AIAA JOURNAL

Vol. 47, No. 12, December 2009

Correlation-Based Transition Modeling for Unstructured

Parallelized Computational Fluid Dynamics Codes

Robin B. Langtry
The Boeing Company, Seattle, Washington 98124-2207
and
Florian R. Menter
ANSYS Germany, 83624 Otterng, Germany
DOI: 10.2514/1.42362
A new correlation-based transition model has been developed, which is built strictly on local variables. As a result,
the transition model is compatible with modern computational uid dynamics techniques such as unstructured grids
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

and massively parallel execution. The model is based on two transport equations, one for intermittency and one for a
transition onset criterion in terms of momentum-thickness Reynolds number. A number of validation papers have
been published on the basic formulation of the model. However, until now the full model correlations have not been
published. The main goal of the present paper is to publish the full model and release it to the research community so
that it can continue to be further validated and possibly extended or improved. Included in this paper are a number of
test cases that can be used to validate the implementation of the model in a given computational uid dynamics code.
The authors believe that the current formulation is a signicant step forward in engineering transition modeling, as it
allows the combination of transition correlations with general-purpose computational uid dynamics codes. There is
a strong potential that the model will allow the rst-order effects of transition to be included in everyday industrial
computational uid dynamics simulations.

Nomenclature
= wall shear stress

Cf = skin friction coefcient, 2

=
0:5Uref 
= absolute value of vorticity,
2
ij
ij 1=2
k = turbulent kinetic energy
ij = vorticity tensor, 0:5
@ui =@xj  @uj =@xi 
Rex = Reynolds number, LUref = ! = specic turbulence dissipation rate
Re = momentum-thickness Reynolds number, U0 =
Ret = transition onset momentum-thickness Reynolds Subscripts
number (based on freestream conditions), t U0 =
~ t s = streamline
Re = local transition onset momentum-thickness Reynolds
t = transition onset
number (obtained from a transport equation)
RT = viscosity ratio
Ry = wall-distance-based turbulent Reynolds number
Rv = vorticity Reynolds number I. Introduction
S = absolute value of strain rate,
2Sij Sij 1=2
Sij
Tu
=
=
strain-rate tensor, 0:5
@ui =@xj  @uj =@xi )
turbulence intensity, 100
2k=31=2 =U
I N THE past few decades, a signicant amount of progress has
been made in the development of reliable turbulence models that
can accurately simulate a wide range of fully turbulent engineering
U = local velocity ows. The efforts by different groups have resulted in a spectrum of
Uo = local freestream velocity models that can be used in many different applications, while bal-
Uref = inlet reference velocity ancing the accuracy requirements and the computational resources
u0 = local uctuating streamwise velocity available to a computational uid dynamics (CFD) user. However,
x=C = axial distance over axial chord the important effect of laminar-turbulent transition is not included in
y = distance to nearest wall the majority of todays engineering CFD simulations. The reason for
y = distance in wall coordinates, y
= this is that transition modeling does not offer the same wide spectrum
 = boundary-layer thickness of CFD-compatible model formulations that are currently available
 = momentum thickness for turbulent ows, even though a large body of publications is
 = pressure gradient parameter,
2 =
dU=ds available on the subject. There are several reasons for this unsatis-
 = molecular viscosity factory situation.
t = eddy viscosity The rst is that transition occurs through different mechanisms in
 = density different applications. In aerodynamic ows, transition is typically
the result of a ow instability (TollmienSchlichting waves or, in the
case of highly swept wings, crossow instability), where the resul-
Received 24 November 2008; revision received 9 June 2009; accepted for ting exponential growth of two-dimensional waves eventually results
publication 30 June 2009. Copyright 2009 by the American Institute of in a nonlinear breakdown to turbulence. Transition occurring due to
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. Copies of this paper TollmienSchlichting waves is often referred to as natural transition
may be made for personal or internal use, on condition that the copier pay the [1]. In turbomachinery applications, the main transition mechanism
$10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood
is bypass transition [2] imposed on the boundary layer by high levels
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0001-1452/09 and $10.00 in
correspondence with the CCC.
of turbulence in the freestream. The high freestream turbulence levels

Senior Engineer, Enabling Technology and Research, P.O. Box 3703, are for instance generated by upstream blade rows. Another impor-
Mail Code 67-LF; robin.b.langtry@boeing.com. tant transition mechanism is separation-induced transition [3], where
a laminar boundary layer separates under the inuence of a pressure
Development Manager, Fluids Business Unit, Staudenfeldweg 12;
orian.menter@ansys.com. gradient and transition develops within the separated shear layer
2894
 LANGTRY AND MENTER
(which may or may not reattach). As well, a turbulent boundary layer
can relaminarize under the inuence of a strong favorable pressure
gradient [4]. Although the importance of transition phenomena for
aerodynamic and heat transfer simulations is widely accepted, it is
difcult to include all of these effects in a single model.
The second complication arises from the fact that conventional
Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes (RANS) procedures do not lend
themselves easily to the description of transitional ows, where both
linear and nonlinear effects are relevant. RANS averaging eliminates
the effects of linear disturbance growth and is therefore difcult to
apply to the transition process. Although methods based on the
stability equations such as the en method of Smith and Gamberoni [5]
and van Ingen [6] avoids this limitation, they are not compatible with
general-purpose CFD methods as typically applied in complex
geometries. The reason is that these methods require a priori
knowledge of the geometry and the grid topology. In addition, they
involve numerous nonlocal operations (e.g., tracking the disturbance
growth along each streamline) that are difcult to implement into
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362
todays CFD methods [7]. This is not to argue against the stability
approaches, as they are an essential part of the desired spectrum of
transition models required for the vastly different application areas
and accuracy requirements. However, much like in turbulence
modeling, it is important to develop engineering models that can be
applied in day-to-day operations by design engineers on complicated
3-D geometries.
It should be noted that, at least for 2-D ows, the efforts of various
groups have resulted in a number of engineering design tools
intended to model transition for very specic applications. The most
notable efforts are those of Drela and Giles [8] who developed the X-
FOIL code which can be used for modeling transition on 2-D airfoils,
and the MISES code of Youngren and Drela [9], which is used for
modeling transition on 2-D turbomachinery blade rows. Both of
these codes use a viscousinviscid coupling approach which allows
the classical boundary-layer formulation tools to be used. Transition
prediction is accomplished using either an en method or an empirical
correlation, and both of these codes are used widely in their res-
pective design communities. A 3-D wing or blade design is per-
formed by stacking the 2-D proles (with the basic assumption that
spanwise ow is negligible) to create the geometry at which point a
3-D CFD analysis is performed.
Closer inspection shows that hardly any of the current transition
models are CFD compatible. Most formulations suffer from nonlocal
operations that cannot be carried out (with reasonable effort) in
general-purpose CFD codes. This is because modern CFD codes use
mixed elements and massive parallel execution and do not provide
the infrastructure for computing integral boundary-layer parameters
or allow the integration of quantities along the direction of external
streamlines. Even if structured boundary-layer grids are used (typi-
cally hexahedra), the codes are based on data structures for unstruc-
tured meshes. The information on a body-normal grid direction is
therefore not easily available. In addition, most industrial CFD
simulations are carried out on parallel computers using a domain
decomposition methodology. This means in the most general case
that boundary layers can be split and computed on different proces-
sors, prohibiting any search or integration algorithms. Consequently,
the main requirements for a fully CFD-compatible transition model
are as follows:
1) Allow the calibrated prediction of the onset and the length of
transition.
2) Allow the inclusion of different transition mechanisms.
3) Be formulated locally (no search or line-integration operations).
4) Avoid multiple solutions (same solution for initially laminar or
turbulent boundary layer).
5) Do not affect the underlying turbulence model in fully turbulent
regimes.
6) Allow a robust integration down to the wall with similar
convergence as the underlying turbulence model.
7) Be formulated independent of the coordinate system.
8) Be applicable to three-dimensional boundary layers.Consider-
ing the main classes of engineering transition models (stability
analysis, correlation-based models, low-Re models), one nds
2895
that none of these methods can meet all of the aforementioned
requirements.
The only transition models that have historically been compatible
with modern CFD methods are the low-Re models [10,11]. However,
they typically suffer from a close interaction with the transition
capability and the viscous sublayer modeling, and this can prevent an
independent calibration of both phenomena [12,13]. At best, the low-
Re models can only be expected to simulate bypass transition which
is dominated by diffusion effects from the freestream. This is because
the standard low-Re models rely exclusively on the ability of the wall
damping terms to capture the effects of transition. Realistically, it
would be very surprising if these models that were calibrated for
viscous sublayer damping could faithfully reproduce the physics of
transitional ows. It should be noted that there are several low-Re
models where transition prediction was considered specically
during the model calibration [1416]. However, these model formu-
lations still exhibit a close connection between the sublayer behavior
and the transition calibration. Recalibration of one functionality also
changes the performance of the other. It is therefore not possible to
introduce additional experimental information without a substantial
reformulation of the entire model.
The engineering alternative to low-Re transition models are empir-
ical correlations such as those of [1719]. They typically correlate
the transition momentum-thickness Reynolds number to local
freestream conditions such as the turbulence intensity and pressure
gradient. These models are relatively easy to calibrate and are often
sufciently accurate to capture the major effects of transition. In
addition, correlations can be developed for the different transition
mechanisms, ranging from bypass to natural transition as well as
crossow instability or roughness. The main shortcoming of these
models lies in their inherently nonlocal formulation. They typically
require information on the integral thickness of the boundary layer
and the state of the ow outside the boundary layer. Although these
models have been used successfully in special-purpose turbomachi-
nery codes, the nonlocal operations involved with evaluating the
boundary-layer momentum thickness and determining the free-
stream conditions have precluded their implementation into general-
purpose CFD codes.
Transition simulations based on linear stability analysis such as the
en method are the lowest closure level available where the actual
instability of the ow is simulated. In the simpler models previously
described, the physics are introduced through the calibration of the
model constants. However, even the en method is not free from
empiricism. This is because the transition n factor is not universal and
depends on the wind-tunnel freestream/acoustic environment and
also the smoothness of the test model surface. The main obstacle to
the use of the en model is that the required infrastructure needed to
apply the model is very complicated. The stability analysis is typi-
cally based on velocity proles obtained from highly resolved
boundary-layer codes that must be coupled to the pressure distri-
bution of a RANS CFD code [7]. The output of the boundary-layer
method is then transferred to a stability method, which then provides
information back to the turbulence model in the RANS solver. The
complexity of this setup is mainly justied for special applications
where the ow is designed to remain close to the stability limit for
drag reduction, such as laminar wing design.
Large eddy simulation and direct numerical simulations are sui-
table tools for transition prediction [20], although the proper
specication of the external disturbance level and structure poses
substantial challenges. Unfortunately, these methods are far too
costly for engineering applications. They are currently used mainly
as research tools and substitutes for controlled experiments.
Despite its complexity, transition should not be viewed as outside
the range of RANS methods. In many applications, transition is
enforced within a narrow area of the ow due to geometric features
(e.g., steps or gaps), pressure gradients, and/or ow separation. Even
relatively simple models can capture these effects with sufcient
engineering accuracy. The challenge to a proper engineering model is
therefore mainly in the formulation of a model that can be imple-
mented into a general RANS environment.
 2896 LANGTRY AND MENTER
In this paper, a novel approach to simulating laminar to turbu-
lent transition is described that can be implemented into a general
RANS environment. The central idea behind the new approach is
that Van Driest and Blumers [21] vorticity Reynolds number
concept can be used to provide a link between the transition onset
Reynolds number from an empirical correlation and the local
boundary-layer quantities. As a result, the model avoids the need
to integrate the boundary-layer velocity prole to determine the
onset of transition and this idea was rst proposed by Menter
et al. [22].
The vorticity or alternatively the strain-rate Reynolds number
which is used in the present model is dened as follows:



