Conference on Modelling Fluid Flow (CMFF’03)

th
The 12 International Conference on Fluid Flow Technologies
Budapest, Hungary, September 3 - 6, 2003

VERY LARGE EDDY SIMULATION FOR THE PREDICTION OF UNSTEADY

VORTEX MOTION

Albert RUPRECHT Thomas HELMRICH Ivana BUNTIC

Head of Fluid Mechanics Group* Research assistant PhD Student

Institute of Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Machinery

University of Stuttgart

*Corresponding author: Pfaffenwaldring 10, D-70550 Stuttgart, Germany

Tel.: (+49) 711 685 3256, Fax: (+49) 711 685 3255, Email: ruprecht@ihs.uni-stuttgart.de

ABSTRACT
An new turbulence model for Very Large Eddy
Simulation, based on the extended k-ε model of
Kim and Chen is developed. Introducing an
adaptive filtering technique the model can
distinguish between numerically resolved and
unresolved parts of flow. The model is applied to
the unstable vortex motion in a pipe trifurcation.
This flow phenomenon could not be predicted with
classical RANS methods and usually used
turbulence models. By applying the VLES method
with the new turbulence model the phenomenon
was well predicted and the results agree quite
reasonable with measurement data.
Key Words: Adaptive turbulence model, Pipe
trifurcation, Very Large Eddy Simulation.
NOMENCLATURE
f filter function
hmax local grid size
k turbulent kinetic energy
L Kolmogorov length scale
Pk production term
U local velocity
α model constant
∆ resolved length scale
∆t time step
ε dissipation rate
ν kinematic viscosity
νt turbulent viscosity
1. INTRODUCTION
Industrial calculations are usually based on the
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
equations. This means that the complete turbulence
behavior is expressed by means of an appropriate
turbulence model. The necessary turbulence model
has to take into account all the turbulent scales
ranging from the largest turbulent eddies down to
the Kolmogorov scale. Consequently the model has
to be very sophisticated and it is impossible to
define a model suitable for all flow phenomena,
especially for unsteady vortex motions.
A direct numerical simulation (DNS), where all
scales down to the Kolmogorov scale are resolved
by the computation is impossible. As the smallest
scales strongly decrease with increasing Reynolds
number, extremely high computational effort (i.e.
large grid size) is required for high Reynolds
number flows. Therefore DNS cannot be applied for
flow of practical relevance in the foreseeable future.
A promising compromise is the Large Eddy
Simulation (LES). In a “real” LES (from the
turbulence research point of view) all anisotropic
turbulence structures are resolved in the
computation and only the smallest isotropic scales
are modeled. Therefore the used turbulence models
can be simpler compared to RANS models, since
they only have to describe the influence of the
isotropic scales on the resolved anisotropic flow
field. Unfortunately with increasing Reynolds
numbers the anisotropic scales decreases and cannot
be resolved in the computation of flow of practical
relevance, although there are many “LES”
applications in the literature. However from the
turbulence research point of view these simulations
are mostly unsteady RANS (URANS), since they
only resolve the unsteady mean flow but do not
resolve any turbulence structures.
In order to apply a “classical” URANS there
must be a gap in the turbulence spectrum between
the unsteady mean flow and the turbulent flow.
Only then the classical turbulence models (e.g. k-ε)
can be applied, as they are developed for modeling
the whole range of turbulent scales. If it is not
possible to distinguish between mean flow and
turbulence these models cannot be applied properly.
In this case a Very Large Eddy Simulation
(VLES) can be applied. Contrary to URANS there
is a requirement for the turbulence model, that it can
distinguish between numerically resolved unsteady
movement and not resolved turbulent fluctuations
which have to be modeled. VLES is similar to LES,
only that a smaller part of the turbulence spectrum
is resolved in the unsteady simulation. The model
must express the influence of a greater part of the
spectrum and therefore it has to be more
sophisticated.
As mentioned above DNS and LES requires a
much too high computational effort for complex
industrial problems. RANS is not suitable for
unsteady vortex phenomena. For this type of
problem today VLES seems to be a promising way.
In Table 1 the availability of the different
approaches for the simulation of the flow around an
aircraft is summarized. This data apply similarly for
other complex flow problems.
Table 1: Application of the different approaches to
the flow around an aircraft [1].
In this paper the development of a VLES
turbulence model is presented. The model is based
on the extended k-ε model of Chen and Kim [2]. By
adding an appropriate filtering techniques - which
depends on the local grid spacing and the
computational time step - the new turbulence model
distinguishes between resolved and modeled part of
the turbulent spectrum. It has an adaptive
characteristic, in such a way that it can be applied
for the whole range of approaches from RANS up
to DNS.
The presented application of the new adaptive
turbulence model is the flow in a pipe trifurcation of
a water power plant. In the spherical geometry an
unsteady not periodic vortex motion has been
observed. This phenomenon is predicted by the
adaptive model.
2. SIMULATION METHOD
2.1 Very large Eddy Simulation (VLES)
“Real” Large Eddy Simulation (LES) from the
turbulence research point of view require an
enormous computational effort since all anisotropic
turbulence structures have to be resolved in the
computation and only the smallest isotropic scales
are modeled. Consequently this method also can not
be applied for industrial problems today.
Today’s calculations of flows of practical
relevance (characterized by complex geometry and
