.

Application of Two-Equation Turbulence

Models in Aircraft Design.
G. Kalitzin, A.R.B. Gould
British Aerospace (Operations) Ltd, Sowerby Research Centre,
Filton, Bristol, UK.
J.J. Benton
British Aerospace (Regional Aircraft) Ltd, AVRO International Aerospace Division,
Woodford, Cheshire, UK.

Abstract been created. This is because the Multiblock topology

CFD methods have been used successfully for many
years in aircraft design. The primary Navier-Stokes
method in use at British Aerospace is an explicit, struc-
tured, Multiblock system. One of the key targets in the
ow solver within the Multiblock system
development programme for this system is the implemen-
tation of a Second Moment turbulence closure. Before
proceeding to implement such a model it is essential to
description embodies a generic specication of line-grid
stretching so that small changes in geometry require no
change to the topology.
The primary
is a 3D, Reynolds-averaged, compressible, cell-centred,
central dierencing method known as RANSMB which
has been developed by the third author. This makes use
have an ecient and robust two-equation transport ca-
pability. This paper describes how this capability has
been achieved. The selection and assessment of two-
equation turbulence models for use within this system
is discussed. Two models are considered in detail, one
from the k-" family of models, and one based on the k-!
class. To provide stable and accurate solutions for com-
plex three-dimensional
of Runge-Kutta multigrid time marching and articial
viscosity to produce steady-state solutions. Both Euler
and full Navier-Stokes calculations can be made and sev-
eral turbulence closures are available, from the algebraic
models of Baldwin-Lomax and Johnson-King to one and
two-equation transport models.
owelds various modications Whilst the underlying solution method was rst de-
are required to both types of model. Several 2D and 3D
civil aircraft applications are used to validate the system.
These also serve to demonstrate the use of transport tur-
bulence modelling in the design environment.
Introduction
For many years British Aerospace has been developing
ows. Although
CFD methods for use in the design of aerospace vehi-
cles. One suite of programs which has emerged from this
development is based around a 3D, structured, Multi-
ows which can be adequately
block mesh generation system. This system is targeted
at the modelling of external
ows over complex geome- pear to be more appropriate for modelling
ows around
tries and is now being used for design applications re-
lated to military aircraft, civil aircraft and high speed
weapons. This forms part of a wider initiative to inte-
grate CFD with CAD packages which exploits the fact
that mesh re-generation for small geometry changes can
ows where
be automated once the initial topology and grid have
 Permanent address: Otto-von-Guericke-Universit
at, Institut
fur Stromungstechnik und Thermodynamik, Universitatsplatz 2,
39106 Magdeburg, Germany.
Copyright
c 1996 British Aerospace plc. Published by the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with
permission.
ow modelling system,
1
scribed 10-15 years ago1; 2 it provides an unparalleled
combination of eciency and maturity. Development of
the solver continues in many areas. However, one of the
pacing items in its development and wider application is
turbulence modelling.
The traditional algebraic models, including Baldwin-
Lomax3, have been applied with a surprising degree of
success to two and three dimensional
such models are cheap and robust their direct depen-
dence on empirical mixing length assumptions severely
limit the complexity of the
predicted. Transport models of turbulence would ap-
multi-component geometries in three-dimensions. Sec-
ond Moment Closure is an advanced manifestation of this
class of models. By providing a transport equation for
each Reynolds-stress component, SMC models have the
potential to provide predictions of complex
anisotropic `non-linear' eects are important. The penal-
ties that accompany such a capability include high cost,
due to the large number of additional equations, and
potentially poor numerical properties which may lead
to implementation diculties. Whilst SMC remains the
long term goal for a generalised,
the technical challenges posed by such a model mean
that an interim capability is required.
Two-equation models can be seen as an advance on
algebraic models, since they are transport in nature and
therefore can take account of history eects. On the
other hand, by making use of the Boussinesq approx-
imation there is no longer a need for a six-component
Reynolds-stress closure and the number of equations is
reduced. The present study discusses how a robust and
ecient two-equation solution method has been achieved
and demonstrates the capabilities of the system using re-
cent BAe AVRO research on a new regional jet.
Solution Method
As its name suggests, a two-equation model requires the
solution of two transport equations in addition to the
Navier-Stokes equations. The turbulence equations are
dierent from the mean
ow equations in that they in- turbulence model variables should have boundary
clude important source terms which can cause the system
to become numerically very sti. The approach adopted
by BAe is to solve the turbulence equations explicitly
in the same manner as the mean
ow. The system is match a function over the near-wall region is un-
kept stable through the use of relaxation on the multi-
grid, limiters applied to certain quantities, and careful
1. No use of normal-to-wall distance. Most three
dimensional calculations contain areas where two
or more boundary layers are interacting, such as
wing-body junctions. It is dicult, therefore, to
locate a suitable wall distance for cells in such a
region. For a Multiblock scheme it is also possible
that the upper part of a boundary layer will be
separated from the solid surface by a block bound-
ary. Locating the relevant surface in a generalised
Multiblock mesh is a complicated and expensive
process.
2. Simple source terms. The turbulence model
source terms should be functions of readily avail-
able quantities. For example, models which make
use of second derivatives are undesirable. Source
terms which become extremely large very close to
walls cause stiness problems.
3. Straightforward boundary conditions. The
conditions that can be readily applied by setting
`halo'-cell values. The use of more complex con-
ditions, such as forcing the dependent variables to
desirable since this imposes severe constraints on
the grid generation process.
application of the articial viscosity. In RANSMB the
dissipation takes the form of blended second and fourth The degree to which a transport model can represent
dierences. For the mean
ow the blending uses a shock key physical phenomena is also very important. For at-
sensor to switch on the second dierence at shocks. For tached
ows, most traditional models perform very well.
the turbulence equations the second dierencing is in- However, these models often fail to predict more com-
voked at discontinuities via a non-linear second dier- plex
ows containing features such as boundary layer
ence sensor on the turbulence quantities, and has a co- separation, either shock induced or pressure gradient
ecient large enough to give a rst order TVD prop- induced5; 6 . Work is underway to analyse and imple-
erty. An alternative method of solving such equations ment some of the numerous corrections and modica-
in such an explicit scheme is given by Davidson4, who tions which have been proposed to overcome such limi-
proposes a semi-implicit method for the turbulence equa- tations. The present study is concerned with the choice
tions, which is coupled in some way to the explicit mean of the basic model on which to proceed with such work.