y2

@u

y2
Rev   S

@y

where y is the distance from the nearest wall. Because the vorticity
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362
Reynolds number depends only on density, viscosity, wall distance,
and the vorticity (or shear strain rate), it is a local property and can be
easily computed at each grid point in an unstructured, parallel
NavierStokes code.
A scaled prole of the vorticity Reynolds number is shown in
Fig. 1 for a Blasius boundary layer. The scaling is chosen to have a
maximum of one inside the boundary layer. This is achieved
by dividing the Blasius velocity prole by the corresponding
momentum-thickness Reynolds number and a constant of 2.193. In
other words, the maximum of the prole is proportional to the
momentum-thickness Reynolds number and can therefore be related
to the transition correlations [22] as follows:
max
Rev 
Re 
2:193
Based on this observation, a general framework can be built, which
can serve as a local environment for correlation-based transition
models.
When the laminar boundary layer is subjected to strong pressure
gradients, the relationship between momentum-thickness and
vorticity Reynolds number described by Eq. (2) changes due to the
change in the shape of the prole. The relative difference between
momentum-thickness and vorticity Reynolds number, as a function
of shape factor H, is shown in Fig. 2. For moderate pressure gradients
(2:3 < H < 2:9), the difference between the actual momentum-
thickness Reynolds number and the maximum of the vorticity Rey-
nolds number is less than 10%. Based on boundary-layer analysis, a
shape factor of 2.3 corresponds to a pressure gradient parameter  of
approximately 0.06. Because the majority of experimental data on
transition in favorable pressure gradients falls within that range (see,
for example, [17]), the relative error between momentum-thickness
and vorticity Reynolds number is not of great concern under those
conditions.
Fig. 1 Scaled vorticity Reynolds number Rev prole in a Blasius
boundary layer.
Fig. 2 Relative error between the maximum value of vorticity Reynolds
(1)
number Rev and the momentum-thickness Reynolds number Re
as a
function of boundary-layer shape factor H.
For strong adverse pressure gradients, the difference between the
momentum-thickness and vorticity Reynolds number can become
signicant, particularly near separation (H  3:5). However, the
trend with experiments is that adverse pressure gradients reduce the
transition momentum-thickness Reynolds number. In practice, if a
constant transition momentum-thickness Reynolds number is
specied, the transition model is not very sensitive to adverse
pressure gradients and an empirical correlation such as that of Abu-
Ghannam and Shaw [17] is necessary to predict adverse pressure
gradient transition accurately. In fact, the increase in vorticity
Reynolds number with increasing shape factor can actually be used
to predict separation-induced transition. This is one of the main
(2) advantages of the present approach because the standard denition
of momentum-thickness Reynolds number is not suitable in
separated ows.
The function Rev can be used on physical reasoning, by arguing
that the combination of y2 S is responsible for the growth of
disturbances inside the boundary layer, whereas   = is res-
ponsible for their damping. As y2 S grows with the thickness of the
boundary layer and  stays constant, transition will take place once a
critical value of Rev is reached. The connection between the growth
of disturbances and the function Rev was shown by Van Driest and
Blumer [21] in comparison with experimental data. As well, Langtry
and Sjolander [15] found that the location in the boundary layer
where Rev was largest correspondeds surprisingly well to the loca-
tion where the peak growth of disturbances was occurring, at least for
bypass transition. The models proposed by Langtry and Sjolander
[15] and Walters and Leylek [16], use Rev in physics-based
arguments based on these observations of disturbance growth in the
boundary layer during bypass transition. These models appear
superior to conventional low-Re models, as they implicitly contain
information of the thickness of the boundary layer. Nevertheless, the
close integration of viscous sublayer damping and transition
prediction does not easily allow for an independent calibration of
both submodels.
In the present approach rst described in [2225], the main idea is
to use a combination of the strain-rate Reynolds number with
experimental transition correlations using standard transport equa-
tions. Because of the separation of viscous sublayer damping and
transition prediction, the new method has provided the exibility for
introducing additional transition effects with relative ease. Currently,
the main missing extensions are crossow instabilities and high-
speed ow correlations and these do not pose any signicant obsta-
cles. The concept of linking the transition model with experimental
data has proven to be an essential strength of the model and this is
difcult to achieve with closures based on a physical modeling of
these diverse phenomena.
The present transition model is built on a transport equation for
intermittency, which can be used to trigger transition locally. In
addition to the transport equation for the intermittency, a second
transport equation is solved for the transition onset momentum-
thickness Reynolds number. This is required to capture the non-
 LANGTRY AND MENTER 2897

local inuence of the turbulence intensity, which changes due to the The transport equation for the intermittency  reads
decay of the turbulence kinetic energy in the freestream, as well as   
due to changes in the freestream velocity outside the boundary layer. @
 @
Uj  @  @
  P  E   t (3)
This second transport equation is an essential part of the model as it @t @xj @xj f @xj
ties the empirical correlation to the onset criteria in the intermittency
equation. Therefore, it allows the model to be used in general The transition sources are dened as follows:
geometries and over multiple airfoils, without additional information
P1  Flength ca1 SFonset 0:5
1  ce1  (4)
on the geometry. The intermittency function is coupled with the shear
stress transport (SST) k-!-based turbulence model [26]. It is used to
where S is the strain-rate magnitude. Flength is an empirical cor-
turn on the production term of the turbulent kinetic energy
relation that controls the length of the transition region, and FOnset
downstream of the transition point based on the relation between
controls the transition onset location. Both are dimensionless
transition momentum-thickness and strain-rate Reynolds number. As
functions that are used to control the intermittency equation in the
the strain-rate Reynolds number is a local property, the present
boundary layer. The destruction/relaminarization source is dened as
formulation avoids another very severe shortcoming of the
follows:
correlation-based models, namely their limitation to 2-D ows. It
therefore allows the simulation of transition in 3-D ows originating E  ca2 
Fturb
ce2   1 (5)
from different walls. The formulation of the intermittency has also
been extended to account for the rapid onset of transition caused by where
is the vorticity magnitude. The transition onset is controlled
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

separation of the laminar boundary layer [Eq. (17)]. In addition, the by the following functions:
model can be fully calibrated with internal or proprietary transition
onset and transition length correlations. The correlations can also be y2 S
ReV  (6)
extended to ows with rough walls or to ows with crossow 
instability. It should be stressed that the proposed transport equations
do not attempt to model the physics of the transition process (unlike, Rev
e.g., turbulence models), but form a framework for the implemen- Fonset1  (7)
tation of correlation-based models into general-purpose CFD 2:193  Rec
methods. To distinguish the present concept from physics-based
transition modeling, it is called local correlation-based transition
modeling. 4
Fonset2  min
max
Fonset1 ; Fonset1 ; 2:0 (8)

II. Transition Model Formulation k

RT  (9)
The present transition model formulation is described very briey !
for completeness; a detailed description of the model and its
development can be found in Langtry [27]. It should be noted that a
  3 
few changes have been made to the model since it was rst published RT
[23] to improve the predictions of natural transition. These include Fonset3  max 1  ;0 (10)
2:5
the following:
1) A new transition onset correlation results in improved
predictions for both natural and bypass transition.
2) A modication to the separation-induced transition modi- Fonset  max
Fonset2  Fonset3 ; 0 (11)
cation prevents it from causing early transition near the separation
point. Rec is the critical Reynolds number where the intermittency rst
3) Some adjustments of the model coefcients better account for starts to increase in the boundary layer. This occurs upstream of the
ow history effects on the transition onset location. transition Reynolds number Re ~ t, and the difference between the two
It was expected that different groups will make numerous must be obtained from an empirical correlation. Both the Flength and
improvements to the model and, consequently, a naming convention Rec correlations are functions of Re~ t .
was introduced in [23] to keep track of the various model versions. Based on the T3B, T3A, T3A-, and the Schubauer and Klebanof
The basic model framework (transport equations without any test cases [28], a correlation for Flength based on Ret from an
correlations) was called the -Re transition model. The version empirical correlation is dened as

8
> 1 4 ~ 6 ~ 2 ~ t < 400
> 398:189  10 
119:270  10 Ret 
132:567  10 Ret ;
>
<
Re
2 ~ 5 ~ 2 ~ 3t ; ~ t < 596
263:404 
123:939  10 Ret 
194:548  10 Ret 
101:695  108 Re 400 Re
Flength  (12)
>
> ~ 4
0:5 
Ret  596:0  3:0  10 ; 596 Re~ t < 1200
>
: 0:3188; 1200 Re~ t

number given in [23] was called CFX-v-1.0. Based on this naming
convention, the present model with the preceding modications will
be referred to as the -Re model, CFX-v-1.1. The present transition
model is briey summarized in the following pages.
In certain cases, such as transition at higher Reynolds numbers, the
~ t scalar will often decrease to very small values in the boundary
Re
~ t , this can
layer shortly after transition. Because Flength is based on Re
result in a local increase in the source term for the intermittency
 2898 LANGTRY AND MENTER

equation, which in turn can show up as a sharp increase in the skin
friction. The skin friction does eventually return back to the fully
turbulent value, however, this effect is unphysical. It appears to be
caused by a sharp change in the y in the viscous sublayer where the
intermittency decreases back to its minimum value due to the
destruction term [Eq. (5)]. The effect can be eliminated by forcing
Flength to always be equal to its maximum value (in this case 40.0) in
the viscous sublayer. The modication for doing this is shown next.
The modication does not appear to have any effect on the predicted
transition length. An added benet is that, at higher Reynolds num-
bers, the model now appears to predict the skin friction overshoot
measured by experiments:
R! 2
Fsublayer  e
0:4  (13)
y2 !
R!  (14)
500
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362
Outside the boundary layer, the source term Pt is designed to force
~ t to match the local value of Ret calculated
the transported scalar Re
from the empirical correlation [Eqs. (35) and (36)]. The source term
is dened as follows:

Pt  ct
Ret  Re ~ t 
1:0  Ft  (22)
t
500
t (23)
U2
where t is a time scale, which is present for dimensional reasons. The
time scale was determined based on dimensional analysis with the
main criteria being that it had to scale with the convective and
diffusive terms in the transport equation. The blending function Ft is
used to turn off the source term in the boundary layer and allow the
~ t to diffuse in from the freestream. Ft is equal
transported scalar Re
to zero in the freestream and one in the boundary layer. The Ft

blending function is dened as follows:

    
Flength  Flength
1  Fsublayer   40:0  Fsublayer (15) y 4   1=ce2 2
Ft  min max Fwake  e
 ; 1:0  ; 1:0
1:0  1=ce2
~ t is dened as follows:
The correlation between Rec and Re (24)

8
>
> ~ t 
396:035  102 
120:656  104 Re~ t 
868:230  106 Re
~ 2t
< Re
Rec  9 ~ 3 12 ~ 4

696:506  10 Ret 
174:105  10 Ret ; ~ t 1870
Re (16)
>
>
: Re
~ t 
593:11 
Re
~ t  1870:0  0:482; ~ t > 1870
Re

The constants for the intermittency equation are ~ t 

Re 15 50
y
BL  ; BL   ;   BL (25)
ce1  1:0; ca1  2:0 ce2  50; ca2  0:06; f  1:0 U 2 BL U

The modication to the intermittency for predicting separation-

induced transition is
!y2 Re! 2
      Re!  ; Fwake  e
1E5 (26)
Rev 
sep  min s1 max 0;  1 Freattach ; 2 Ft (17)
3:235Rec
The Fwake function ensures that the blending function is not active in
RT 4
the wake regions downstream of an airfoil/blade.
Freattach  e
20  (18) ~ t equation are
The model constants for the Re

ct  0:03; t  2:0 (27)

eff  max
; sep  (19)
The boundary condition for Re ~ t at a wall is zero ux. The boundary
~ t at an inlet should be calculated from the empirical
condition for Re
s1  2 (20) correlation [Eqs. (35) and (36)] based on the inlet turbulence
intensity.
The model constants in Eq. (17) have been adjusted from those of The empirical correlation for transition onset is based on the
Menter et al. [23] and Langtry et al. [24] to improve the predictions of following parameters:
separated ow transition. See Langtry [27] for a detailed discussion
of the changes to the model from the Menter et al. [23] and Langtry 2 dU
et al. [24] versions. The main difference is the constant that controls   (28)
 ds
the relation between Rev and Rec was changed from 2.193, its value
for a Blasius boundary layer, to 3.235, the value at a separation point
p
where the shape factor H is 3.5 (see Fig. 2). The boundary condition 2k=3
for  at a wall is zero normal ux, while for an inlet  is equal to 1.0. Tu  100 (29)
U
An inlet  equal to 1.0 is necessary to preserve the original turbulence
models freestream turbulence decay rate. Where dU=ds is the acceleration along the streamwise direction and
The transport equation for the transition momentum-thickness can be computed by taking the derivative of the velocity U in the x, y,
Reynolds number Re ~ t reads and z directions and then summing the contribution of these
  derivatives along the streamwise ow direction:
@
Re ~ t  @
Uj Re ~ t  @ ~ t
@Re
  Pt  t
  t  (21) 1
@t @xj @xj @xj U 
u2  v2  w2 2 (30)
 LANGTRY AND MENTER 2899

 
dU 1 2 1 du dv dw A minimum turbulence intensity of 0.027% results in a transition

u  v2  w2 2  2u  2v  2w (31) momentum-thickness Reynolds number of 1450, which is the largest
dx 2 dx dx dx
experimentally observed at-plate transition Reynolds number based
on the Sinclair and Wells [29] data. For cases where larger transition
  Reynolds number are believed to occur (e.g., aircraft in ight) this
dU 1 2 1 du dv dw limiter may need to be adjusted downward.

u  v2  w2 2  2u  2v  2w (32)
dy 2 dy dy dy The empirical correlation is used only in the source term [Eq. (22)]
of the transport equation for the transition onset momentum-
thickness Reynolds number. Equations. (3538) must be solved
  iteratively because the momentum thickness t is present in the left-
dU 1 2 1 du dv dw hand side of the equation and also in the right-hand side in the

u  v2  w2 2  2u  2v  2w (33)
dz 2 dz dz dz pressure gradient parameter . In the present work, an initial guess
for the local value of t was obtained based on the zero pressure
gradient solution of Eqs. (35) and (36) and the local values of U, ,
  and . With this initial guess, Eqs. (3538) were solved by iterating
dU dU dU dU

u=U 
v=U 
w=U (34) on the value of t and convergence was obtained in less then 10
ds dx dy dz iterations using a shooting point method.
The transition model interacts with the SST turbulence model [26]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

The use of the streamline direction is not Galilean invariant.

