.
“It is the production of k that is overestimated by the EVM

(eddy viscosity models) and not the level of epsilon,”
explained Baglietto, “so the cure should be found in a better
representation of anisotropy and essentially of the normal
stresses.”
Though the standard, realizable and RNG variations of

k-epsilon are all popular with CFD vendors, Baglietto is
correct that the RNG model does have its detractors. This
has caused at least one vendor to take action. “Although
[SIMULIA] used to provide a version of the RNG k-epsilon
model, we will not be supporting it for the R2017x release,”
explained Malan. “We feel that it offers little or no advantage
over the realizable k-epsilon model which has superseded it
and we cannot convincingly articulate why one would select
it.”
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
9 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
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.
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 models. (Image courtesy of Altair.)
“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
10 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
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.
11 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
“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.”
It seems that many engineers do prefer k-omega as all the

CFD vendors interviewed have the SST model and most
have the standard k-omega within their code.
Large-Eddy Simulation and Detached Eddy Simulation

Models
Simulation of a turbulent flow around a cylinder using

Altair’s Acusolve LES turbulence model. (Image courtesy of
12 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
Altair.)
RANS models simulate all scales of turbulence and resolve

none. Large-eddy simulation (LES) and detached-eddy
simulation (DES) models, on the other hand, resolve the
largest scales of turbulence and model the rest by use of
sub-grid turbulence models or by blending with a RANS
model.
The LES model is used to predict large turbulent eddy

structures when solving a CFD model system with a fine
mesh. However, since turbulent scales are small near the
wall, the model is unable to predict these regions with
accuracy.
“LES and DES simulations are being carried out more and
more often for applications such as aeroacoustics or
combustion and again there are several variants of these
models,” explained Mann. “DES is a hybrid RANS-LES
method which combines the benefits of LES for resolving
the large turbulent structures away from the wall, with the
benefits of RANS near the wall where the turbulent eddies
are too small to resolve. It is important to remember that the
RANS portion of DES models is still responsible for the
prediction of separation, heat transfer and other near-wall
effects.”
The biggest limitations with both the LES and DES models
are their high computational and programming costs. This
likely explains why LES and DES models are not that
popular with CFD software vendors. So if you need to use
one for your application, choose your CFD software wisely.
13 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
“All RANS models [are] limited in accuracy for highly

separated flows,” explained Corson. “For these types of
applications, or those that require explicit resolution of
turbulent structures, it is necessary to move towards a scale
resolving simulation. DES models fulfil this requirement for
users, but come at the expense of increased compute time.”
“When it comes to scale resolving simulations, Spalart-

Allmaras-based DES—more specifically, delayed detached
eddy simulation—is by far the most popular among our
users,” said Corson. “This model is very stable and provides
excellent accuracy for highly separated flows. For attached
flows in which the smaller scales of turbulence are
important, users typically choose the dynamic subgrid scale
LES model. This model has excellent accuracy, and has
little or no drawbacks in comparison to the fixed coefficient
version.”
Reynolds Stress Model
“Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) is the most complete

physical representation of turbulent flows,” said Baglietto. “It
is useful for new challenges and is able to capture complex
strains like swirling flows and secondary flows. For swirling
flows, such as cyclones, RSM is the only accurate closure.”
These models attempt to model the flow and terms directly

in RANS equations. These models are based on the six
equations that represent turbulent stresses. They represent
the flow very well but at the cost of high computational work.
They are typically reserved for flows that are extremely
14 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
complex or have never been studied before.
Limitations of RSM include:
Computational expense
Sensitivity to initial conditions
Amount of modeling required
Requirement of high-quality mesh
Due to the difficulty in using these models, they are not that
popular with CFD vendor software. Therefore, engineers
looking to use RSM will need to do their research, or read
this eBook.
So, How Do I Choose My Turbulence Model Again?
Simulation of a 19.7-ft (6-m) ozone reactor calculated in

COMSOL Multiphysics. Proper assessment of the
turbulence allows for estimations of the residence times of
each chemical species. (Image courtesy of COMSOL.)
15 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
Now that you’ve learned all this information about the

turbulence model families, you might be asking yourself,
“So, how do I choose my turbulence model again?”
“Before choosing a model we need to ask ourselves what

question is it that I am looking for an answer to,” said Mann.
“Then we need to understand the strengths and more
importantly weakness of each model so that we can be sure
that the strengths of the model we choose is aligned with
the type of problem and that we are not asking a model to
do something it is weak at.”
Mann explained this with a great example; let’s say you

want to look at the air flow around an airplane. Spalart-
Allmaras would be a great choice in this instance because
it’s tested and well-known for this sort of application.
However, if you want to dig into your design further and
determine the angle of attack that will cause the airfoil to
stall, then Spalart-Allmaras is no longer the model of choice.
“It will tell you the flow is still attached long after it has
separated in reality,” explained Mann. “The reason being is
that although the model was designed for attached
aerospace flows it simply does not have enough degrees of
freedom to predict stall adequately.”
Other factors affect the choice of model such as the mesh

resolution near the wall. This is because turbulent flow near
the wall is different from that in the bulk. Normal to the wall,
the flow is constrained and eddies become anisotropic; near
the wall, the flow becomes laminar at the viscous sub-layer.
This doesn’t fit many turbulent models that assume the flow
16 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
is completely turbulent and isotropic.
If the mesh is fine near the wall, the model will need to be
compatible with near-wall turbulent flow. “Knowing how your
chosen turbulence model deals with the anisotropy in the
near-wall flow and in other features such as swirling flow is
key to getting the best out of your model choice,” said Mann.
Marra agreed that certain models treat the viscous sublayer

and buffer layer differently through the usage of wall
functions. These models will differ based on the number of
variables solved, what these variables represent and the
velocity and pressure values.
“Each turbulence model has strength and weaknesses.