ow solution. This method has proved successful, but
due to its implicit nature becomes complex to imple- All two-equation models use the Boussinesq approx-
ment, especially in a Multiblock environment. imation to model the turbulent stresses:
 
Choice of Model ? ui uj = t ( @x + @x ) ? 3 @x ij ? 23 kij ; (1)
0 0 @ui @uj 2 @uk
j i k
In order to install a transport turbulence model into an where the eddy viscosity is given by:
industrial CFD code the developer faces a number of
issues which may determine whether or not a certain k2
model is viable. In addition to the numerical stiness, t = C  : (2)
"
there are further features of the turbulence equations
which are unique to each new model. When assessing a The widely accepted transport equation for turbulent
particular turbulence model for use in RANSMB there kinetic energy, k, is modelled as:
are certain properties which are desirable in the context  
@ (ui k)
of a structured, Multiblock method. These include: @xi
= @ ( + t ) @k + P ? "; (3)
@xi k @xi k

2
where Pk is the production of k, and " is the specic a one-equation model in the near-wall region, which is
dissipation. matched to the two-equation model at a certain distance
from the wall. The most commonly used near-wall model
To achieve closure of the system an expression for the is that of Wolfshtein10, which solves Eqn.(3) in conjunc-
dissipation, ", is required. A large number of closures tion with an algebraic expression for ".
have been proposed over the last 20-30 years. Most of
these give a transport equation for " itself, based on the This approach has been shown to be very eective6 .
`standard' form: A major drawback in the context of the present study
  is the need to nd a suitable location for the transition
@ (ui ") @ t @" " "2
@xi
= @x ( +  ) @x + C"1 k Pk ? C"2 k : (4) from the near-wall model to the two-equation model. In
i " i a structured grid system it is usual to select a particular
parallel-to-wall grid line which represents a y+ value of
An alternative closure method is provided by around 200. For three-dimensional ows with several
Wilcox7. This is written in terms of ! which represents intersecting surfaces it becomes dicult to locate a grid
the ratio between " and k: surface which will be satisfactory.
"
!=  :
k
(5) use The most appropriate method would appear to be the
of a single model which is modied through the addi-
tion of wall damping terms to allow its use in both high
The transport equation for ! is given as: and low Reynolds number regions. A large number of
@ (ui !) @
 t @!
 ! such models exist in the literature. Many of these have
= (+ ) +  Pk ? !2 : (6) been tested including Jones-Launder11 , Chien12, Lam-
@xi @xi ! @xi k
Bremhorst13, Lien-Leschziner14 and Speziale9 . In prac-
tice it has been found that all these models give very
Near-wall asymptotic analysis8; 9 shows that these similar solutions for most ow problems. They do, how-
basic forms of k-" and k-! models give incorrect pre- ever, dier substantially with regard to the ease with
dictions of key turbulent quantities approaching a solid which they can be made to produce stable solutions.
surface. In the case of the k-" equations, it is necessary
to add damping terms or use wall functions to reproduce Implementation of k-"
experimentally observed behaviour. In the case of the k- One key issue encountered when applying low Reynolds
! model it has been found that despite the near-wall number k-" models is the boundary condition for ".
inconsistencies, good predictions of boundary layer pro-
les and skin friction can be obtained. The suitability of Whilst
not
k tends to zero as the wall is approached, " does
vanish. The low Reynolds number models fall into
a large number of both the k-" and k-! type of models two categories, those which apply a specic boundary
have been assessed for use within the BAe solver. condition for ", and those which replace " with new vari-
To test the basic implementations, and to illustrate goables, such as "~ or  , which are dened such that they
the following discussions, a at plate boundary layer test to zero at the surface.
case is used. This is calculated for a ow at M =0.5, One of the most popular of this latter category, and
Re=7  106, using a grid with cell distributions similar one which has been in use at BAe for many years, is the
to those typically used for aerofoil or wing calculations. Chien k-~" model. It is worthwhile repeating the deni-
The cell nearest the wall is within y+  1 and there are tion of Chien's model here, to facilitate the description
around 30 cells below y+ =1000. Transition is applied at of the implementation.
x=l = 0:1 and the proles are extracted at x=l = 0:9.
The new dissipation is related to " by:
Assessment of k-" "~ = " ?
2k ; (7)
y2
As already mentioned, wall-eects are not suciently where y is the normal-to-wall distance.
well modelled by the standard k-" equations, and these
equations are only valid away from a surface, in high The new dissipation equation is:
turbulent Reynolds number areas of the ow. The low  
@ (ui "~)  @ "~
Reynolds number region can be bridged with wall func-
@x
= @
@x
(+ t)
 @x
+ C"1 k"~ Pk
tions, which allow relatively coarse meshes to be used. i i " i
However, no signicant increase in capability over the "~2 2
? C"2 k f2 ? y2 e "~ ?C4 y+
: (8)
algebraic models is obtained. An alternative is to use