However, this deciency is inherent to all correlation-based models, as follows:
as their main variable, the turbulence intensity, is already based on the   
@ @ @ @k
local freestream velocity and does therefore violate Galilean invari-
k 
uj k  P~ k  D~ k    k t (39)
@t @xj @xj @xj
ance. This is not problematic, as the correlations are dened with
respect to a wall boundary layer and all velocities are therefore
relative to the wall. Nevertheless, multiple moving walls in one P~ k  eff Pk ; D~ k  min
max
eff ; 0:1; 1:0Dk (40)
domain will likely require additional information.
The empirical correlation has been modied from [23] to improve
p
the predictions of natural transition. The predicted transition Rey- y k Ry 8
nolds number as a function of turbulence intensity is shown in Fig. 3. Ry  ; F3  e
120 ; F1  max
F1orig ; F3  (41)

For pressure gradient ows, the model predictions are similar to the
Abu-Ghannam and Shaw [17] correlation. The empirical correlation where Pk and Dk are the original production and destruction terms for
is dened as follows: the SST model and F1orig is the original SST blending function. Note
  that the production term in the ! equation is not modied. The
0:2196
Ret  1173:51  589:428Tu  F
 ; Tu 1:3 (35) rationale behind the preceding model formulation is given in detail
Tu2 in [23].
To capture the laminar and transitional boundary layers correctly,
Ret  331:50Tu  0:56580:671 F
 ; Tu > 1:3 (36) the grid must have a y of approximately one at the rst grid point off
the wall. If the y is too large (i.e., >5), then the transition onset
location moves upstream with increasing y . All simulations have
Tu 1:5
F
   1  12:986  123:662  405:6893 e1:5 ;  0 been performed with CFX-5 using a bounded second-order upwind
(37) biased discretization for the mean ow, turbulence, and transition
equations.
Tu
F
   1  0:2751  e35:0  e 0:5  ;  > 0 (38)
III. Test Cases
For numerical robustness, the acceleration parameters, the turbul- The remaining part of the paper will give an overview of some of
ence intensity, and the empirical correlation should be limited as the public-domain test cases that have been computed with the model
follows: described in the previous section. This naturally requires a compact
 0:1  0:1 Tu
0:027 Ret
20 representation of the simulations. Most of the cases are described in
far more detail in [27], including grid renement and sensitivity
studies.

A. Flat-Plate Test Cases

Fig. 3 Transition onset momentum-thickness Reynolds number Re
t
predicted by the new correlation as a function of turbulence intensity Tu
for a at plate with zero pressure gradient.
The at-plate test cases that were used to calibrate the model are
the European Research Community on Flow Turbulence and Com-
bustion (ERCOFTAC) T3 series of at-plate experiments [12,13]
and the Schubauer and Klebanoff [28] at-plate experiment, all of
which are commonly used as benchmarks for transition models. Also
included is a test case in which the boundary layer experiences a
strong favorable pressure gradient that causes it to relaminarize [30].
The inlet conditions for these test cases are summarized in Table 1.
The three cases T3A-, T3A, and T3B have zero pressure gradients
with different freestream turbulence intensity (FSTI) levels corres-
ponding to transition in the bypass regime. The Schubauer and
Klebanof (S&K) test case [28] has a low freestream turbulence
intensity and corresponds to natural transition. Figure 4 shows the
comparison of the model prediction with experimental data for these
cases. It also gives the corresponding FSTI values. In all simulations,
the inlet turbulence levels were specied to match the experimental
turbulence intensity and its decay rate. This was done by xing the
inlet turbulence intensity and, via trial and error, adjusting the inlet
 2900 LANGTRY AND MENTER

Table 1 Inlet condition for the at-plate test cases at 0.04 m upstream of plate leading edge
Case Inlet velocity, m=s Turbulence intensity, % t = Density, kg=m3 Dynamic viscosity, kg=ms
Inlet/leading edge value
T3A 5.4 3.3 12.0 1.2 1:8  105
T3B 9.4 6.5 100.0 1.2 1:8  105
T3A- 19.8 0.874 8.72 1.2 1:8  105
Schubauer and Klebanof [28] 50.1 0.3 1.0 1.2 1:8  105
T3C2 5.29 3.0 11.0 1.2 1:8  105
T3C3 4.0 3.0 6.0 1.2 1:8  105
T3C4 1.37 3.0 8.0 1.2 1:8  105
T3C5 9.0 4.0 15.0 1.2 1:8  105
Relaminarization 1.4 5.5 15 1.2 1:8  105

viscosity ratio (i.e., the ! inlet condition) to match the experimentally boundary layer with a turbulence intensity of 3%. The same effect
measured turbulence levels at various downstream locations. As the could have been accomplished with a small step or gap in the CFD
freestream turbulence increases, the transition location moves to geometry. Downstream of the trip, the boundary layer slowly rela-
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

lower Reynolds numbers.
The T3C test cases consist of a at plate with a favorable and
adverse pressure gradient imposed by the opposite converging/
diverging wall. The wind-tunnel Reynolds number was varied for the
four cases (T3C5, T3C3, T3C2, T3C4), thus moving the transition
location from the favorable pressure at the beginning of the plate to
the adverse pressure gradient at the end. The cases are used to
demonstrate the transition models ability to predict transition under
the inuence of various pressure gradients. Figure 5 details the results
for the pressure gradient cases. The effect of the pressure gradient on
the transition length is clearly visible with favorable pressure gra-
dients increasing the transition length and adverse pressure gradients
reducing it. For the T3C4 case, the laminar boundary layer actually
separates and undergoes separation-induced transition.
The relaminarization test case is shown in Fig. 6. For this case, the
opposite converging wall imposes a strong favorable pressure
gradient that can relaminarize a turbulent boundary layer. In both the
experiment and in the CFD prediction, the boundary layer was
tripped near the plate leading edge. In the CFD computation, this was
accomplished by injecting a small amount of turbulent air into the
minarizes due to the strong favorable pressure gradient.
For all of the at-plate test cases, the agreement with the data is
generally good, considering the diverse nature of the physical phe-
nomena computed, ranging from bypass transition to natural tran-
sition, separation-induced transition, and even relaminarization.
B. Turbomachinery Test Cases
This section describes a few of the turbomachinery test cases that
have been used to validate the transition model including a com-
pressor blade, a low-pressure turbine, and a high-pressure turbine. A
summary of the inlet conditions is shown in Table 2.
For the Zierke and Deutsch [31] compressor blade, transition on
the suction side occurs at the leading edge due to a small leading-edge
separation bubble on the suction side. On the pressure side, transition
occurs at about midchord. The turbulence contours and the skin
friction distribution are shown in Fig. 7. There appears to be a signi-
cant amount of scatter in the experimental data; however, overall,
the transition model is predicting the major ow features correctly
(i.e., fully turbulent suction side, transition at midchord on the

Fig. 4 Results for at-plate test cases with different freestream turbulence levels.
 LANGTRY AND MENTER 2901
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

Fig. 5 Results for at-plate test cases where variation of the tunnel Reynolds number causes transition to occur in different pressure gradients (dp=dx).

The Pratt and Whitney PAK-B low-pressure turbine blade is a

Fig. 6 Predicted skin friction Cf for a at plate with a strong
acceleration that causes the boundary layer to relaminarize.
pressure side). One important issue to note is the effect of streamwise
grid resolution on resolving the leading-edge laminar separation and
subsequent transition on the suction side. If the number of
streamwise nodes clustered around the leading edge is too low, the
model cannot resolve the rapid transition and a laminar boundary
layer on the suction side is the result. For the present study, 60
streamwise nodes were used between the leading edge and the
x=C  0:1 location.
particularly interesting airfoil because it has a loading prole similar
to the rotors found in many modern aircraft engines [32]. The low-
pressure rotors on modern aircraft engines are extremely challenging
owelds. This is because, in many cases, the transition occurs in the
free shear layer of a separation bubble on the suction side [4]. The
onset of transition in the free shear layer determines whether or not
the separation bubble will reattach as a turbulent boundary layer and,
ultimately, whether or not the blade will stall. The present transition
model would therefore be of great interest to turbine designers if it
can accurately predict the transition onset location for these types of
ows.
Huang et al. [33] conducted experiments on the PAK-B blade
cascade for a range of Reynolds numbers and turbulence intensities.
The experiments were performed at the design incidence angle for
Reynolds numbers of 50,000; 75,000; and 100,000 based on inlet
velocity and axial chord length, with turbulence intensities of 0.08,
2.35, and 6.0% (which corresponded to values of 0.08, 1.6, and
2.85% at the leading edge of the blade). The computed pressure
coefcient distributions obtained with the transition model and fully
turbulent model are compared to the experimental data for the 75,000
Reynolds number, 2.35% turbulent intensity case in Fig. 8. On the
suction side, a pressure plateau due to a laminar separation with
turbulent reattachment exists. The fully turbulent computation
completely misses this phenomenon because the boundary layer
remains attached over the entire length of the suction surface. The
transition model can predict the pressure plateau due to the laminar

Table 2 Inlet conditions for the turbomachinery test cases

Case Rex  cUo =, 106 Mach  Uo =a where speed of Chord c, m FSTI, % t =
sound a 
RT0:5
Zierke and Deutsch [31] compressor 0.47 0.1 0.2152 0.18 2.0
incidence  1:5 deg
Pak-B low-pressure turbine blade 0.05, 0.075, 0.1 0.03 0.075 0.08, 2.35, 6.0 6.530
VKI MUR transonic guide vane 0.26 Inlet: 0.15 0.037 1.0, 6.5 11, 1000
Outlet: 1.06
 2902 LANGTRY AND MENTER
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362
Fig. 7 Turbulence intensity contours (top) and Cf distribution against
experimental data (bottom) for the Zierke and Deutsch compressor [31].
Fig. 8 Predicted blade loading for the Pak-B low-pressure turbine at a
Reynolds number of 75,000 and a FSTI of 2.35%.
separation and the subsequent turbulent reattachment location. The
pressure side was predicted to be fully attached and laminar.
The computed pressure coefcient distributions for various
Reynolds numbers and freestream turbulence intensities compared to
experimental data are shown in Fig. 9. In this gure, the comparisons
are organized such that the horizontal axis denotes the Reynolds
number whereas the vertical axis corresponds to the freestream
turbulence intensity of the specic case. As previously pointed out,
the most important feature of this test case is the extent of the
separation bubble on the suction side, characterized by the plateau in
the pressure distribution. The size of the separation bubble is actually
a complex function of the Reynolds number and the freestream
turbulence value. As the Reynolds number or freestream turbulence
decrease, the size of the separation and hence the pressure plateau
increases. The computations with the transition model compare well
with the experimental data for all of the cases considered, illustrating
the ability of the model to capture the effects of Reynolds number and
turbulence intensity variations on the size of a laminar separation
bubble and the subsequent turbulent reattachment.
The surface heat transfer for the transonic von Karman Institute
(VKI) MUR 241 (FSTI  6:0%) and MUR 116 (FSTI  1:0%) test
cases [34] is shown in Fig. 10. The strong acceleration on the suction
side for the MUR 241 case keeps the ow laminar until a weak shock
at midchord, whereas for the MUR 116 case, the ow is laminar until
right before the trailing edge. Downstream of transition there appears
to be a signicant difference between the predicted turbulent heat
transfer and the measured value. It is possible that this is the result of a
Mach number (inlet Mach number Mainlet  0:15, Maoutlet  1:089)
effect on the transition length [35]. At present, no attempt has been
made to account for this effect in the model. It can be incorporated in
future correlations, if found consistently important.
The pressure side heat transfer is of particular interest for this
case. For both cases, transition did not occur on the pressure side,
however, the heat transfer was signicantly increased for the high
turbulence intensity case. This is a result of the large freestream
levels of turbulence which diffuse into the laminar boundary layer
and increase the heat transfer and skin friction. From a modeling
standpoint, the effect was caused by the large freestream viscosity
ratio necessary for MUR 241 to keep the turbulence intensity from
decaying below 6%, which is the freestream value quoted in the
experiment. The enhanced heat transfer on the pressure side was
also present in the experiment and the effect appears to be physical.
The model can predict this effect, as the intermittency does not
multiply the eddy viscosity but only the production term of the k
equation. The diffusive terms are therefore active in the laminar
region.
C. Aeronautical Test Cases
This section describes a few of the aeronautical test cases that have
been used to validate the transition model including a 2-D airfoil, a
2-D three-element ap, and a transonic wing. A summary of the inlet
conditions is shown in Table 3.
The S809 airfoil is a 21% thick, laminar-ow airfoil that was
designed specically for horizontal-axis wind turbine applications.
The airfoil prole is shown in Fig. 11. The experimental results
where obtained in the low-turbulence wind tunnel at the Delft
University of Technology [36,37]. The detailed CFD results can be
found in [38]. The predicted pressure distribution around the airfoil
for angles of attack (AoA) of 1 deg is shown in Fig. 12. For the 1 deg
AoA case, the ow is laminar for the rst 0.5 chord of the airfoil on
both the suction and pressure sides. The boundary layers then
undergo a laminar separation and reattach as a turbulent boundary
layer and this is clearly visible in the experimental pressure distri-
bution plateaus. The fully turbulent computation obviously does not
capture this phenomenon, as the turbulent boundary layers remain
completely attached. Both the transitional CFD and X-Foil solutions
do predict the laminar separation bubble. However, X-Foil appears to
slightly overpredict the reattachment location while the transitional
CFD simulation is in very good agreement with the experiment.
The predicted transition locations as a function of angle of attack
are shown in Fig. 13. The experimental transition locations were
obtained using a stethoscope method (Somers [37]). At the moderate
angles of attack, all of the results appear be to within approximately
5% chord of each other. The results obtained for the lift and drag
polars are shown in Figs. 14 and 15. Between 0 and 9 deg, the lift
coefcients Cl predicted by the transitional CFD and the X-Foil code
are in very good agreement with the experiment, whereas the fully
turbulent CFD results appear to underpredict the lift curve by appro-
ximately 0.1. Between 0 and 9 deg, the drag coefcient Cd predicted
by the transitional CFD and X-Foil code are in very good agreement
with the experiment, whereas the fully turbulent CFD simulation
signicantly overpredicts the drag, as expected.
The McDonnell Douglas 30P-30N ap conguration was
originally a test case for the high-lift workshop/CFD challenge that
was held at the NASA Langley Research Center in 1993 [39]. It is a
very complex test case for a transition model because of the large
 LANGTRY AND MENTER
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362
Fig. 9 Blade loading for the Pak-B low-pressure turbine at various FSTI and Reynolds numbers Re.
Fig. 10 Heat transfer for the VKI MUR 241 (FSTI
6:0%) and
MUR 116 (FSTI
1:0%) test cases.
changes in pressure gradient and the varying local freestream
turbulence intensity around the different lifting surfaces.
The experiment was performed in NASA Langleys low-
turbulence pressure tunnel and the transition locations were
Table 3 Inlet conditions for the aeronautical test cases
Case
S809 airfoil
30P-30N ap, AoA  8:1 deg
DLR F-5 wing, AoA  2 deg
2903
measured using hot lms on the upper surface of the slat and ap and
on both the upper and lower surfaces of the main element. The skin
friction was also measured at various locations using a Preston tube
[39]. For the present comparison, the Reynolds number Re  9 
106 and an angle of attack AoA  8 deg was selected. The free-
stream conditions for k and ! were selected to match the transition
location at the suction side of the slat. The other transition locations
are an outcome of the simulation.
A contour plot of the predicted turbulence intensity around the ap
is shown in Fig. 16. Also indicated are the various transition locations
that were measured in the experiment (Exp.) as well as the locations
predicted by the present transition model (CFD). In the compu-
tations, the onset of transition was judged as the location where the
skin friction rst started to increase due to the production of turbulent
kinetic energy in the boundary layer. In general, the agreement
between the measured and predicted transition locations is very
good. The largest error was observed on the lower surface of the main
element where the predicted transition location was too far down-
stream by approximately 6% of the cruise-airfoil chord.
The DLR F-5 geometry is a 20 deg swept wing with a symmetrical
airfoil section that is supercritical at a freestream Mach number of
0.82. The experiment was performed at the DLR by Sobieczky [40]
and consists of a wing mounted to the tunnel sidewall (which is
Rex , 106 Mach Chord, m FSTI, % t =
2.0 0.1 1 0.2 10
9.0 0.2 0.5588 0.6 2.5
1.5 0.82 0.15 0.5 10
 2904 LANGTRY AND MENTER