high Reynolds number) are usually based on the
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
equations. This means that the influence of the
complete turbulence behavior is expressed by
means of an appropriate turbulence model. To find a
turbulence model, which is able to capture a wide
range of complex flow effects quite accurate is
impossible. Especially for unsteady flow behavior
this method often leads to rather poor results. The
RANS and LES approach can schematically be seen
in Figure 1, where a typical turbulent spectrum and
its division in resolved and modeled parts is shown.
Figure 1: Modelling approach for RANS and LES.
The recently new established approach of Very
Large Eddy Simulation can lead to quite promising
results, especially for unsteady vortex motion.
Contrary to URANS there is a requirement to the
applied turbulence model, that it can distinguish
between resolved unsteady motion and not resolved
turbulent motion which must be included in the
model. It is similar to LES, only that a minor part of
the turbulence spectrum is resolved (schematically
shown in Figure 2). VLES is also found in the
literature under different other names:
- Semi-Deterministic Simulation (SDS),
- Coherent Structure Capturing (CSC),
- Detached Eddy Simulation (DES),
- Hybrid RANS/LES,
- Limited Numerical Scales (LNS).
Figure 2: Turbulence treatment in VLES.
2.2 Numerical Method
The calculations are carried out using the
program FENFLOSS which has been developed at
the institute for more than a decade [3,4].
The partial differential equations are solved by
a Galerkin Finite Element Method. The spatial
discretization of the domain is performed by 8-node
hexahedral elements. For the velocity components
and the turbulence quantities a tri-linear
approximation is applied. The pressure is assumed
to be constant within each element. For advection
dominated flow a Petrov-Galerkin formulation of
2nd order with skewed upwind orientated weighting
functions is applied. The time discretization is done
by a three-level fully implicit finite difference
approximation of 2nd order.
For the solution of the momentum and
continuity equation a segregated solution algorithm
is used. Each momentum equation is handled
independently. The momentum equations are
linearized by successive substitution. The linear
systems are solved by the BICGSTAB2 algorithm
of van der Vorst [5] with an incomplete LU
decomposition (ILU) for preconditioning. The
pressure is treated by a modified Uzawa type
pressure correction scheme [6]. The pressure
correction is carried out in a local iteration loop
without reassembling the system matrices until the
continuity error is reduced by a given order (usually
6-10 iterations needed).
After the solution of the momentum and
continuity equations the turbulence quantities are
calculated and a new turbulence viscosity is
obtained. The k- and ε-equations are also linearized
by successive substitution and the linear systems are
solved by the BICGSTAB2 algorithm with ILU
preconditioning. The whole procedure is carried out
in a global iteration until convergence is obtained.
For unsteady simulations the global iteration has to
be carried out in each time step.
The parallelization of the code is introduced by
domain decomposition using double overlapping
grids. The linear equation solver BICGSTAB2 is
carried out in parallel and the data exchange
between the domains is organized on the level of
the matrix-vector multiplication in the BICGSTAB2
solver. The preconditioning is carried out locally on
each domain. The data exchange is carried out using
MPI (Message Passing Interface) on machines with
distributed memory. On shared-memory-computers
the code runs also parallel by applying OpenMP.
For details on the numerical procedures and
parallelization the reader is referred to [7,8].
3. ADAPTIVE TURBULENCE MODEL
Classical turbulence models, which are usually
applied in engineering flow predictions, contain the
whole turbulent spectrum. They usually show a too
viscous behavior and very often damp out unsteady
motion to early. As discussed above the turbulence
model for the VLES have to distinguish between the
resolved and unresolved part of the turbulent
spectrum (Figure 2). Therefore an adaptive model
is developed, which adjusts its behavior according
to the approach (schematically shown in Figure 3).
This means that this model can be applied for all
approaches.
Figure 3: Adjustment for adaptive model.
The advantage of the adaptive model is, that
with increasing computer power the resolved part of
the turbulent spectrum increases and the modeled
part decreases and consequently the accuracy of the
calculations improves.
There are several filtering techniques in the
literature [e. g. 9-11]. Here a filtering techniques
similar to Willems [12] is applied. In the following
the new adaptive turbulence is presented. The  u ⋅ ∆t  ∆V for 2D
nomenclature of resolved and modeled parts can be ∆ = α ⋅ max  with h max =  3 (6)
 h max  ∆V for 3D
seen in Figure 4.
with a model constant (α= 2 to 5). ∆V is the volume
of the local element, u is the local velocity and ∆t is
the time step. The Kolmogorov scale L is given as
k3/2
L= . (7)
ε
The filtering procedure leads to the final
equations
 )
∂k ∂k ∂ ν t  ∂k  )
+ Uj =  ν +   + Pk − ε (8)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σ k  ∂x j 
and
 )
Figure 4: Distinguishing of turbulence spectrum for ∂ε ∂ε ∂ ν t  ∂ε  ε)
VLES. + Uj =  ν +   + c 1ε Pk
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σ k  ∂x j  k
) (9)
The basis of this adaptive model is the k-ε ε2 P  )
− c 2ε + c 3 ε  k  ⋅ Pk
model of Chen and Kim [2]. This model has been k  k 
chosen, because it is quite simple and its results are with the production term
much better – especially for unsteady flows –
) )  ∂U ∂U j  ∂U i
compared to the standard k-ε model. The transport Pk = ν t  i +  . (10)
equations for k and ε are given as  ∂x ∂xi  ∂x
 j  j