Being aware of their range of applicability is of the essence
in picking the right one,” noted Marra. “Some models are
well-suited for internal flows, others for external flow around
complex geometries. Some engineers might be interested in
separated flows, jets, or need to compute lift, drag, heat
fluxes [and more] with high accuracy. Once a model that
meets the criteria for the job at hand is picked, the next step
is to use a mesh able to capture all details of the flow.”
Corson explained that best practices at Altair include

identifying the dominant feature of a turbulent flow and
basing the choice of model on this feature. The engineer
can then study how the model performs with situations and
canonical flows where these features are dominant and
compare the results to experimental data.
“Once you've identified which model performs best for the

canonical flows of interest, you can apply that to your more
17 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
complex application,” mentioned Corson. “We can't

guarantee that the models will provide the same level of
accuracy on the complex case, but this approach provides a
good starting point that should result in reasonable levels of
accuracy.”
However, Marra also suggests that other factors can affect

why an engineer would choose a certain turbulence model.
These factors are:
1. Accuracy of the model when used in their original scope
2. Model’s ability to produce appropriate results in applications

it isn’t intended for
3. Computational cost of the model and its ability to produce

quick preliminary results to rule out early design options
Sometimes, an engineer will need to still use a

computationally expensive model with limited computational
power. In these situations, Marra suggests a best practice of
using boundary layer meshes at the wall and adaptive mesh
refinements within the bulk of the fluid. This will help
engineers to balance the accuracy they need with the
computational power they have.
But in the end, choosing the right model comes down to

practice. A seasoned CFD simulation expert might be able
to look at an application and name off a few models of
choice. They can then verify the correct model from the
shortlist based on the convergence of the solution and
mesh.
However, no matter who you are or what you are simulating,
18 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15
it is always a good practice to verify that the turbulence

model is producing results in line with experimental data.
Even the best of us can get it wrong and it’s best to find that
error early in development cycles.
“For applications that demand highly accurate resolution of

specific flow features, the only way to determine the best
modeling approach is to rely on comparison to experimental
data that is specific to that application,” noted Corson. “In
that case, a turbulence model sensitivity study is necessary
to identify which model produces the best results in
comparison to experimental data. Once the best practice
for that application is desired, similar applications in the
future can rely on the same modeling guidelines.”
Once you have chosen a few potential turbulence models

for your application, you will then need to ensure that these
models are available in the CFD software you have access
to. Otherwise, you might need to look to source a new CFD
platform.
To see what models are available from various CFD vendor

software, check out the eBook: Turbulence Models Offered
by CFD Simulation Vendors.
To learn more about Simulation, read: Current Overview of

Simulation Technology.
Create your own user feedback survey
19 of 19 2019/07/29, 15:15

Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your CFD Simulation: RANS, k-epsilon, SST & More

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your CFD Simulation: RANS, k-epsilon, SST & More

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your... about:reader?url=https://www.engineering.com...

Choosing the Right Turbulence

Listen to this story

Paused... Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your

01. Choosing the Right Turbulence Model for Your CFD

Turbulent CFD simulation of the air velocity around landing

gear. (Image courtesy of CD-adapco/Siemens.)

Since the 19th century, finding a simulation model to

Despite this, engineers need ways to simulate turbulent fluid

“To make the selection of a turbulence model easier for end

Unfortunately, engineers need more than just a short list to

The Difficulty Defining Turbulent Fluid Flow

Baglietto explained that the mission to find a general

Reynolds stress equations that describe turbulent flow. The

Simulation of the fluid flow in a washing machine using

Turbulence models attempt to close the system of equations

Corson noted that in making a turbulent model, many

This has created a ballooning number of available turbulent

“When someone shops for a CFD code, they might think

once he has made the choice, how does he know it is giving

The key to choosing the right model is to understand its

The following is a list of turbulent model families and how

Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes Models

The family of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)

Baglietto explained that there are numerous ways to

“That loss of degrees of freedom bakes in an inherent

There are some limitations with RANS models as they are

Lack of physical description

Turbulence-induced secondary flows

Swirling flows or flows with rotations

Transitional flows between turbulent and laminar

Unsteady flows like internal combustion engines

Stagnant regions in flows

RANS Single-Equation Model: Spalart-Allmaras

Simulation of the turbulent flow around a NACA profile

“Spalart-Allmaras (SA) is a one-equation turbulence model

The model is based on kinematic eddy viscosity and mixing

length. This mixing length defines the transport of the

Baglietto noted that this popularity is in large part due to the

“When we look at the benefits and drawbacks, the Spalart-

“Because we are only solving a single equation for

Limitations of Spalart-Allmaras include:

Under predicting separation

RANS Two-Equation Model: Standard k-epsilon,

Turbulent flow around a car-like model calculated in

“In [the standard k-epsilon model] we solve for two

Marra explained that the model uses wall functions to

The technique offers good convergence and isn’t memory-

Baglietto noted that the equation for epsilon is postulated,

Limitations of k-epsilon include:

Adverse pressure gradients

Difficulty solving for epsilon

Despite this, the model is reliable due to its predictability

Perhaps the most famous variation of the model is the

“[Realizable k-epsilon] is the default recommendation in

Another popular modification is the renormalization group

distortion of turbulence dissipation.

The result is that RNG produces lower turbulence levels and

“It is the production of k that is overestimated by the EVM

Though the standard, realizable and RNG variations of

RANS Two-Equation Model: Standard k-omega and SST

Another popular two-equation model pairs k with the specific