Fig. 11 S809 airfoil prole.

Fig. 15 Drag coefcient Cd polar for the S809 airfoil.
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

assumed to have transitioned far upstream of the wing). At the root,

the wing was designed to blend smoothly into the wall, thus
eliminating the horseshoe vortex that usually develops there. The
experimental measurements consist of wing-mounted static taps at
various spanwise locations and ow visualization of the surface shear
using a sublimation technique. The experimental ow visualization
is shown in Fig. 17 (right). Based on the ow visualization and the
pressure measurements, a diagram of the oweld around the wing
was constructed and can be seen in Fig. 17 (middle). From the
measurements, the boundary layer is laminar until about 60% chord
where a shock causes the laminar boundary layer to separate and
reattach as a turbulent boundary layer. The contours of skin friction
and the surface streamlines predicted by the transition model are
shown in Fig. 17 (left). From the skin friction, the laminar separation
Fig. 12 Pressure distribution Cp for the S809 airfoil at 1 deg angle of and turbulent reattachment can be clearly seen and both appear to be
attack. in good agreement with the experimental diagram from about 20%
span out to the wing tip. Near the wingbody intersection, the experi-
ments indicate earlier transition than the simulations. This might be
due to the omission of the crossow instability in the transition
model.

Fig. 13 Transition location (xt=c) vs angle of attack for the S809 airfoil.
Fig. 14 Lift coefcient Cl polar for the S809 airfoil.
IV. Conclusions
In this paper, various methods for transition prediction in general-
purpose CFD codes have been discussed. In addition, the require-
ments that a model has to satisfy to be suitable for implementation
into a general-purpose CFD code have been listed. The main criterion
is that nonlocal operations must be avoided. A new concept of
transition modeling termed local correlation-based transition model
(LCTM) was introduced. It combines the advantages of locally
formulated transport equations with the physical information
contained in empirical correlations. The   Req transition model is
representative of that modeling concept. The model is based on two
new transport equations (in addition to the k and ! equations), one for
intermittency and one for a transition onset criterion in terms of
momentum-thickness Reynolds number. The proposed transport
equations do not attempt to model the physics of the transition
process (unlike, e.g., turbulence models), but form a framework for
the implementation of transition correlations into general-purpose
CFD methods.
An overview of the -Req model formulation has been given along
with the publication of the full model including some previously
undisclosed empirical correlations that control the predicted tran-
sition length. The main goal of the present paper was to publish the
full model and release it to the research community so that it can
continue to be further validated and possibly extended. Included in
this article are a number of test cases that can be used to validate the
implementation of the model in a given CFD code.
The present transition model accounts for transition due to free-
stream turbulence intensity, pressure gradients, and separation. It is
fully CFD-compatible and does not negatively affect the conver-
gence of the solver. Current limitations of the model are that
crossow instability or roughness are not included in the correlations
 LANGTRY AND MENTER 2905
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

Fig. 16 Contour of turbulence intensity Tu around the McDonnell Douglas 30P-30N ap as well as the measured (Exp.) and predicted (CFD) transition
locations (x=c) as a function of the cruise-airfoil chord (c
0:5588 m). Also indicated is the relative error between the experiment and the predicted
transition locations.

Fig. 17 DLR-F5 wing with transition: simulations (left), experiment (middle and right).

and that the transition correlations are formulated non-Galilean

invariant. These limitations are currently being investigated and can
be removed in principle.
An overview of the test cases computed with the new model has
been given. Because of the nature of the paper, the presentation of
each individual test case had to be brief. More details on the test case
setup, boundary conditions, grid resolutions, etc., can be found in the
literature. The purpose of the overview was to show that the model
can handle a wide variety of geometries and physically diverse
problems.
The authors believe that the current model is a signicant step
forward in engineering transition modeling. Through the use of
transport equations instead of search or line-integration algorithms,
the model formulation offers a exible environment for engineering
transition predictions that is fully compatible with the infrastructure
of modern CFD methods. As a result, the model can be used in any
general-purpose CFD method without special provisions for
geometry and grid topology. The authors believe that the LCTM
concept of combining transition correlations with locally formulated
transport equations has a strong potential for allowing the rst-order
effects of transition to be included into todays industrial CFD
simulations.
Acknowledgments
The model development and validation was done over the course
of the rst authors Ph.D. thesis and employment at ANSYS CFX.
The project was funded by General Electric Aircraft Engines and
General Electric Global Research, and the authors would like to
thank Stefan Voelker and Bill Solomon of General Electric for their
support and numerous thoughtful discussions throughout the course
of the model development. We would also like to thank G. Huang of
Wright State University and B. Suzen of North Dakota State
University who have supported the original model development with
their extensive know-how and in-house codes. Finally, the authors
would also like to thank Chris Rumsey from the NASA Langley
Research Center for supplying the geometry and experimental data
for the McDonnell Douglas 30P-30N ap, and Helmut Sobieczky of
the DLR for his helpful discussions on the DLR F-5 test case.
References
[1] Schlichting, H., Boundary Layer Theory, 7th ed., McGrawHill, New
York, 1979.
 2906 LANGTRY AND MENTER
[2] Morkovin, M. V., On the Many Faces of Transition, Viscous Drag
Reduction, edited by C. S. Wells, Plenum, New York, 1969, pp. 131.
[3] Malkiel, E., and Mayle, R. E., Transition in a Separation Bubble,
Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 118, No. 4, 1996, pp. 752759.
[4] Mayle, R. E., The Role of Laminar-Turbulent Transition in Gas
Turbine Engines, Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 113, No. 4, 1991,
pp. 509537.
doi:10.1115/1.2929110
[5] Smith, A. M. O., and Gamberoni, N., Transition, Pressure Gradient
and Stability Theory, Douglas Aircraft Co., Rept. ES 26388, Long
Beach, CA, 1956.
[6] van Ingen, J. L., A Suggested Semi-Empirical Method for the
Calculation of the Boundary Layer Transition Region, Univ. of Delft,
Dept. Aerospace Engineering, Rept. VTH-74, Delft, The Netherlands,
1956.
[7] Stock, H. W., and Haase, W., Navier-Stokes Airfoil Computations with
eN Transition Prediction Including Transitional Flow Regions, AIAA
Journal, Vol. 38, No. 11, 2000, pp. 20592066.
doi:10.2514/2.893
[8] Drela, M., and Giles, M. B., Viscous-Inviscid Analysis of Transonic
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362
and Low Reynolds Number Airfoils, AIAA Journal, Vol. 25, No. 10,
1987, pp. 13471355.
doi:10.2514/3.9789
[9] Youngren, H., and Drela, M., Viscous-Inviscid Method for
Preliminary Design of Transonic Cascades, AIAA Paper No. 91-
2364, 1991.
[10] Jones, W. P., and Launder, B. E., The Calculation of Low Reynolds
Number Phenomena with a Two-Equation Model of Turbulence,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 16, 1973,
pp. 11191130.
doi:10.1016/0017-9310(73)90125-7
[11] Rodi, W., and Scheuerer, G., Calculation of Laminar-Turbulent
Boundary Layer Transition on Turbine Blades, AGARD CP 390,
1984.
[12] Savill, A. M., Some Recent Progress in the Turbulence Modeling of
By-Pass Transition, Near-Wall Turbulent Flows, edited by R. M. C.
So, C. G. Speziale, and B. E. Launder, Elsevier, New York, 1993, p. 829.
[13] Savill, A. M., One-Point Closures Applied to Transition, Turbulence
and Transition Modeling, edited by M. Hallbck, Kluwer, Dordrecht,
The Netherlands, 1996, pp. 233268.
[14] Wilcox, D. C. W., Simulation of Transition with a Two-Equation
Turbulence Model, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1994, pp. 247255.
doi:10.2514/3.59994
[15] Langtry, R. B., and Sjolander, S. A., Prediction of Transition for
Attached and Separated Shear Layers in Turbo Machinery, AIAA
Paper 2002-3643, 2002.
[16] Walters, D. K., and Leylek, J. H., A New Model for Boundary-Layer
Transition Using a Single-Point RANS Approach, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, IMECE2002-HT-32740, 2002.
[17] Abu-Ghannam, B. J., and Shaw, R., Natural Transition of Boundary
Layers: The Effects of Turbulence, Pressure Gradient, and Flow
History, Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, Vol. 22, No. 5,
1980, pp. 213228.
doi:10.1243/JMES_JOUR_1980_022_043_02
[18] Mayle, R. E., The Role of Laminar-Turbulent Transition in Gas
Turbine Engines, Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 113, No. 4, 1991,
pp. 509537.
doi:10.1115/1.2929110
[19] Suzen, Y. B., Huang, P. G., Hultgren, L. S., and Ashpis, D. E.,
Predictions of Separated and Transitional Boundary Layers Under
Low-Pressure Turbine Airfoil Conditions Using an Intermittency
Transport Equation, Journal of Turbomachinery, Vol. 125, No. 3,
July 2003, pp. 455464.
doi:10.1115/1.1580159
[20] Durbin, P. A., Jacobs, R. G., and Wu, X., DNS of Bypass Transition,
Closure Strategies for Turbulent and Transitional Flows, edited by B.
E. Launder, and N. D. Sandham, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge,
England, U.K., 2002, pp. 449463.
[21] Van Driest, E. R., and Blumer, C. B., Boundary Layer Transition:
Freestream Turbulence and Pressure Gradient Effects, AIAA Journal,
Vol. 1, No. 6, June 1963, pp. 13031306.
doi:10.2514/3.1784
[22] Menter, F. R., Esch, T., and Kubacki, S., Transition Modelling Based
on Local Variables, Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium
on Engineering Turbulence Modelling and Measurements, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 2002, pp. 555564.
[23] Menter, F. R., Langtry, R. B., Likki, S. R., Suzen, Y. B., Huang, P. G.,
and Vlker, S., A Correlation Based Transition Model Using Local
Variables Part 1: Model Formulation, Journal of Turbomachinery,
Vol. 128, No. 3, 2006, pp. 413422.
[24] Langtry, R. B., Menter, F. R., Likki, S. R., Suzen, Y. B., Huang, P. G.,
and Vlker, S., A Correlation Based Transition Model Using Local
Variables Part 2: Test Cases and Industrial Applications, Journal of
Turbomachinery, Vol. 128, No. 3, 2006, pp. 423434.
doi:10.1115/1.2184353
[25] Menter, F. R., Langtry, R. B., and Vlker, S., Transition Modelling for
General Purpose CFD Codes, Flow, Turbulence and Combustion,
Vol. 77, Nos. 14, 2006, pp. 277303.
doi:10.1007/s10494-006-9047-1
[26] Menter, F. R., Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for
Engineering Applications, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 8, 1994,
pp. 15981605.
doi:10.2514/3.12149
[27] Langtry, R. B., A Correlation-Based Transition Model Using Local
Variables for Unstructured Parallelized CFD Codes, Ph.D. Thesis,
Univ. of Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Germany, 2006, http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/
opus/volltexte/2006/2801/.
[28] Schubauer, G. B., and Klebanoff, P. S., Contribution on the Mechanics
of Boundary Layer Transition, NACA TN 3489, 1955.
[29] Sinclair, C., and Wells, C. S., Jr., Effects of Freestream Turbulence on
Boundary-Layer Transition, AIAA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1967,
pp. 172174.
doi:10.2514/3.3931
[30] McIlroy, H. M., and Budwig, R. S., The Boundary Layer over Turbine
Blade Models with Realistic Rough Surfaces, ASME Turbo Expo,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, GT2005-68342, 2005.
[31] Zierke, W. C., and Deutsch, S., The Measurement of Boundary Layers
on a Compressor Blade in Cascade, Vols. 12, NASA CR 185118,
1989.
[32] Dorney, D. J., Lake, J. P., King, P. L., and Ashpis, D. E., Experimental
and Numerical Investigation of Losses in Low-Pressure Turbine Blade
Rows, AIAA Paper AIAA-2000-0737, 2000.
[33] Huang, J., Corke, T. C., Thomas, F. O., Plasma Actuators for
Separation Control of Low Pressure Turbine Blades, AIAA Paper
No. AIAA-2003-1027, 2003.
[34] Arts, T., Lambert de Rouvroit, M., and Rutherford, A. W., Aero-
Thermal Investigation of a Highly Loaded Transonic Linear Turbine
Guide Vane Cascade, von Karman Inst. for Fluid Dynamics, TN 174,
1990.
[35] Steelant, J., and Dick, E., Modeling of Laminar-Turbulent Transition
for High Freestream Turbulence, Journal of Fluids Engineering,
Vol. 123, No. 1, 2001, pp. 2230.
doi:10.1115/1.1340623
[36] Somers, D. M., Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil,
Airfoils, Inc., State College, PA, 1989.
[37] Somers, D. M., Design and Experimental Results for the S809 Airfoil,
National Renewable Energy Lab., SR-440-6918, Jan. 1997.
[38] Langtry, R. B., Gola, J., and Menter, F. R., Predicting 2-D Airfoil and
3-D Wind Turbine Rotor Performance Using a Transition Model for
General CFD Codes, AIAA Paper 2006-0395, 2006.
[39] Klausmeyer, S. M., and Lin, J. C., Comparative Results from a CFD
Challenge over a 2-D Three-Element High-Lift Airfoil, NASA,
TM 112858, 1997.
[40] Sobieczky, H., DLR, F5: Test Wing for CFD and Applied
Aerodynamics, Test Case B-5 in AGARD FDP Advisory Rept. AR 303:
Test Cases for CFD Validation, AGARD, 1994.
[41] Fashifar, A., and Johnson, M. W., An Improved Boundary Layer
Transition Correlation, American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Paper ASME-92-GT-245, 1992.
[42] Schubauer, G. B., and Skramstad, H. K., Laminar-Boundary-Layer
Oscillations and Transition on a Flat Plate, NACA Rept. 909, 1948.
M. Glauser
Associate Editor
 This article has been cited by:

1. P.-L. Delafin, T. Nishino, A. Kolios, L. Wang. 2017. Comparison of low-order aerodynamic models and RANS CFD for
full scale 3D vertical axis wind turbines. Renewable Energy 109, 564-575. [CrossRef]
2. Zhili Tang, Yongbin Chen, Lianhe Zhang. 2017. Natural laminar flow shape optimization in transonic regime with
competitive Nash game strategy. Applied Mathematical Modelling 48, 534-547. [CrossRef]
3. Valerio D'Alessandro, Sergio Montelpare, Renato Ricci, Andrea Zoppi. 2017. Numerical modeling of the flow over wind
turbine airfoils by means of SpalartAllmaras local correlation based transition model. Energy 130, 402-419. [CrossRef]
4. Erik Dick, Slawomir Kubacki. 2017. Transition Models for Turbomachinery Boundary Layer Flows: A Review.
International Journal of Turbomachinery, Propulsion and Power 2:2, 4. [CrossRef]
5. Paul A. Durbin. 2017. Perspectives on the Phenomenology and Modeling of Boundary Layer Transition. Flow, Turbulence
and Combustion 35. . [CrossRef]
6. Jianghua Ke*National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899Jack R. EdwardsNorth
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina 27695. Numerical Simulations of Turbulent Flow over Airfoils Near
and During Static Stall. Journal of Aircraft, ahead of print1-19. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
7. Jiakuan Xu*, Junqiang Bai, Ziyuan Fu* and Lei QiaoNorthwestern Polytechnical University, 710072 Xian, Peoples
Republic of ChinaYang ZhangXian Jiaotong University, 701149 Xian, Peoples Republic of ChinaJinglei XuBeihang
University, 100191 Beijing, Peoples Republic of China. Parallel Compatible Transition Closure Model for High-Speed
Transitional Flow. AIAA Journal, ahead of print1-11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
8. Jae Hoon Choi* and Oh Joon KwonKorea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon 305-701, Republic
of Korea. Recent Improvement of a Correlation-Based Transition Model for Simulating Three-Dimensional Boundary
Layers. AIAA Journal, ahead of print1-6. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
9. Joachim Hodara* and Marilyn J. SmithGeorgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332-0150. Hybrid Reynolds-
Averaged NavierStokes/Large-Eddy Simulation Closure for Separated Transitional Flows. AIAA Journal, ahead of
print1-11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
10. Kurt Kaufmann*, Christoph B. Merz and Anthony D. GardnerDLR, German Aerospace Center, 37073 Gttingen,
Germany. Dynamic Stall Simulations on a Pitching Finite Wing. Journal of Aircraft, ahead of print1-14. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
11. Chunhua Sheng* and Qiuying ZhaoUniversity of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio 43606Matthew HillBell Helicopter Textron Inc.,
Fort Worth, Texas 76118. Computational Investigation of a Full-Scale Proprotor Hover Performance and Flow Transition.
Journal of Aircraft, ahead of print1-11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
12. Zihui Hao, Chao Yan, Yupei Qin, Ling Zhou. 2017. Improved -Ret model for heat transfer prediction of hypersonic
boundary layer transition. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 107, 329-338. [CrossRef]
13. Y.P. Qin, C. Yan, Z.H. Hao, L. Zhou. 2017. A laminar kinetic energy transition model appropriate for hypersonic flow
heat transfer. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 107, 1054-1064. [CrossRef]
14. S. Colonia*, V. Leble, R. Steijl and G. BarakosUniversity of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 8QQ, Scotland, United Kingdom.
2017. Assessment and Calibration of the -Equation Transition Model at Low Mach. AIAA Journal 55:4, 1126-1139.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
15. Khodayar Javadi, Majid Hajipour. 2017. Separation control using quasi-radial wall jets. Aerospace Science and Technology
. [CrossRef]
16. Siddique Mohammed Umair, Abhijeet Rangnath Kolawale, Ganesh Anurath Bhise, Nitin Parashram Gulhane. 2017. On
numerical heat transfer characteristic study of flat surface subjected to variation in geometric thickness. International Journal
of Computational Materials Science and Engineering 1750010. [CrossRef]
17. Jeroen Van den Eynde, jeroen.van.den.eynde@esa.int ESA; Johan Steelant, Johan.Steelant@esa.int ESA; Andrea Passaro,
andrea.passaro@esa.int ESA Intermittency-based Transition Model with Local Empirical Correlations . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
18. Miaorong Yi, hnhhhjtw@mail.ustc.edu.cn China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center; Huiyong Zhao,
gmres@163.com China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center; Jialing Le, lejl123@126.com China
Aerodynamics Research and Development Center Hypersonic Natural and Forced Transition Simulation by Correlation-
Based Intermittency . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 19. Ling Zhou, lzhou@hust.edu.cn Huazhong University of Science and Technology; Rui Zhao, zr@bit.edu.cn Beijing
Institute of Technology; Renfu Li, renfu.li@mail.hust.edu.cn Huazhong University of Science and Technology; Chao
Yan, yanchao@buaa.edu.cn Beihang University; Weilin Zheng, zhengweilin@buaa.edu.cn University of Maryland, College
Park Modeling of Hypersonic Three-Dimensional Boundary Layer Transition Using a Criteria-Based Method . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
20. Yifeng Zhang, zhyf75@163.com China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center; Yirong Zhang,
376870805@qq.com China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center; Jianqiang Chen, Chenjq@cardc.cn China
Aerodynamics Research and Development Center; Meiliang Mao, mlmao@skla.cardc.cn China Aerodynamics Research
and Development Center; Yi Jiang, yijiang@mail.ustc.edu.cn China Aerodynamics Research and Development Center
Numerical Simulations of Hypersonic Boundary Layer Transition Based on the Flow Solver Chant 2.0 . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
21. Long-gang Liu, Chun-wei Gu, Xiaodong Ren. 2017. An investigation of the conjugate heat transfer in an intercooled
compressor vane based on a discontinuous Galerkin method. Applied Thermal Engineering 114, 85-97. [CrossRef]
22. S. Buhl, F. Gleiss, M. Khler, F. Hartmann, D. Messig, C. Brcker, C. Hasse. 2017. A Combined Numerical and
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

Experimental Study of the 3D Tumble Structure and Piston Boundary Layer Development During the Intake Stroke of
a Gasoline Engine. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 98:2, 579-600. [CrossRef]
23. Alessandro Bianchini, Francesco Balduzzi, Peter Bachant, Giovanni Ferrara, Lorenzo Ferrari. 2017. Effectiveness of two-
dimensional CFD simulations for Darrieus VAWTs: a combined numerical and experimental assessment. Energy Conversion
and Management 136, 318-328. [CrossRef]
24. L. Wang, Y. Zhao, S. Fu. 2017. Computational study of drag increase due to wall roughness for hypersonic flight. The
Aeronautical Journal 121:1237, 395-415. [CrossRef]
25. Aleksey A. Matyushenko, Eugeniy V. Kotov, Andrey V. Garbaruk. 2017. Calculations of flow around airfoils using two-
dimensional RANS: an analysis of the reduction in accuracy. St. Petersburg Polytechnical University Journal: Physics and
Mathematics 3:1, 15-21. [CrossRef]
26. Rohit Jain*U.S. Army Aviation Development Directorate, Moffett Field, California 94035. Hover Predictions on the S-76
Rotor with Tip Shape Variation Using Helios. Journal of Aircraft, ahead of print1-12. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
27. Nikan Rostamzadeh, Richard M. Kelso, Bassam Dally. 2017. A numerical investigation into the effects of Reynolds number
on the flow mechanism induced by a tubercled leading edge. Theoretical and Computational Fluid Dynamics 31:1, 1-32.
[CrossRef]
28. Simon Bourgault-Ct, Shahin Ghasemi, Ali Mosahebi, ric Laurendeau. 2017. Extension of a Two-Dimensional Navier
Stokes Solver for Infinite Swept Flow. AIAA Journal 55:2, 662-667. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
29. Rohit JainCFD Performance and Turbulence Transition Predictions on an Installed Model-scale Rotor in Hover .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
30. David T. Yeh, Jeffrey P. SlotnickDevelopment of Trip Line Sub-Region Approach for Flow Transition Modeling .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
31. Ruxandra M. Botez, Andreea Koreanschi, Sugar Gabor Oliviu, Yussef Mebarki, Mahmoud Mamou, Yvan Tondji,
Francesco Amoroso, Rosario Pecora, Leonardo Lecce, Gianluca Amendola, Ignazio Dimino, Antonio ConcilioNumerical
and Experimental Testing of a Morphing Upper Surface Wing Equipped with Conventional and Morphing Ailerons .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
32. Tin-Chee WongApplication of CREATE TM-AV Helios in Engineering Environment: Hover Prediction Assessment .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
33. James G. CoderEnhancement of the Amplification Factor Transport Transition Modeling Framework . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
34. Zach HallCFD Modeling of US Army UAVs using NASA's OVERFLOW CFD Code . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
35. Chunhua ShengTransition Prediction 9-19. [CrossRef]
36. Chunhua ShengValidations in 2-D Flows 55-82. [CrossRef]
37. M. zkan, P. J. Thomas, A. J. Cooper, S. J. Garrett. 2017. Comparison of the effects of surface roughness and confinement
on rotorstator cavity flow. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics 11:1, 142-158. [CrossRef]
38. Chunhua ShengTransition Model 21-54. [CrossRef]
 39. Zhiwei Zheng, Juanmian Lei, Xiaosheng Wu. 2017. Numerical Simulation of the Negative Magnus Effect of a Two-
Dimensional Spinning Circular Cylinder. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 98:1, 109-130. [CrossRef]
40. Petr Straka, Jaromr Phoda, Martin Koek, Ji Frst. 2017. Simulation of transitional flows through a turbine blade
cascade with heat transfer for various flow conditions. EPJ Web of Conferences 143, 02118. [CrossRef]
41. Siddique Mohd Umair, Nitin Parashram Gulhane. 2016. On numerical investigation of nonuniformity in cooling
characteristic for different materials of target surfaces being exposed to impingement of air jet. International Journal of
Modeling, Simulation, and Scientific Computing 1750024. [CrossRef]
42. Slawomir Kubacki, Erik Dick. 2016. An algebraic intermittency model for bypass, separation-induced and wake-induced
transition. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 62, 344-361. [CrossRef]
43. Koji Shimoyama, Kazumasa Kamisori. Study of Aerodynamic and Heat-Exhaust Characteristics for a High-Altitude Long-
Endurance Unmanned-Aerial-Vehicle Airfoil. Journal of Aircraft, ahead of print1-11. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
44. Ramy Rashad, David W. Zingg. 2016. Aerodynamic Shape Optimization for Natural Laminar Flow Using a Discrete-
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