∂k ∂k ∂  ν t  ∂k  For details on the model and its development

+ Uj =  ν +   + Pk − ε (1)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σ k  ∂x j  the reader is referred to Ruprecht [4].
The simulation of vortex shedding, which can
∂ε ∂ε ∂  ν t  ∂ε  ε
+ Uj =  ν +   + c 1ε Pk be considered as a very convenient test case for
∂t ∂x j ∂x j  σ k  ∂x j  k CFD computations, shows very often great
ε2 P  difficulties when applying URANS. For example
− c 2ε + c 3 ε  k  ⋅ Pk (2) applying URANS with the standard k-ε model to
k
14 42k 
44 3 the flow behind a bluff trailing edge (Figure 5)
additional term
leads to a steady state solution. The vortex shedding
is suppressed by the too diffusive turbulence model.
These equations prescribe the whole turbulence Applying a more sophisticated turbulence model, e.
spectrum and therefore a filtering procedure has to g. the extended k-ε model of Kim and Chen [2], the
be implemented. vortex shedding is obtained. The comparison is
According to Kolmogorov theory it can be shown in Figure 6, where the streamlines at a
assumed that the dissipation rate is equal for all certain time step are plotted.
scales. This leads to
)
ε = ε. (3)
However the turbulent kinetic energy needs a
filtering
)   ∆ 
k = k ⋅ 1 − f   . (4)
  L 
A suitable filter can be obtained to
0 for ∆ ≥L
 2/3
f = ∆ (5)
1− L>∆
  L 
for Figure 5: Flow behind bluff trailing edge.