3
Here, f2 is a wall damping function, cell. This procedure is used for all blocks adjacent to
2 walls. This requires that the grid be generated in such
f2 = 1 ? 0:22e?(Re =6) : t
(9) a way that blocks adjacent to walls are suciently large
One additional damping function is used to factor the to contain the whole low Reynolds number region. For
eddy viscosity in Eqn.(2), situations such as wing-body junctions where more than
one surface is present, y is set to the smaller of the two
(10) wall distances.
? C y +
f = 1 ? e 3 :
Whilst the boundary conditions for "~ are now straight-
35 160

forward the damping functions contain the wall-distance, 30

140

y. In addition, the wall coordinate, y+ , is used. The

denition:y+ = u y= , contains the friction velocity, u ,
120
25

which is itself a function of velocity gradient at the wall. 100

At separation points the resultant y+ can be zero. This 20

is undesirable in the context of the damping functions, U+ / t 80

and an alternative denition is used. This is derived 15

60

using the assumption that Reynolds shear stress is pro-

portional to kinetic energy and is written as15 :
10
40

p
= C4  ky
5
1 20

y +

: (11) 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
log(y+) log(y+)
Comparing this model with the three criteria listed
above it is clear that, although the boundary conditions Figure 1: Log law comparison (left) and eddy viscos-
appear to be straightforward (k=0, "~=0), the normal-to- ity prole for the at plate boundary layer using the
wall distance measure, y, is used. For mesh blocks which Chien(+Wolfshtein) model.
do not have a wall boundary the damping functions are
not applicable, and the model reverts to the `standard'
high Reynolds number " model, Eqn.(4). This is a valid Towards the outer edge of the boundary layer, a
assumption, except immediately downstream of a trail- new problem is introduced by the ratio of k2 =" which
ing edge, where although there is no solid surface, the is present in the eddy viscosity, Eqn.(2). As the bound-
boundary layer(s) from the wing surface create a ow, ary layer edge is approached, both k and " fall to zero.
which for a short distance, approximates a wall bounded Any slight error in the evaluation of these quantities may
ow. Without a special treatment for wake regions the cause the ratio to become signicant. This eect can
sudden transition from "~ to " here can lead to conver- cause large values of eddy viscosity to be predicted, even
gence diculties. though the turbulent quantities themselves are small.
To control the production of `spurious' eddy viscosity
Further, it can be seen that Eqn.(8) contains source outside the boundary layer a minimum limiter for " is
terms which become very large in the near-wall region introduced 16
,
as y ! 0. Small imbalances in these terms can lead to k 32
"min = : (12)
large production or destruction of "~, with undesirable lmax
consequences for the convergence of the solution.
This is derived from dimensional considerations, and
To overcome the near-wall and wake problems a small the maximum length scale, lmax , is typically set to 0:1
layer of cells next to the surface is solved using the Wolf- aerofoil chord. This limiter improves stability and also
shtein model. This approach resembles the method men- helps to reduce the production of spurious eddy viscosity.
tioned above to bridge the gap between high Reynolds However, this eddy viscosity is not eliminated altogether.
number models and the wall. However, since the Chien
model is low Reynolds number compatible, the choice of The at plate solution for the Chien-plus-Wolfshtein
grid line for separating the two regions is not critical. In model, together with the corresponding prole of eddy
RANSMB four to eight cells next to a wall are used for viscosity, t , is shown in Fig. 1. A satisfactory compar-
the one-equation model. ison with the log-law velocity prole is obtained. How-
ever, it can be seen that the eddy viscosity remains at a
The distance, y, is found by calculating the distance level which is still much higher than the laminar viscosity
along a normal grid line from the solid surface to a given outside the boundary layer.