Adjoint Approach. AIAA Journal 54:11, 3321-3337. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
45. R. N. Zhuchkov, A. A. Utkina. 2016. Combining the SSG/LRR- differential reynolds stress model with the detached
eddy and laminar-turbulent transition models. Fluid Dynamics 51:6, 733-744. [CrossRef]
46. Jiakuan Xu, Junqiang Bai, Lei Qiao, Yang Zhang, Ziyuan Fu. 2016. Fully Local Formulation of a Transition Closure Model
for Transitional Flow Simulations. AIAA Journal 54:10, 3015-3023. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
47. Alessandro Bianchini, Francesco Balduzzi, Giovanni Ferrara, Lorenzo Ferrari. 2016. A computational procedure to define
the incidence angle on airfoils rotating around an axis orthogonal to flow direction. Energy Conversion and Management
126, 790-798. [CrossRef]
48. George Zografakis, George Barakos. 2016. Implicit CFD methods for transitional shock wave boundary layer interaction.
Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace Technology 88:5, 636-648. [CrossRef]
49. Mohagna J. Pandya, Boris Diskin, James L. Thomas, Neal T. Frink. 2016. Improved Convergence and Robustness of
USM3D Solutions on Mixed-Element Grids. AIAA Journal 54:9, 2589-2610. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
50. Chunhua Sheng, Jingyu Wang, Qiuying Zhao. 2016. Improved Rotor Hover Predictions Using Advanced Turbulence
Modeling. Journal of Aircraft 53:5, 1549-1560. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
51. Zhiwei Zheng, Juanmian Lei. 2016. Application of the -Re Transition Model to Simulations of the Flow Past a Circular
Cylinder. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 97:2, 401-426. [CrossRef]
52. David C. Maniaci, Edward B. White, Benjamin Wilcox, Christopher M. Langel, C.P. van Dam, Joshua A. Paquette. 2016.
Experimental Measurement and CFD Model Development of Thick Wind Turbine Airfoils with Leading Edge Erosion.
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 753, 022013. [CrossRef]
53. S Colonia, V Leble, R Steijl, G Barakos. 2016. Calibration of the 7Equation Transition Model for High Reynolds Flows
at Low Mach. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 753, 082027. [CrossRef]
54. Fadi Mishriky, Paul Walsh. 2016. Effect of the Backward-Facing Step Location on the Aerodynamics of a Morphing
Wing. Aerospace 3:3, 25. [CrossRef]
55. Liang Wang, Lianghua Xiao, Song Fu. 2016. A modular RANS approach for modeling hypersonic flow transition on a
scramjet-forebody configuration. Aerospace Science and Technology 56, 112-124. [CrossRef]
56. Jiakuan Xu, Junqiang Bai, Yang Zhang, Lei Qiao. 2016. Transition study of 3D aerodynamic configures using improved
transport equations modeling. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 29:4, 874-881. [CrossRef]
57. Christoph Bode, Jens Friedrichs, Christoph Mller, Florian HerbstApplication of Crossflow Transition Criteria to Local
Correlation-Based Transition Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
58. Sergiy Yershov, Viktor YakovlevInfluence of Laminar-Turbulent Transition on 3D Flow Pattern in Subsonic Turbine
Cascade . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
59. Gustavo Luiz Olichevis Halila, Enda Dimitri Vieira Bigarella, Joo Luiz F. Azevedo. 2016. Numerical Study on Transitional
Flows Using a Correlation-Based Transition Model. Journal of Aircraft 53:4, 922-941. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
60. David A. Corson, Alonso Zamora, Shivaji MedidaA Comparative Assessment of Correlation-based Transition Models for
Wind Power Applications . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 61. Isaac Witte, Colin Graham, Ramesh K. Agarwal, Tim WrayEvaluation of Six Turbulence Models for Accurate Numerical
Simulation of 2D Slot Nozzle Ejector . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
62. Kurt Kaufmann, Christoph Merz, Anthony D. GardnerDynamic Stall Simulations on a Pitching Finite Wing . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
63. Cornelia Grabe, Nie Shengyang, Andreas KrumbeinTransition Transport Modeling for the Prediction of Crossflow
Transition . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
64. Chunhua Sheng, Qiuying ZhaoNumerical Investigations of Fan-In-Wing Aerodynamic Performance with Active Flow
Control . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
65. James M. Luckring, Karen A. Deere, Robert E. Childs, Paul Stremel, Kurtis R. LongAn Application of CFD to Guide
Forced Boundary-Layer Transition for Low-Speed Tests of a Hybrid Wing-Body Configuration . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
66. Shivaji Medida, David A. Corson, Michael BartonImplementation and Validation of Correlation-based Transition Models
in AcuSolve . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

67. Oliviu ugar Gabor, Andreea Koreanschi, Ruxandra Mihaela Botez, Mahmoud Mamou, Youssef Mebarki. 2016. Numerical
simulation and wind tunnel tests investigation and validation of a morphing wing-tip demonstrator aerodynamic
performance. Aerospace Science and Technology 53, 136-153. [CrossRef]
68. Zhuo Cheng, Emaddin Kidher, Omar A. Jarral, Declan P. ORegan, Nigel B. Wood, Thanos Athanasiou, Xiao Yun Xu.
2016. Assessment of Hemodynamic Conditions in the Aorta Following Root Replacement with Composite Valve-Conduit
Graft. Annals of Biomedical Engineering 44:5, 1392-1404. [CrossRef]
69. S. M. A. Aftab, A. S. Mohd Rafie, N. A. Razak, K. A. Ahmad. 2016. Turbulence Model Selection for Low Reynolds
Number Flows. PLOS ONE 11:4, e0153755. [CrossRef]
70. Runa Nivea Pinto, Asif Afzal, Loyan Vinson DSouza, Zahid Ansari, A. D. Mohammed Samee. 2016. Computational Fluid
Dynamics in Turbomachinery: A Review of State of the Art. Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering . [CrossRef]
71. Martin Luxa, Jaromr Phoda, David imurda, Petr Straka, Jaroslav Syn. 2016. Investigation of the compressible flow
through the tip-section turbine blade cascade with supersonic inlet. Journal of Thermal Science 25:2, 138-144. [CrossRef]
72. S. Kubacki, E. Dick. 2016. An algebraic model for bypass transition in turbomachinery boundary layer flows. International
Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 58, 68-83. [CrossRef]
73. M. Lorini, F. Bassi, A. Colombo, A. Ghidoni. 2016. High-order implementation of a non-local transition model in a DG
solver for turbomachinery applications. Computers & Fluids 127, 115-130. [CrossRef]
74. Alessandro Bianchini, Francesco Balduzzi, Giovanni Ferrara, Lorenzo Ferrari. 2016. Virtual incidence effect on rotating
airfoils in Darrieus wind turbines. Energy Conversion and Management 111, 329-338. [CrossRef]
75. L. Zhou, C. Yan, Z.H. Hao, R.F. Du. 2016. Improved k model for hypersonic boundary layer transition prediction.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 94, 380-389. [CrossRef]
76. M.S.R. Chandra Murty, Anand V. Bhandarkar, Debasis Chakraborty. 2016. Aerothermal exploration of reaction control
jet in supersonic crossflow at high altitude. Aerospace Science and Technology 50, 266-271. [CrossRef]
77. Chenchao Xia, Weifang Chen. 2016. Boundary-layer transition prediction using a simplified correlation-based model.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 29:1, 66-75. [CrossRef]
78. Dong Ok Yu, Hak Min Lee, Oh Joon Kwon. 2016. Aerodynamic shape optimization of wind turbine rotor blades
considering aeroelastic deformation effect. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 30:2, 705-718. [CrossRef]
79. Kristy L. Hansen, Nikan Rostamzadeh, Richard M. Kelso, Bassam B. Dally. 2016. Evolution of the streamwise vortices
generated between leading edge tubercles. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 788, 730-766. [CrossRef]
80. George N. Barakos, Antonio Jimenez-GarciaHover Predictions of the S-76 Rotor using HMB2 - Model to full Scale .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
81. Antonio Jimenez-Garcia, George N. BarakosCFD Simulations of the ERICA tiltrotor using HMB2 . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
82. Tarak N. Nandi, James Brasseur, Ganesh VijayakumarPrediction and Analysis of the Nonsteady Transitional Boundary
Layer Dynamics for flow over an Oscillating Wind Turbine Airfoil using the -Re Transition Model . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
83. Yannick Hoarau, Dorian Pena, Jan B. Vos, Dominique Charbonier, Alain Gehri, Marianna Braza, Thibaut Deloze, Eric
LaurendeauRecent Developments of the Navier Stokes Multi Block (NSMB) CFD solver . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 84. Harry W. Hoeijmakers, Joost MulderComputational and Experimental Investigation into Flapping Wing Propulsion .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
85. Christopher M. Langel, Raymond Chow, Case (CP) P. Van DamA Comparison of Transition Prediction Methodologies
Applied to High Reynolds Number External Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
86. Chunhua Sheng, Qiuying Zhao, Matthew HillInvestigations of XV-15 Rotor Hover Performance and Flow Field Using
U2NCLE and HELIOS Codes . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
87. Andreea Koreanschi, Sugar Gabor Oliviu, Tristan Ayrault, Ruxandra M. Botez, Mahmoud Mamou, Youssef
MebarkiNumerical Optimization and Experimental Testing of a Morphing Wing with Aileron System . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
88. Yongqiang Tian, Zhengke Zhang, Qi Zhai, Ke QuNumerical Prediction of the Minimum Height of Roughness Strip for
Artificial Transition on Swept Wings . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
89. Gustavo L. Halila, Enda D. Bigarella, Alexandre P. Antunes, Joao Luiz F. AzevedoInflow Turbulence Effects on Transition
Prediction Using a Correlation-Based Transition Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

90. Joseph A. Garcia, John Melton, Michael J. Schuh, Kevin James, Kurtis Long, Dan D. Vicroy, Karen A. Deere, James M.
Luckring, Melissa B. Carter, Jeff D. Flamm, Paul M. Stremel, Ben E. Nikaido, Robert E. ChildsNASA ERA Integrated
CFD for Wind Tunnel Testing of Hybrid Wing-Body Configuration (Invited) . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
91. Kazumasa Kamisori, Koji Shimoyama, Shigeru ObayashiA Study on the Exhaust Heat Characteristics from a Wing Surface
Depending on the Airfoil Shape at Low Reynolds Number . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
92. S.D. Singh, X.Y. Xu, N.B. Wood, J.R. Pepper, C. Izgi, T. Treasure, R.H. Mohiaddin. 2016. Aortic flow patterns before
and after personalised external aortic root support implantation in Marfan patients. Journal of Biomechanics 49:1, 100-111.
[CrossRef]
93. Petr Straka, Jaromr Phoda. 2016. Extension of the algebraic transition model for the wall roughness effect. EPJ Web
of Conferences 114, 02114. [CrossRef]
94. Mou Lin, Hamid SarlakA comparative study on the flow over an airfoil using transitional turbulence models 030050.
[CrossRef]
95. Karel Petera, Martin Dostl. 2016. Heat transfer measurements and CFD simulations of an impinging jet. EPJ Web of
Conferences 114, 02091. [CrossRef]
96. Petr Svek. 2016. Finite element method application for turbulent and transitional flow. EPJ Web of Conferences 114,
02117. [CrossRef]
97. T. V. Poplavskaya, D. A. Bountin, S. V. Kirilovskiy, A. A. MaslovEffect of local heating/cooling on the laminar-turbulent
transition on a blunted cone 030056. [CrossRef]
98. Ho Cheol Shin, Jeong Hwan Sa, Soo Hyung Park, Yung Hwan Byun. 2015. TRANSITIONAL FLOW ANALYSIS
OVER DOUBLE COMPRESSION RAMP WITH NOSE BLUNTNESS IN SUPERSONIC FLOW. Journal of
computational fluids engineering 20:4, 36-43. [CrossRef]
99. Florian R. Menter, Pavel E. Smirnov, Tao Liu, Ravikanth Avancha. 2015. A One-Equation Local Correlation-Based
Transition Model. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 95:4, 583-619. [CrossRef]
100. Michele Marconcini, Roberto Pacciani, Andrea Arnone. 2015. Transition modelling implications in the CFD analysis of a
turbine nozzle vane cascade tested over a range of Mach and Reynolds numbers. Journal of Thermal Science 24:6, 526-534.
[CrossRef]
101. Jae Hoon Choi, Oh Joon Kwon. 2015. Enhancement of a Correlation-Based Transition Turbulence Model for Simulating
Crossflow Instability. AIAA Journal 53:10, 3063-3072. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
102. Icaro A. Accordi, Marcelo J.S. de Lemos. 2015. Single-point transition modeling using the laminar kinetic energy concept.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 89, 1095-1109. [CrossRef]
103. Sarah Frauholz, Birgit U. Reinartz, Siegfried Mller, Marek Behr. 2015. Transition Prediction for Scramjets Using -
Ret Model Coupled to Two Turbulence Models. Journal of Propulsion and Power 31:5, 1404-1422. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
104. Petr Svek, Jaromr Horek. 2015. Numerical simulation of aeroelastic response of an airfoil in flow with laminar
turbulence transition. Applied Mathematics and Computation 267, 28-41. [CrossRef]
 105. A. V. Boiko, S. V. Kirilovskiy, A. A. Maslov, T. V. Poplavskaya. 2015. Engineering modeling of the laminarturbulent
transition: Achievements and problems (Review). Journal of Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics 56:5, 761-776.
[CrossRef]
106. Rui Vizinho, Joo Morgado, Jos Pscoa, Miguel Silvestre. 2015. Analysis of transitional flow in 3D geometries using a
novel phenomenological model. Aerospace Science and Technology 45, 431-441. [CrossRef]
107. Xuan Ge, Paul A. Durbin. 2015. An intermittency model for predicting roughness induced transition. International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow 54, 55-64. [CrossRef]
108. Ali Mosahebi, Eric Laurendeau. 2015. Introduction of a modified segregated numerical approach for efficient simulation
of - Ret transition model. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 29:6-8, 357-375. [CrossRef]
109. Christopher L. Rumsey, Jeffrey P. Slotnick. 2015. Overview and Summary of the Second AIAA High-Lift Prediction
Workshop. Journal of Aircraft 52:4, 1006-1025. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
110. James G. Coder. 2015. OVERFLOW Analysis of the DLR-F11 High-Lift Configuration Including Transition Modeling.
Journal of Aircraft 52:4, 1082-1097. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