where

Figure 6: Streamlines of the vortex shedding
behind bluff trailing edge.
Figure 7: Vortex shedding behind a bluff trailing
edge, pressure distribution, comparison of Kim &
Chen model and adaptive VLES model.
Furthermore by more detailed observation of
the obtained results, a relatively strong damping of
vortex shedding in the downstream flow is noticed
applying the Kim and Chen model.
Using the VLES method the results severely
improve. In Figure 7 the pressure distribution
behind the bluff trailing edge clearly shows a
reduced damping of the vortex motion, which
coincided better with experimental observations.
4. APPLICATION
4.1 Problem description
The application presented is the flow in a pipe
trifurcation of a water power plant. The water
passage consists of the upper reservoir, channel,
surge tank, penstock, trifurcation and three turbines.
The trifurcation distributes the water from the
penstock into the three branches to the turbines. It
has a spherical shape because of structural reasons.
The water passage is partly shown in Figure 8.
In the power plant severe power oscillations
were encountered at the outer turbines 1 and 3, in
the range of +/-10% of nominal power. A vortex
instability could be discovered as a reason for that.
A vortex is forming in the sphere, starting at the top
and extending into a side branch. After a certain
period it changes its behavior and extends to the
opposite side branch, again for a certain time
period. Then it jumps back again. The two vortex
positions are schematically shown in Figure 9. This
unstable vortex motion, which is not periodic,
causes the power fluctuations, since the vortex
produces very high losses in the branch, in which it
is actually located, because of strong swirling inlet
flow to the branch. These losses reduce the head of
the turbine and consequently the power output. In
the following the simulation of this vortex
movement is presented and the results are compared
with measurement in a model test.
Figure 8: Water passage with trifurcation.
Figure 9: Unsteady vortex structures.
4.2 Unsteady vortex simulation
For the simulation the geometry is discretized
by approximately 500.000 elements. The
computational grid, shown in Figure 10, is
decomposed into 32 partitions and the computations
are run on a CRAY T3E.
Applying URANS with the standard k-ε model
leads to a steady state solution. The obtained vortex
structure is shown in Figure 11. The vortex ranges
from one side branch to the other. It is completely
stable and the swirl component is severely
Figure 12: Flow in the trifurcation, vortex position
underpredicted. This also leads to an
in branch 1.
underprediction of the losses in the side branches.
The URANS is not able to predict the unsteady flow
phenomenon.

Figure 13: Flow in the trifurcation, vortex position

in branch 2.

Figure 10: Computational grid.
Applying VLES with the adaptive turbulence
model the unstable vortex movement can be
predicted. In Figure 12 the flow at a certain time
step is presented. In this time step the vortex
extends into the first side branch. It starts at the top
of the sphere. The vortex is prescribed by an iso-
pressure surface and by instantaneous streamlines.
Some time later, Figure 13, the vortex has
“jumped” to the opposite side branch. Since the
geometry is not completely symmetric the vortex
stays longer in branch 3 than in branch 1. This is
shown in the simulation as well as in model tests.
Due to the strong swirl at the inlet to the side
branch, in which the vortex is located, the inlet
losses into this branch are much higher compared to
the others. Consequently the discharge through this
branch is reduced. In Figure 14 the discharge
characteristic is shown. It is obvious, that the
discharge varies alternatively between the two side
branches. Low discharge corresponds with the
location of the vortex in this branch. If the vortex is
located in the other side branch the discharge is
high. The discharge in the middle branch only
shows much smaller oscillations.
Left
Middle
Discharge in %

Right

Time in s
Figure 11: Vortex structure obtained by URANS Figure 14: Discharge through the different
with k-ε turbulence model. branches.
 Loss coefficient ζ
right

left

middle
Time in s

Figure 15: Loss coefficients of the three branches Figure 16: Test rig at ASTRÖ, Graz.

In the simulation a free outflow boundary

condition is applied at the end of the branches. In
reality, however, the turbine is located there.
Consequently the discharge variation is rather small
since the flow rate through the different branches is
prescribed by the turbines. For comparison with
experimental data therefore the loss coefficients are
calculated and compared with the model test data.
In Figure 15 the loss coefficients for the three
branches are presented. It can be observed, that the Figure 17: Vortex in the trifurcation, measurements
branch on the right hand side shows the highest of ASTRÖ.
values and has a strong variation. The loss
coefficient of the middle branch is nearly constant. Comparing the measured loss coefficients with
the ones from the simulation (Figure 15) one can
4.3 Model tests observe, that the maximum values are still
Model tests were carried out at ASTRÖ in Graz, underpredicted. For the right hand side branch the
Austria. For details on the measurements the reader numerical simulation shows a maximum of 6
is referred to [13]. In Figure 16 the test rig is whereas in the measurements the value of 8 is
shown, looking down from the penstock to the obtained. The values for the left hand side branch
trifurcation. The trifurcation was build in acrylic are clearly lower (approximately 3 in the simulation
glass so that the vortex motion could be observed. and 4 in the measurements). The overall tendency
In Figure 17 the view from a top of the of the flow, however, is well predicted. Also the
trifurcation is shown. One can see the vortex quantitative prediction is quite reasonable.
starting at the top and expanding into the side
branch. The vortex is made visible by reducing the
pressure level, that small cavitation bubbles appear
in the vortex center but without disturbing the flow
structure severely. In the model tests the vortex also
moves from one side to the other, as described
above.
From the pressure and discharge measurement
the loss coefficients of the different branches were
calculated. In Figure 18 the variations are shown. Figure 18: Loss coefficients for the different
branches, measurements by ASTRÖ.