4
 Assessment of k-! 35

Eqn. (14)
1.2

The k-! model appears to meet two of the three crite- 30 use of R limiter
1.0

ria immediately. The ! equation, Eqn.(6), can be inte-

grated all the way to the wall without the requirement 25
0.8

for damping functions or normal-to-wall distance, and

the source terms appear to be straightforward.
20

U+ 0.6

The boundary conditions, however, pose a signi-

15

cant challenge. Since ! / "=k it tends to innity as

0.4
10

a wall is approached. This is entirely unsatisfactory.

Various approximations and alternative boundary con- 5
0.2

ditions have been tested. Even when using boundary

conditions which appear entirely inappropriate, such as 0 0.0

(@!=@n)wall = 0, good solutions can occasionally be ob-

0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
log(y+) log(y+)
tained. However, such approaches are very dependent on
the near-wall mesh spacing and are not appropriate for Figure 2: Log-layer comparison (left) and  proles
general use. The method proposed by Wilcox8 is to t
! to a function which is derived from near-wall analysis
of Eqn.(6). Wilcox suggests that this function should
be applied over seven to ten cells next to a surface, and
that these cells should be in the region y+  2:5. For
uence
all practical applications considered in the present study
this is too restrictive since there are typically only one
or two cells inside this region.
uence on the boundary
Analysis of Eqn.(6) highlights a further shortcoming layer
of this model. In areas of the
for the k- model with and without the R limiter
applied to the  -equation source terms.
local turbulence levels are negligible. The value of  in
the freestream has been found to have a strong in
on the turbulent quantities in the boundary layer. In
Menter's study of the freestream dependency of the !
equation, it is suggested that in
is minimised provided that the freestream value of
oweld where the turbu- is required.enough. This implies that a small value of 1
! is high
lent energy, k, is negligible, the equation for ! de-couples
from the k equation, and a non-zero solution for ! can The
at-plate solution which results from using
exist everywhere. This issue manifests itself as a sensi- Eqn.(14) in conjunction with a very small value of 1
tivity to freestream, or innity, conditions for !. It has at the in
ow boundary is shown in Fig. 2, together with
been demonstrated by Menter17 that the level of eddy the corresponding  prole. It can be seen that  con-
viscosity in a shear layer can be profoundly aected by tinues to grow outside the boundary layer, reaching a
the specied value of !1 . maximum well away from the surface, where k is known
to be negligible. High levels of  are now present in the
Implementation of k-! freestream. Due to the convective and diusive terms
these high levels of  are maintained further downstream.
To overcome the boundary condition problem, the ! This is undesirable in situations where a new shear layer
equation was inverted15 and expressed in terms of: is developing. One relevant example of this would be the
1 case of a
ap deployed behind a wing. For the boundary
=  : (13) layer on the
ap, the large levels of  produced by the
 ! shear layers on the wing give an eective 1 which is
The variable  now has units of time, and goes to zero much too high, and the growth of turbulence on the
ap
at a solid surface. The new transport equation for  is: is now incorrect.
@ (ui  ) @
  @
 
= (+ t) ?  k Pk To suppress these high levels of  , the source terms
@xi @xi
  @xi
 in Eqn.(14) are modied by introducing a limiter based
 t 2 @ @ on local eddy viscosity. For the k- model, the equation
+    ?  +   @x @x : (14) for t is:
 i i
t =   k; (15)
This model would now appear to fulll all three of the re- and the limiter is dened as:
quirements listed above, although the freestream depen-
dency is still present. As with the ! equation, a non-zero R = max(0:01;  k ): (16)
solution of the  equation can be obtained even when the