111. Weixing Yuan, Dominique Poirel, Baoyuan Wang, Azemi Benaissa. 2015. Effect of Freestream Turbulence on Airfoil
Limit-Cycle Oscillations at Transitional Reynolds Numbers. Journal of Aircraft 52:4, 1214-1225. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
112. E. M. Lee-Rausch, C. L. Rumsey, M. A. Park. 2015. Grid-Adapted FUN3D Computations for the Second High-Lift
Prediction Workshop. Journal of Aircraft 52:4, 1098-1111. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
113. James G. Coder, Mark D. MaughmerCFD Transition Modeling: Blending Classical Methods with Modern Tools (Invited) .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
114. Chongam Kim, Jin Seok ParkMulti-dimensional Limiting Strategy for Higher-order CFD Methods - Progress and Issue
(Invited) . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
115. Ramy Rashad, David W. ZinggAerodynamic Shape Optimization for Natural Laminar Flow Using a Discrete-Adjoint
Approach . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
116. Andreas Krumbein, Normann Krimmelbein, Cornelia Grabe, Nie ShengyangDevelopment and Application of Transition
Prediction Techniques in an Unstructured CFD Code (Invited) . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
117. JeongHwan Sa, Soo Hyung Park, Kum Won Cho, Kyoung Jin JungModeling and Prediction of the Crossflow Transition
Using Transition Transport Equations . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
118. Robin LangtryExtending the Gamma-Rethetat Correlation based Transition Model for Crossflow Effects (Invited) .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
119. Michael Fehrs, Anna C. L. M. van Rooij, Jens Nitzsche. 2015. Influence of boundary layer transition on the flutter behavior
of a supercritical airfoil. CEAS Aeronautical Journal 6:2, 291-303. [CrossRef]
120. Wei Sun, Zhenghong Gao, Yiming Du, Fang Xu. 2015. Mechanism of unconventional aerodynamic characteristics of an
elliptic airfoil. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 28:3, 687-694. [CrossRef]
121. Yuntao Wang, Yulun Zhang, Song Li, Dehong Meng. 2015. Calibration of a <mml:math altimg="si1.gif"
overflow="scroll" xmlns:xocs="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/xocs/dtd" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/
XMLSchema" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/
ja/dtd" xmlns:ja="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/ja/dtd" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"
xmlns:tb="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/common/table/dtd" xmlns:sb="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/common/struct-
bib/dtd" xmlns:ce="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/common/dtd" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"
xmlns:cals="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/common/cals/dtd" xmlns:sa="http://www.elsevier.com/xml/common/struct-
aff/dtd"><mml:mrow><mml:mi></mml:mi><mml:mtext>-</mml:mtext><mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mi
mathvariant="italic">Re</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi></mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></
mml:mrow></mml:math> transition model and its validation in low-speed flows with high-order numerical method.
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 28:3, 704-711. [CrossRef]
122. Ali Mosahebi, Eric Laurendeau. 2015. Convergence Characteristics of Fully and Loosely Coupled Numerical Approaches
for Transition Models. AIAA Journal 53:5, 1399-1404. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
123. Jeong Hwan Sa, Soo Hyung Park, Chang Joo Kim, Jung Keun Park. 2015. Low-Reynolds number flow computation
for eppler 387 wing using hybrid DES/transition model. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 29:5, 1837-1847.
[CrossRef]
 124. Yayun Shi, Junqiang Bai, Jun Hua, Tihao Yang. 2015. Numerical analysis and optimization of boundary layer suction on
airfoils. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 28:2, 357-367. [CrossRef]
125. C. L. Rumsey, E. M. Lee-Rausch. 2015. NASA Trapezoidal Wing Computations Including Transition and Advanced
Turbulence Modeling. Journal of Aircraft 52:2, 496-509. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
126. James G. Coder, Mark D. MaughmerApplication of the Amplification Factor Transport Transition Model to the Shear
Stress Transport Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
127. Xun Wang, Jinsheng Cai, Chuanzhen Liu, Zewei HuAirfoil Optimization Based on Rapid Transition Prediction . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
128. Gustavo Luis O. Halila, Enda Dimitri V. Bigarella, Joao Luiz F. AzevedoA Numerical Study on Transitional Flows by
Means of a Correlation-Based Transition Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
129. Jeffrey Rodio, Xudong Xiao, Hassan A. HassanA physics-Based Stress Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
130. Jason Z. Chen, Ning QinFluid Structure Interaction on a Flexible Micro Air Vehicle . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
131. Jingyu Wang, Chunhua ShengA Comparison of a Local Correlation-Based Transition Model Coupled with SA and SST
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

Turbulence Models . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

132. Christopher M. Langel, Raymond Chow, Case (CP) P. Van DamFurther Developments to a Local Correlation Based
Roughness Model for Boundary Layer Transition Prediction . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
133. Krzysztof Szilder, Weixing YuanThe Influence of Ice Accretion on the Aerodynamic Performance of a UAS Airfoil .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
134. Christopher M. Langel, Raymond Chow, Owen F. Hurley, Case (CP) P. Van Dam, David C. Maniaci, Robert S. Ehrmann,
Edward B. WhiteAnalysis of the Impact of Leading Edge Surface Degradation on Wind Turbine Performance . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
135. Chunhua Sheng, Jingyu Wang, Qiuying ZhaoS-76 Rotor Hover Predictions Using Advanced Turbulence Models .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
136. Seung Joon Yang, James D. BaederAerodynamic Drag and Aeroacoustic Noise Mitigation of Flatback Airfoil with Spanwise
Wavy Trailing Edge . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
137. Uriel C. Goldberg, Paul Batten, Oshin Peroomian, Sukumar Chakravarthy. 2015. The R - transition prediction model.
International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 29:1, 26-39. [CrossRef]
138. J. Christophe, S. Moreau, C. W. Hamman, J. A. S. Witteveen, G. Iaccarino. 2015. Uncertainty Quantification for the
Trailing-Edge Noise of a Controlled-Diffusion Airfoil. AIAA Journal 53:1, 42-54. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
139. Helena Prausov, Ondej Bublk, Jan Vimmr, Martin Luxa, Jindich Hla. 2015. Clearance gap flow: simulations by
discontinuous Galerkin method and experiments. EPJ Web of Conferences 92, 02073. [CrossRef]
140. Zhuo Cheng, Nigel B. Wood, Richard G. J. Gibbs, Xiao Y. Xu. 2015. Geometric and Flow Features of Type B Aortic
Dissection: Initial Findings and Comparison of Medically Treated and Stented Cases. Annals of Biomedical Engineering
43:1, 177-189. [CrossRef]
141. A. E. Vardy, J. M. B. Brown, S. He, C. Ariyaratne, S. Gorji. 2015. Applicability of Frozen-Viscosity Models of Unsteady
Wall Shear Stress. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 141:1, 04014064. [CrossRef]
142. Zeng-Rong Hao, Chun-Wei Gu, Xiao-Dong Ren. 2014. The Application of Discontinuous Galerkin Methods in
Conjugate Heat Transfer Simulations of Gas Turbines. Energies 7:12, 7857-7877. [CrossRef]
143. P. Panagiotou, P. Kaparos, K. Yakinthos. 2014. Winglet design and optimization for a MALE UAV using CFD. Aerospace
Science and Technology 39, 190-205. [CrossRef]
144. Yin Song, Chun-Wei Gu, Yao-Bing Xiao. 2014. Numerical and Theoretical Investigations Concerning the Continuous-
Surface-Curvature Effect in Compressor Blades. Energies 7:12, 8150-8177. [CrossRef]
145. J Marty. 2014. Numerical investigations of separation-induced transition on high-lift low-pressure turbine using RANS
and LES methods. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part A: Journal of Power and Energy 228:8, 924-952.
[CrossRef]
146. James G. Coder, Mark D. Maughmer. 2014. Computational Fluid Dynamics Compatible Transition Modeling Using an
Amplification Factor Transport Equation. AIAA Journal 52:11, 2506-2512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 147. Dong Ok Yu, Oh Joon Kwon. 2014. Predicting wind turbine blade loads and aeroelastic response using a coupled CFD
CSD method. Renewable Energy 70, 184-196. [CrossRef]
148. N. Rostamzadeh, K. L. Hansen, R. M. Kelso, B. B. Dally. 2014. The formation mechanism and impact of streamwise
vortices on NACA 0021 airfoil's performance with undulating leading edge modification. Physics of Fluids 26:10, 107101.
[CrossRef]
149. Javad Farrokhi Derakhshandeh, Maziar Arjomandi, Bassam Dally, Benjamin Cazzolato. 2014. The effect of arrangement
of two circular cylinders on the maximum efficiency of Vortex-Induced Vibration power using a Scale-Adaptive Simulation
model. Journal of Fluids and Structures 49, 654-666. [CrossRef]
150. N. D. Sandham, E. Schlein, A. Wagner, S. Willems, J. Steelant. 2014. Transitional shock-wave/boundary-layer
interactions in hypersonic flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 752, 349-382. [CrossRef]
151. Xuan Ge, Sunil Arolla, Paul Durbin. 2014. A Bypass Transition Model Based on the Intermittency Function. Flow,
Turbulence and Combustion 93:1, 37-61. [CrossRef]
152. J.H. Sa, S.E. Jeon, S.H. Park. 2014. A COMPARATIVE STUDY ON PREDICTION CAPABILITY OF AIRFOIL
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

FLOWS USING A TRANSITION TRANSPORT MODEL. Journal of computational fluids engineering 19:2, 8-16.
[CrossRef]
153. James G. CoderOVERFLOW Analysis of the DLR-F11 Configuration from HiLiftPW-2 Including Transition Modeling .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
154. Taylor Reinhart, Shivaji Medida, Tarandeep Kalra, James D. BaederRANS Simulations of Sandia 100-m Wind Turbine
Blade: Effect of Leading-Edge Tubercles . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
155. Jingyu Wang, Chunhua ShengValidations of a Local Correlation-Based Transition Model Using an Unstructured Grid
CFD Solver . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
156. D O Yu, O J Kwon. 2014. Time-accurate aeroelastic simulations of a wind turbine in yaw and shear using a coupled CFD-
CSD method. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 524, 012046. [CrossRef]
157. Peyman Khayatzadeh, Siva Nadarajah. 2014. Laminar-turbulent flow simulation for wind turbine profiles using the -
Ret transition model. Wind Energy 17:6, 901-918. [CrossRef]
158. Andrea Crivellini, Valerio DAlessandro. 2014. SpalartAllmaras model apparent transition and RANS simulations of
laminar separation bubbles on airfoils. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 47, 70-83. [CrossRef]
159. Ekachai Juntasaro, Kiattisak Ngiamsoongnirn. 2014. A new physics-based k L transition model. International Journal
of Computational Fluid Dynamics 28:5, 204-218. [CrossRef]
160. Biswadip Shome. 2014. Numerical study of turbulent flow in heated circular tube using transitional shear stress transport
turbulence model. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 79, 90-102. [CrossRef]
161. Christian S. J. Mayer, Hermann F. Fasel, Meelan Choudhari, Chau-Lyan Chang. 2014. Transition Onset Predictions for
Oblique Breakdown in a Mach 3 Boundary Layer. AIAA Journal 52:4, 882-886. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
162. S.E. Jeon, J.H. Sa, S.H. Park, Y.H. Byun. 2014. ANALYSIS ON THE DYNAMIC STALL OVER AN OSCILLATING
AIRFOIL USING TRANSITION TRANSPORT EQUATIONS. Journal of computational fluids engineering 19:1, 80-86.
[CrossRef]
163. Ke Zhao, Zheng-hong Gao, Jiang-tao Huang. 2014. Robust design of natural laminar flow supercritical airfoil by multi-
objective evolution method. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 35:2, 191-202. [CrossRef]
164. Christopher L. Rumsey, Jeffrey P. SlotnickOverview and Summary of the Second AIAA High Lift Prediction Workshop .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
165. Cornelia Grabe, Andreas KrumbeinExtension of the -Ret Model for Prediction of Crossflow Transition . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
166. Jaehoon Choi, Oh Joon KwonEnhancement of a Correlation-Based Transition Turbulence Model for Simulating Crossflow
Instability . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
167. Christopher L. RumseyTurbulence Modeling Verification and Validation (Invited) . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
168. Christopher M. Langel, Raymond Chow, Case (CP) P. Van Dam, Mark A. Rumsey, David C. Maniaci, Robert S. Ehrmann,
Edward B. WhiteA Computational Approach to Simulating the Effects of Realistic Surface Roughness on Boundary Layer
Transition . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
169. Shahin Ghasemi, Ali Mosahebi, Eric LaurendeauA Two-Dimensional/Infinite Swept Wing Navier-Stokes Solver .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 170. Chunhua Sheng, Qiuying Zhao, Jingyu WangS-76 Rotor Hover Prediction Using U2NCLE Solver . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
171. James G. Coder, Mark D. Maughmer. 2014. Comparisons of Theoretical Methods for Predicting Airfoil Aerodynamic
Characteristics. Journal of Aircraft 51:1, 183-191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
172. Gang Wang, Haris Hameed Mian, Zheng-Yin Ye, Jen-Der Lee. 2014. Numerical Study of Transitional Flow Around
NLR-7301 Airfoil Using Correlation-Based Transition Model. Journal of Aircraft 51:1, 342-350. [Citation] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
173. S. Gorji, M. Seddighi, C. Ariyaratne, A.E. Vardy, T. ODonoghue, D. Pokrajac, S. He. 2014. A comparative study of
turbulence models in a transient channel flow. Computers & Fluids 89, 111-123. [CrossRef]
174. Ji Frst, Petr Straka, Jaromr Phoda. 2014. Modelling of natural and bypass transition in aerodynamics. EPJ Web of
Conferences 67, 02030. [CrossRef]
175. T. Renaud, A. Le Pape, S. Pron. 2013. Numerical analysis of hub and fuselage drag breakdown of a helicopter
configuration. CEAS Aeronautical Journal 4:4, 409-419. [CrossRef]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