The underprediction of the loss coefficient is

assumed to be due to the rather coarse grid on one
side. On the other side it is due to the strong
anisotropic turbulence behavior, which can not be
predicted accurately by a turbulence model based
on the eddy viscosity assumption. Therefore it is
intended to develop an adaptive, algebraic
Reynolds-stress model in future.
4.4 Problem solution
In order to solve the oscillation problem in the
hydro power plant, the trifurcation was changed. To
avoid the forming of the vortex the upper and lower
region of the sphere is cut off by welding in flat
blades. The modified shape is shown in Figure 19.
In the meantime this modification has been carried
out and the power oscillations disappeared. As a
side effect the power output increased severely
since the losses in the trifurcation decreased without
the existing of the vortices.
Figure 19: Modified trifurcation to avoid the power
oscillations.
5. CONCLUSIONS
An adaptive turbulence model for Very Large
Eddy Simulation is presented. The model is based
on the extended k-ε model of Kim and Chen. By
introducing a filtering technique the model can
distinguish between numerically resolved and
unresolved parts.
Applying this new model the unstable vortex
motion in a pipe trifurcation is calculated. This flow
phenomenon could not be predicted with classical
RANS methods and usually used turbulence
models. By applying the VLES method with a new
turbulence model the phenomenon can be obtained
and the results agree quite reasonable with
measurement data. The vortex swirl, however, is
still underpredicted. A further improvement is
expected by applying an adaptive Reynolds-stress
model to account for the anisotropy of the
turbulence in swirling flows.
6. REFERENCES
[1] De Langhe C., Dick E. Very Large Eddy
Simulation of Turbulent Flows.
http://allserv.rug.ac.be/~edick/
[2] Chen, Y. S., Kim, S. W. (1987): Computation of
turbulent flows using an extended k-ε turbulence
closure model, NASA CR-179204.
[3] Ruprecht, A. (1989): Finite Elemente zur Be-
rechnung dreidimensionaler turbulenter Strömungen
in komplexen Geometrien, Doctorate Thesis, Uni-
versity of Stuttgart.
[4] Ruprecht A. (2003): Numerische Strömungs-
simulation am Beispiel hydraulischer Strömungs-
maschinen. Habilitationsschrift, Universität Stutt-
gart.
[5] Van der Vorst, H. A., (1994): Recent
Developments in Hybrid CG Methods, Proc. High
Performance Computing & Networking, München,
1994.
[6] Zienkiewicz, O.C., Vilotte, J. P., Toyoshima, S.,
Nakazawa, S. (1985): Iterative method for
constrained and mixed finite approximation. An
inexpensive improvement of FEM performance,
Comp. Meth. Appl. Mech. Eng., 51.
[7] Maihöfer, M. (2002): Effiziente Verfahren zur
Berechnung dreidimensionaler Strömungen mit
nichtpassenden Gittern, Dissertation Universität
Stuttgart.
[8] Maihöfer, M., Ruprecht, A. (2003): A Local
Grid Refinement Algorithm on Modern High-
Performance Computers, Parallel CFD, Moskau.
[9] Spalart, P. R., Jou, W. H. Strelets M, Allmaras,
S. R. (1997): Comments on the Feasibility of LES
for Wings, and on Hybrid RANS/LES Approach,
1st AFOSR International Conference on DNS/LES
Rouston.
[10] Constantinescu, G. S., Squires, K. D. (2000):
LES and DES Investigations of Turbulent flow over
a Sphere, AIAA-2000-0540.
[11] Magnato, F., Gabi, M., “A new adaptive turbu-
lence model for unsteady flow fields in rotating ma-
chinery”, ISROMAC 8, 2000.
[12] Willems, W., Peters, N. (1997): Large Eddy
Simulation of a Turbulent Mixing Layer Using a
New Two-Level-Turbulence Model, 11th Symp. On
Turb. Shear Flows, Grenoble.
[13] Hoffmann, H., Roswora, R. R., Egger, A.
(2000): Rectification of Marsyangdi Trifurcation,
Hydro Vision 2000, Charlotte.