5
The source terms in Eqn.(14) are multiplied by the ratio approached,  approaches zero as a function of y2 . Since
t =R and the transport equation for  is now written as: the method used to calculated local gradients uses rst
     2 order averages (as in most CFD methods), the quadratic
@ (ui  ) @  @ nature of  is not properly accounted for. The last term
= (+ t) ?  R Pk
@xi @xi  @xi in Eqn.(17) contains a product of the gradients of  , and
   @ @ it is the incorrect evaluation of this source term which
+  Rt ?  + t 2Rk @x @x
: (17) leads to the poor modelling of the
ow very close to the
 i i
wall.
The limiter, R, is chosen such that in regions of the
ow
where the eddy viscosity is larger than 1% of the laminar To eliminate this discretisation error a higher order
viscosity the source terms are unaected. A useful side- gradient calculation method could be employed near the
eect of such a limiter is that the primary turbulence surface. A simpler alternative is to modify the model to
variables are now only used in the denominator when eliminate the quadratic behaviour. A further transfor-
the local turbulence level is above the 1% cut-o. This mation is carried out by the rst two authors to re-cast
precludes the possibility of division by zero. the  equation in terms of a new variable, g, which rep-
resents p . Using the same source term limiter, R, the
The solution for this modied model on the
at plate new model can be written as:
is also given in Fig. 2. Once the edge of the boundary  
layer is reached, the eddy viscosity decreases rapidly, and @ (ui k) = @ ( + t ) @k + Pk ?   2 k2 ; (18)
the limiter is activated, causing  to be reduced smoothly @xi @xi k @xi R
to a very low level in the freestream. Meanwhile, the
velocity prole is seen to remain largely unaected. @ (ui g) @
 t @g
   g3
@xi
= @x ( +  ) @x ?  2R Pk
Care is required in selecting the appropriate value
 kg
 i   3g  kgi @g @g
for the limiter. Very close the wall the eddy viscosity + 2R ?  +  t
2
: (19)
is again small. All the calculations presented here use g R @xi @xi
meshes where the minimum wall cell height has a y+
value between 0.5 and 2. For these meshes the limit of The eddy viscosity is:
0:01 is found to work well. For ner meshes, a lower t =   kg2 ; (20)
limit would be required.
35
and the constants are:
30
g    ! = 2:0;    C = 0:09;
k-  = 5=9;  = 0:075
k-g
25
The new solution is shown in Fig. 3 and it can be seen
20 that the correct velocity prole is now obtained.
U+
15 A similar transformation has been carried out by
Gibson and Dafa'Allap18 to convert a k-" model to q-
10
 , where q represents k. However, this transformation
adds new source terms to the k equation. Since the k
5
diusion term is the only term involving gradients of k in
the k-g model the discretisation errors at the wall have
a much reduced eect. Hence, a transformation of the k
0
-1 0 1 2 3 4 5
log(y+) equation does not appear to be necessary in the context
Figure 3: Flat plate velocity proles for the k- of the present study.
model, Eqn.(18) and the k-g model, Eqn.(19).
2D Validation
Concerning the velocity prole predicted by the k-
 model, it is apparent in Fig. 2 that the model gives
an incorrect prediction of U + implying that there is an
ows
over-prediction of skin friction. This can been traced
to an error in the calculation of the gradient of  very
close to the solid surface. It is known that as the wall is
6
Both the k-~" and k-g implementations described above
have been validated on a large number of external
for both 2D and 3D geometries. To demonstrate the
capabilities of both models a smaller number of test cases
will be described. First, a transonic aerofoil, and a low
 4.5
0.008
-1.0

0.006 4.0

-0.5
0.004
3.5

Lift Coefficient
Cp Cf 0.002
0.0
3.0
0.0

0.5
Experiment -0.002 2.5
k-
k-g
1.0 -0.004 Experiment
2.0
k-
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 k-g
X/c X/c 1.5

Figure 4: Pressure (left) and friction coecients for

0 5 10 15 20 25 -0.05 0.0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Incidence Drag coefficient
RAE2822 Case 9.
Figure 6: Lift/Incidence and Lift/Drag polars for the
L1T2 at M = 0:197, Re = 3:52  106 .
Mach number, high-lift, multi-element aerofoil are pre-
sented and discussed. Following this, some examples of
three-dimensional applications related to current BAe To test the models for ows with high pressure gra-
AVRO research work are given. dients, and greater geometrical complexity, a detailled
study has been carried out for a three-element high-lift
A well known, and geometrically simple test case is conguration. The geometry was dened as part of the
the RAE2822 aerofoil. Test ow `Case 9' is compared National High-Lift Programme (NHLP) and is known as
with experimental data19 for surface pressure and fric- `L1T2'. Experiments carried out on this geometry are
tion in Fig. 4. The corrected conditions are M = 0:734, described by Moir20. Calculations have been performed
 = 2:54o and Re = 6:5  106 . It can be seen that both with both k-~" and k-g over the complete incidence range
models give very similar predictions, which correspond at M = 0:197, Re = 3:52  106. The geometry and
well with the experimental data. In particular, the fric- streamlines for a representative ow are shown in Fig. 5.
tion coecient plot demonstrates that the k-g model is Of particular interest are the interactions between the
performing well in the near-wall region. wake from the slat and the boundary layer on the upper
surface of the wing, and the wing wake and ap bound-
ary layer. There are also complex re-circulation regions
in the `cove' areas which exist on the lower surface of the
slat, and in the ap cut-out on the lower surface of the
wing.
Polar plots of lift against drag and lift against inci-
dence are given in Fig. 6. The predictions of lift from
the k-g model correspond well with experiment, while
those of the k-~" implementation are slightly lower. The
lift/drag curve shows similar dierences. The k-g solu-
tion is closer to experiment while the Chien model over-
predicts drag at every point. A closer examination of
the solutions at 20:18o shows that there is little dier-
ence in the predictions of surface pressure coecient,
shown in Fig. 7. The lower lift predicted by k-~" results
Figure 5: Streamlines over the L1T2 three-element from a slightly lower suction over the upper surface of
aerofoil at 21.69o predicted by the k-g model. the wing and slat. It is well documented8 that k-! tends