176. Ju Yeol You, Dong Ok Yu, Oh Joon Kwon. 2013. Effect of turbulence models on predicting HAWT rotor blade
performances. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 27:12, 3703-3711. [CrossRef]
177. N. Rostamzadeh, R. M. Kelso, B. B. Dally, K. L. Hansen. 2013. The effect of undulating leading-edge modifications on
NACA 0021 airfoil characteristics. Physics of Fluids 25:11, 117101. [CrossRef]
178. Cornelia Grabe, Andreas Krumbein. 2013. Correlation-Based Transition Transport Modeling for Three-Dimensional
Aerodynamic Configurations. Journal of Aircraft 50:5, 1533-1539. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
179. Hongjun Zhang, Zhengping Zou, Yu Li, Jian Ye, Songhe Song. 2013. Conjugate heat transfer investigations of turbine
vane based on transition models. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 26:4, 890-897. [CrossRef]
180. Sebastian Barthmes, David Hndel, Reinhard Niehuis, Christian Wacker, Jan Klausmann2D Investigation of the Flow
Through a Symmetric Variable Inlet Guide Vane, Part 2: Numerical Analysis . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
181. Rene Pecnik, Jeroen A. S. Witteveen, Gianluca Iaccarino. 2013. Assessment of Uncertainties in Modeling of Laminar to
Turbulent Transition for Transonic Flows. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 91:1, 41-61. [CrossRef]
182. Dong Ok Yu, Ju Yeol You, Oh Joon Kwon. 2013. Numerical investigation of unsteady aerodynamics of a Horizontal-axis
wind turbine under yawed flow conditions. Wind Energy 16:5, 711-727. [CrossRef]
183. Ju Yeol You, Oh Joon Kwon. 2013. Blending of SAS and correlation-based transition models for flow simulation at
supercritical Reynolds numbers. Computers & Fluids 80, 63-70. [CrossRef]
184. Pietro Catalano, Renato Tognaccini, Benedetto MeleA Numerical Method to Detect Laminar Separation Bubbles over
Airfoils . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
185. Zhengke ZhangNumerical Study of Fixed Artificial Transition and the Minimum Height of Roughness Strip for It .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
186. Robert S. Ehrmann, Edward B. White, David C. Maniaci, Raymond Chow, Christopher M. Langel, Case P. Van
DamRealistic Leading-Edge Roughness Effects on Airfoil Performance . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
187. Ramy Rashad, David W. ZinggToward High-Fidelity Aerodynamic Shape Optimization for Natural Laminar Flow .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
188. James G. Coder, Mark D. Maughmer, Dan SomersTheoretical and Experimental Results for the S414, Slotted, Natural-
Laminar-Flow Airfoil . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
189. Shivaji Medida, James BaederA New Crossflow Transition Onset Criterion for RANS Turbulence Models . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
190. Gennaro Serino, T. Magin, Patrick Rambaud, Fabio PinnaStatistical inverse analysis and stochastic modeling of transition .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
191. G. A. Gerolymos, Isabelle ValletBypass Transition and Tripping in Reynolds-stress Model Computations . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
192. Z. J. Chen, N. Qin. 2013. Planform Effects for Low-Reynolds-Number Thin Wings with Positive and Reflex Cambers.
Journal of Aircraft 50:3, 952-964. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 193. T.H. Yang, J.H. Choi, D.O. Yu, O.J. Kwon. 2013. PREDICTION OF AERODYNAMIC PERFORMANCE LOSS OF
A WIND TURBINE BLADE SECTION DUE TO CONTAMINANT ACCUMULATION. Journal of computational
fluids engineering 18:1, 91-97. [CrossRef]
194. Maximilian Tomac, Karl Pettersson, Arthur RizziCalibration and Verification of a ?-Re?t Transition Prediction Method
for Airfoil Computations . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
195. Jeffrey Rodio, Hassan Hassan, Xudong XiaoA New Local Formulation of the k-? Transitional/Turbulence Model .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
196. Dong Ok Yu, Oh Joon KwonA Coupled CFD-CSD Method for Predicting HAWT Rotor Blade Performance . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
197. Jianghua Ke, Jack EdwardsRANS and LES/RANS Simulation of Airfoils under Static and Dynamic Stall . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
198. James Coder, Mark MaughmerNumerical Validation of the Squire-Young Formula for Profile Drag Prediction . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

199. Francisco Palacios, Juan Alonso, Karthikeyan Duraisamy, Michael Colonno, Jason Hicken, Aniket Aranake, Alejandro
Campos, Sean Copeland, Thomas Economon, Amrita Lonkar, Trent Lukaczyk, Thomas TaylorStanford University
Unstructured (SU²): An open-source integrated computational environment for multi-physics simulation
and design . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
200. Lianghua Xiao, Liang Wang, Song Fu, Zhixiang XiaoA modular RANS approach for modeling hypersonic flow transition
on an air-breathing configuration . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
201. James Coder, Mark MaughmerA CFD-Compatible Transition Model Using an Amplification Factor Transport Equation .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
202. Z. J. Chen, N. Qin, A. F. Nowakowski. 2013. Three-Dimensional Laminar-Separation Bubble on a Cambered Thin Wing
at Low Reynolds Numbers. Journal of Aircraft 50:1, 152-163. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
203. Joshua N. N. Counsil, Kiari Goni Boulama. 2013. Low-Reynolds-Number Aerodynamic Performances of the NACA 0012
and SeligDonovan 7003 Airfoils. Journal of Aircraft 50:1, 204-216. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
204. J. Frst, P. Straka, J. Phoda, D. imurda. 2013. Comparison of several models of the laminar/turbulent transition. EPJ
Web of Conferences 45, 01032. [CrossRef]
205. Cornelia Seyfert, Andreas Krumbein. 2012. Evaluation of a Correlation-Based Transition Model and Comparison with
the eN Method. Journal of Aircraft 49:6, 1765-1773. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
206. Florian Herbst, Dragan Koulovi, Joerg R. Seume. 2012. Transition Modeling for Vortex Generating Jets on Low-
Pressure Turbine Profiles. Journal of Turbomachinery 135:1, 011038. [CrossRef]
207. M.M. El-Gendi, K.U. Lee, W.J. Chung, C.Y. Joh, C.H. Son. 2012. EVALUATION OF TURBULENCE MODELS IN
A HIGH PRESSURE TURBINE CASCADE SIMULATION. Journal of computational fluids engineering 17:3, 53-58.
[CrossRef]
208. Yancheng You, Heinrich Luedeke, Thino Eggers, Klaus HannemannApplication of the y-Reot Transition Model in High
Speed Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
209. J. N. N. Counsil, K. Goni Boulama. 2012. Validating the URANS shear stress transport Re model for low-Reynolds-
number external aerodynamics. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 69:8, 1411-1432. [CrossRef]
210. Christopher Rumsey, Elizabeth Lee-RauschNASA Trapezoidal Wing Computations Including Transition and Advanced
Turbulence Modeling . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
211. Khalil Bensassi, Andrea Lani, Patrick RambaudNumerical Investigations of Local Correlation-Based Transition Model in
Hypersonic Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
212. Anthony Sclafani, Jeffrey Slotnick, John Vassberg, Thomas PulliamExtended OVERFLOW Analysis of the NASA Trap
Wing Wind Tunnel Model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
213. Ju Yeol You, Oh Joon KwonA Blended Model for Simulating Massive Flow Separation and Laminar-Turbulence
Transition . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
214. Ju Yeol You, Oh Joon Kwon. 2012. Numerical assessment of turbulent models at a critical regime on unstructured meshes.
Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26:5, 1363-1369. [CrossRef]
 215. S.E. Jeon, J.H. Sa, S.H. Park, C.J. Kim, H.J. Kang, S.B. Kim, S.H. Kim. 2012. VALIDATION OF TRANSITION
FLOW PREDICTION AND WIND TUNNEL RESULTS FOR KU109C ROTOR AIRFOIL. Journal of computational
fluids engineering 17:1, 54-60. [CrossRef]
216. Hyung Il Kwon, Ju Yeol You, Oh Joon Kwon. 2012. Enhancement of wind turbine aerodynamic performance by a numerical
optimization technique. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 26:2, 455-462. [CrossRef]
217. Cornelia Seyfert, Andreas KrumbeinCorrelation-Based Transition Transport Modeling for Three-Dimensional
Aerodynamic Configurations . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
218. James Coder, Mark MaughmerOne-Equation Transition Closure for Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models in CFD .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
219. John Papp, Sanford DashModeling Hypersonic Laminar to Turbulent Transitional Flows for 3D Geometries Using a
Two-Equation Onset and Intermittency Transport Models . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
220. Peyman Khayatzadeh, Sivakumaran NadarajahAerodynamic Shape Optimization of Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) Airfoils .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY on May 30, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.42362

221. Dongok Yu, Hyungil Kwon, Oh Joon KwonPerformance Enhancement of HAWT Rotor Blades by Aerodynamic Shape
Optimization . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
222. Simon Lapointe, Guy DumasImproved Numerical Simulations of Self-Sustained Oscillations of a NACA0012 with
Transition Modeling . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
223. Andreas Krumbein, Cornelia Seyfert, Normann KrimmelbeinAutomatic Transition Prediction in Unsteady Airfoil Flows
Using an Unstructured CFD Code . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
224. Richard Campbell, Matthew Campbell, Thomas StreitProgress Toward Efficient Laminar Flow Analysis and Design .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
225. Kiari Goni Boulama, Joshua CounsilValidation of a low-cost transitional turbulence model for low-Reynolds-number
external aerodynamics . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
226. Xiaodong ZHANG, Zhenghong GAO. 2011. A Numerical Research on a Compressibility-correlated Langtry's Transition
Model for Double Wedge Boundary Layer Flows. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 24:3, 249-257. [CrossRef]
227. Yan Bao, Dai Zhou, Cheng Huang, Qier Wu, Xiang-qiao Chen. 2011. Numerical prediction of aerodynamic characteristics
of prismatic cylinder by finite element method with SpalartAllmaras turbulence model. Computers & Structures 89:3-4,
325-338. [CrossRef]
228. Tetsuya Yoshiara, Daisuke Sasaki, Kazuhiro NakahashiConjugate Heat Transfer Simulation of Cooled Turbine Blades
Using Unstructured-Mesh CFD Solver . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
229. Adam Lavely, Ganesh Vijayakumar, Michael Kinzel, James Brasseur, Eric PatersonSpace-Time Loadings on Wind Turbine
Blades Driven by Atmospheric Boundary Layer Turbulence . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
230. Rene Pecnik, Jeroen Witteveen, Gianluca IaccarinoUncertainty Quantification for Laminar-Turbulent Transition
Prediction in RANS Turbomachinery Applications . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
231. Peyman Khayatzadeh, Siva NadarajahAerodynamic Shape Optimization via Discrete Viscous Adjoint Equations for the k-
wSST Turbulence and y-Re0 Transition Models . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
232. Cdric Content, Robert HoudevilleApplication of the -R laminar-turbulent transition model in Navier-Stokes
computations . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
233. Cornelia Seyfert, Andreas KrumbeinEvaluation of a Correlation-based Transition Model and comparison with the eN
method . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
234. Xiao-dong Zhang, Zheng-hong Gao. 2010. Numerical discussions on complete empirical correlation in Langtrys transition
model. Applied Mathematics and Mechanics 31:5, 575-584. [CrossRef]