7
 shortcoming of the Chien implementation. A certain
-14
amount of `spurious' eddy viscosity outside the boundary
-12
Experiment layers can be seen, which aect a large area of the ow
k-
above the geometry. As observed in the at plate test
-10 k-g
case, this value of eddy viscosity is controlled, but not
-8 eliminated, by the use of limiters. The presence of such
Cp eddy viscosity can trigger undesirable diusion or even
-6 production of k which in turn can aect the levels of tur-
bulence at the boundary layer edge further downstream.
Meanwhile, the k-g implementation behaves well at the
-4

-2 boundary layer edge, and the turbulence is seen to return

0
to negligible levels smoothly.
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2
X/c 8 8

Figure 7: Surface pressure coecient for L1T2 at Wing,35% Flap, l.e.

M = 0:197,  = 20:18o , Re = 3:52  106 .

7 7

6 Exp. 6

to give better predictions for adverse pressure gradient

k-ε
k-g
ows. It would appear that this behaviour is preserved 5 5

Inches above surface

in the present k-g formulation. Proles of total pressure
at the same ow conditions are also available and are
4 4

given in Fig. 8. These are presented for the ow above

the wing at 35% chord, and at the leading edge, mid
3 3

chord and trailing edge of the ap. Here, larger dier- 2 2

ences between the models can be seen. The k-~" solution
appears to give incorrect spreading of the wakes, with a 1 1

rather more diuse total pressure distribution. The k-g

model is consistently closer to experiment. 0 0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0

For an explanation of these dierences, it is useful Cpo Cpo

to examine the way in which the turbulent ow is han- 8 8

dled by these two models. Fig. 9 shows contours of nor- Flap, 50% Flap, t.e.

o
malised eddy viscosity for the 21:18 case. Immediately
7 7

evident is the large number of block boundaries which are 6 6

present, this being a consequence of the mesh generation
procedure which demands a single boundary condition
Inches above surface

5 5

type on a block face. Some of the block boundaries are

however utilised for grid control by means of user speci- 4 4

ed line-grid stretching functions. The block boundaries,

when they are positioned close to shear layers, can cause 3 3

problems for models which require wall distance mea-

sures. For many test cases it is possible to ensure that 2 2

all low Reynolds number regions are contained within

the block nearest the wall. However, for moderately 1 1

complex geometries, such as the L1T2, this may not be

feasible. As previously stated, the k-~" model implemen-
0 0
-0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0
tation reverts to the high Reynolds number form once Cpo Cpo

the opposite face of a wall block is reached. It is likely

that, at such high incidences, the model is switching too Figure 8: Proles of total o pressure coecient for
early. This aects the region above the ap in particular, L1T2 at M = 0:197 ,  = 20:18 , Re = 3:52  10 6.

where the wake and boundary layer mixing regions are

still at low turbulent Reynolds number conditions. The
contours of normalised eddy viscosity highlight another

8
 number, or the addition of extra components such as
winglets and
ap track fairings. Also required is the
ability to reliably detect the buet boundary.
Primary areas of interest in Navier-Stokes results will
be associated with shock locations and degradation of
the boundary layer towards the trailing edge including
3D eects, separations, and trailing edge pressure rise.
Related design areas where CFD has a particular contri-
bution to make are in the details of
ow in wing-fuselage
and pylon-wing junctions, these being very sensitive to
Reynolds number dependent separations, often in the
presence of quite strong shocks in the wing-nacelle gap.
Thus validation of the code for representative cases is
vital.
Figs. 10 and 11 show results for a BAe AVRO re-
gional jet wing-body research conguration for which
tunnel results are available. Flow conditions are tran-
sonic cruise at M = 0:79,  = 1:0o, transition at 15%
chord, CL  0:42, but at a tunnel Reynolds number
based on c of 2.7 million. The mesh has 1.2 million
ow visualisations. The k-~" results show
Figure 9: Contours of eddy viscosity (t =) for the
Chien model (top) and the k-g model. Values range
from 0 (Red) to 800 (Violet).
cells in 230 blocks with a rst cell depth of y+  2 and
around 25 cells in the boundary layer. Pressure con-
tours in Fig. 10 are obtained by use of the k-g turbulence
model. Fig. 11 shows surface streamlines using both k-g
and k-~" models. These streamlines can be compared to
wind tunnel oil-
a separation at the wing root trailing edge which is not
present in the wind tunnel. This separation is not shown
by the k-g results, for which the streamlines match the
behaviour seen in the wind-tunnel. Note that the wing
is attached to a belly fairing which presents a vertical
wall at the wing root thus avoiding acute angles at the
wing-fuselage junction, and that the leading edge root
fairing further suppresses any tendency to separation.
Elsewhere the two sets of streamlines show very similar
properties, notably the curvature and incipient separa-
tion near the trailing edge crank which is also suggested
in the tunnel oil
ow. Although not clear in these g-
ures, the surface
ow pattern around the leading edge
fairing is well predicted by both models.
3D Applications It is signicant that trailing edge root separations
Two applications are described from current BAe AVRO similar to that seen with k-~" are also produced for this
research studies on regional jet congurations. At case when Baldwin-Lomax and Johnson-King turbulence
present, the primary requirement for this
ow solver is models are used in RANSMB, the former model being
transonic cruise conditions with very accurate drag pre- noted for its resistance to separation. The one common
dictions for a wide spread of lift coecients around the feature in these three models that is not shared with k-g
design point extending well into the wave drag rise. The is the need for wall distance, which may be one source
wing designer would routinely compute CL/CD polars of error.
over a CL range of 0.1 to 0.7. Initial accuracy of 1% Fig. 12 shows pressure contours for a dierent
of total aircraft drag is sought together with drag incre- wing/body plus pylon/nacelle research conguration us-
ments to substantially less than one count. These in- ing the k-g model. Conditions are M = 0:8,  = 1:0o ,
crements may be due to variation of shape or Reynolds

9
Figure 10: Contours of pressure coecient on a typical regional jet transport wing/body predicted by the
k-gmodel. M = 0:79,  = 1:0o , Rec = 2:7  106 .

Figure 11: Skin friction lines on the same wing/body for k-"~ (left), and k-g.

10
Figure 12: Pressure coecient contours for a wing/body/pylon/nacelle research conguration calculated
using the k-g model. M = 0:8,  = 1:0o , Re = 6:0  106 .

11
transition again at 15% chord, Rec = 6  106, and while both models give robust convergence on moder-
CL  0:41. The mesh has 2 million cells in 900 blocks ately complex geometries, the solutions given by the k-g
with a rst cell depth of y+ = 2. This is part of
an ongoing study into nacelle-pylon installation and is
shown here with a very closely coupled nacelle and over-
wing pylon. Flow disturbance can be seen at the wing-
fuselage junction. A small horseshoe vortex appears at
model are at least as good, and often better than those
of the k-~" model. When applied to three-dimensional
design tests, stable solutions can be obtained with both
transport models. The k-g model, with its lack of de-
pendency on wall distance, appears particularly useful
the leading edge root. No belly or wing root fairings are for complex aircraft congurations. Initial results indi-
present in this simulation and the wing-fuselage junc- cate that accurate and reliable solutions can be obtained.
tion presents an acute angle at the trailing edge. This The increased condence in the solutions which are now
could be expected to lead to incipient separation in the being obtained is helping to increase the use of CFD by
wing-fuselage junction. Tunnel tests are planned. the design teams.

Computational Cost Acknowledgement

The wing-body solutions required 23 Mwords and 10 The rst author's stay at BAe Sowerby was sponsored by
hours on a Cray YMP machine at 60 M op/s as part the European Commission under specic training agree-
of a CL/CD polar calculation. The wing-body-pylon- ment No. AER2-CT93-5006H.
nacelle solution required 41 Mwords and 75 hours on a
Cray J90 machine at 32 M op/s from a free-stream start. References
Although wing-body CL /CD polars are routinely com-
puted on the YMP, work is underway to implement the
ow solver on the Cray T3D massively parallel proces- [1] Jameson A., Schmidt W. & Turkel E. Numerical
sor to facilitate this and extend the capability to nacelle solutions of the Euler equations by nite volume
case polars. methods using Runge-Kutta time-stepping schemes.
AIAA Paper 81-1259, 1981.
Conclusions [2] Jameson A. & Baker T. Multi-grid solutions of the
Euler equations for aircraft congurations. AIAA
The way in which particular two-equation transport Paper 84-0093, 1984.
models are chosen for implementation in an industrial [3] Baldwin B.S. & Lomax H. Thin Layer Approxima-
design system has been described. This process is gov- tion and Algebraic Model for Separated Turbulent
erned almost entirely by numerical considerations. One Flows. AIAA Paper 78-257, 1978.
k-" model and one k-! model have been selected and
the properties of these two models are measured against [4] Davidson L. Implementation of a Semi-Implicit
three criteria: no normal-to-wall distance, simple source k- Turbulence Model Into an Explicit Runge-
terms and straightforward boundary conditions. Both Kutta Navier-Stokes Code. CERFACS Report,
models require manipulation before a stable implemen- TR/RF/90/25, 1990.
tation is achieved. The Chien k-~" model has simple
boundary conditions, but makes use of wall distance and [5] Gould A.R.B. Validation of Turbulence Models for
also requires damping functions which become quite sti. Two- and Three-dimensional Flows. In: ECARP
These issues are overcome using a small one-equation (Validation Area) Report, to be published in Notes
sub-layer next to wall surfaces, and by making use of on Numerical Fluid Mechanics Series, by Vieweg,
a limiter for "~. Despite these precautions the solutions 1996.
obtained are often adversely aected by the numerical [6] Lien F.S. & Leschziner M.A. Modelling 2D Sep-
diculties encountered. The Wilcox k-! model has no aration from High-Lift Aerofoil with Non-Linear
damping functions and simpler source terms, but the Eddy-Viscosity Models and Second-Moment Clo-
boundary condition for ! makes it dicult to use. This sure. UMIST Report, TFD/94/05, 1994.
model is rewritten to use a new variable, g, and all
three criteria can now be satised. The dependency on [7] Wilcox D.C. Reassessment of the scale determin-
freestream conditions is controlled through the careful ing equation for advanced turbulence models. AIAA
use of a source term limiter which has no eect in bound- Journal, 26 pp1311-1320, 1988.
ary layers and wakes. Results of two-dimensional tran-
sonic and low Mach number test cases demonstrate that, [8] Wilcox D.C. Turbulence modelling for CFD. DCW
Industries Inc., 1993.

12
 [9] Speziale C.G., Abid, R. & Anderson E.C. Criti-
cal Evaluation of two-equation models for near-wall
turbulence. AIAA Journal, 30 pp324-331, 1992.
[10] Wolfshtein M.W. The Velocity and Temperature
Distribution in One-Dimensional Flow with Turbu-
lence Augmentation and Pressure Gradient. Int.
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 12 pp301-312,
1969.
[11] Jones W.P. & Launder B.E. The prediction of lami-
narisation with a two-equation model of turbulence.
Int. Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 15 pp301-
314, 1972.
[12] Chien K-Y. Predictions of Channel and Boundary-
Layer Flows with a Low-Reynolds-Number Turbu-
lence Model. AIAA Journal, 20 pp33-38, 1982.
[13] Lam C.K.G. & Bremhost K.A. Modied Form of
k- Model for Predicting Wall Turbulence. ASME
Journal of Fluids Engineering, 103 456-460, 1981.
[14] Lien F.S. & Leschziner M.A. Computational Mod-
elling of 3D Turbulent Flow in S-Diuser and Tran-
sition Ducts. Engineering Turbulence Modelling
and Measurements, 2 Elsevier, 1993.
[15] Kalitzin G. Validation and Development of Two-
Equation Turbulence Models. In: ECARP (Vali-
dation Area) Report, to be published in Notes on
Numerical Fluid Mechanics Series, by Vieweg, 1996.
[16] Benton J.J. Description of Methods Used by British
Aerospace. In: `EUROVAL, A European Initiative
on Validation of CFD Codes.' Haase, Brandsma,
Elsholz, Leschziner, Schwamborn (eds.) Notes on
Numerical Fluid Mechanics Vol 42, Vieweg, 1993.
[17] Menter F.R. In uence of Freestream Values on k-!
Turbulence Model Predictions. AIAA Journal, 30
pp1657-1659, 1992.
[18] Gibson M.M. and Dafa'Alla A.A. A Two-Equation
Model for Turbulent Wall Flow. AIAA Journal, 33
pp1514-1518, 1995.
[19] Cook P.H., MacDonald M.A. & Firmin M.C.P.
Aerofoil 2822 - Pressure Distributions, Boundary
Layer and Wake Measurements. Appendix A6,
AGARD AR-138 , 1979.
[20] Moir I.R.M. Measurements on a Two-Dimensional
Aerofoil With High Lift Devices. Appendix A2,
AGARD AR-303 , 1994.

13