This article was downloaded by: [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA]

On: 23 February 2014, At: 15:57

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gcfd20

Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes modelling for

industrial applications and some challenging issues
a b b
Charles Hirsch & Benoit Tartinville
a
Vrije Uuniversiteit Brussel, Department of Fluid Mechanics , Brussels, Belgium
b
Numeca Int., Av. Franklin Roosevelt , 5, Brussels 1050, Belgium
Published online: 13 May 2009.

To cite this article: Charles Hirsch & Benoit Tartinville (2009) Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes modelling for industrial
applications and some challenging issues, International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics, 23:4, 295-303, DOI:
10.1080/10618560902773379

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10618560902773379

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics
Vol. 23, No. 4, April–May 2009, 295–303

Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes modelling for industrial applications and some challenging issues
Charles Hirscha,b* and Benoit Tartinvilleb
a
Vrije Uuniversiteit Brussel, Department of Fluid Mechanics, Brussels, Belgium; bNumeca Int., Av. Franklin Roosevelt,
5, Brussels 1050, Belgium
(Received 28 October 2008; final version received 22 January 2009)

CFD simulations with the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model have become the widespread standard
in industry, forming the underlying base for numerous design procedures. This raises the issue of the reliability of the
associated turbulence models and to a lesser extent of the numerical accuracy and associated errors. The article
provides an overview of representative industrial applications and questions raised concerning identified weaknesses
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014

of current turbulence models.

Keywords: turbulence modelling; discretisation errors; artificial dissipation; turbulent mixing

computes directly the turbulent fluctuations in space

Introduction
The current development of computer hardware has
opened the way towards more advanced turbulence
modelling of industrial relevant flow simulations and
the essential question facing the CFD application is the
choice of how turbulence (and possible laminar-
turbulent transition) is modelled.
It is well known indeed that any flow system will
remain laminar up to a certain critical value of the
Reynolds number and that above a critical value of the
Reynolds number, all flow systems become turbulent,
characterised by the appearance of statistical fluctuations
of all the variables (velocity, pressure, density, tempera-
ture, etc.) around mean values. These fluctuations are a
form of instability of the flow system, as a consequence of
the nonlinear convection terms and they cannot be
described anymore in a deterministic way.
However, they can be computed numerically in
direct simulations of turbulence (DNS) or at a lower
level of approximation by the ‘large eddy simulation’
(LES) approach, whereby only the small-scale turbu-
lent fluctuations are modelled and the larger scale
fluctuations are computed directly.
The applications of CFD to real life flow systems,
in nature or in technology, require the ability to handle
turbulent flows and to take into account the effects of
turbulence on the mean flow. Because DNS is not a
candidate in the foreseeable future for industrial
applications, we need approximate models to represent
turbulence.
Two families of models are presently available:
LES is of the same category as DNS, in that it
and time, but only above a certain length scale. Below
the subgrid scale, the turbulence is modelled by semi-
empirical laws.
The other family, the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-
Stokes (RANS) model, ignores the turbulent fluctua-
tions and aims at calculating only the turbulent-
averaged flow. This is currently the most widely
applied approximation in the CFD practice.
The hierarchy between these three levels of
turbulence modelling is summarised in Figure 1, which
shows the turbulent energy spectrum in function of
wave number k, and the limits of the range of
application of LES and RANS models. The question
mark represents the variable and mesh dependent limit
of the LES subgrid range.
The issue of turbulence modelling
LES of turbulent flows
The equations describing LES models are obtained
from the Navier-Stokes conservation laws by a filtering
operation whereby the equations are averaged over the
part of the spectrum that is not computed, that is over
the smaller length scales (the high wave number
region). In practice, the lowest identified scales are
related to the mesh size and therefore the LES models
require subgrid scale models.
Because the remaining larger scale turbulent
fluctuations are directly simulated, the computational
requirements on LES are still very high. It can be
shown that for a resolution of n points per unit length
of the simulated eddies, the number of arithmetic

*Corresponding author. Email: charles.hirsch@numeca.be

ISSN 1061-8562 print/ISSN 1029-0257 online

Ó 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10618560902773379
http://www.informaworld.com
 296 C. Hirsch and B. Tartinville
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014
Figure 1. Energy spectrum of turbulence in function of
wave number k, with indication of the range of application of
the DNS, LES and RANS models. Courtesy C. Fureby (FOI,
Sweden).
operations will scale with n3.Re3/2 and taking into
account the time integration, the total computational
effort for LES is proportional to Re9/4. This is
significantly lower than the DNS requirements, but
still excessively high for large Reynolds number
applications, particularly for wall-bounded flows.
A domain where LES is clearly coming close to
practical industrial applications is the modelling of
combustion phenomena, particularly as the main flame
domain is at a distance from the walls.
For many applications involving wall-bounded
flows and attached boundary layers, various hybrid
combinations of LES and RANS are being considered,
such as Detached Eddy Simulation (DES), whereby the
RANS approximation is kept in the regions where the
boundary layers are attached to the solid walls. A
recent account can be found in Haase et al. (2006).
Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations
The most widely applied approximation for industrial
applications of CFD is the approximation whereby the
turbulent equations are averaged out, in time, over the
whole spectrum of turbulent fluctuations, requiring
empirical or at least semi-empirical information on the
turbulence structure and its relation to the averaged
flow.
A large variety of models, from simple algebraic
relations to transport equations for turbulent
quantities, such as the turbulent kinetic energy, the
turbulent dissipation or even transport equations for
the Reynolds stress components have been developed
and applied with varying degrees of success. See for
instance Haase et al. (2006) for a recent review of
turbulence models.
It is to be mentioned that none of the available
turbulence models offers today a totally accurate
description of turbulent flows and although the
RANS approximations is the most widely used in
practice, the turbulent model components are their
weakest link, as illustrated by numerous industrial
examples.
Although hybrid LES-RANS models would lead to
a higher level of description of the physics of
turbulence, their computational cost is still between
two and three orders of magnitude higher than steady
state RANS simulations. Hence, we have to consider
that RANS models will remain the basic models for
current and future industrial applications.
The complexity of industrial configurations, for
external flows under higher incidences, or with internal
flows, not to mention numerous applications involving
heat transfer, lead to challenging situations for RANS
type turbulence models.
Two essential questions arise in connection with
RANS turbulence models: a numerical issue related to
the required level of accuracy of the discretisation, in
particular of the convection terms and the reliability of
the turbulence models in complex flow environments,
as encountered in numerous industrial applications, in
particular in presence of turbulent mixing and of
regions of flow separation. Another critical issue,
which can be considered as of a higher level of
difficulty relates to the predictions of laminar-turbulent
transition. This remains a major problem today and
still requires numerous investigations before being able
to take into account all the modes of transition.
The numerical discretisation of turbulence models
The accuracy of CFD simulations is highly dependent
on the grid quality, in terms of mesh density, but more
importantly in terms of grid uniformity, in complex
configurations and with unstructured grids. The user
should ensure smooth grids, avoiding abrupt changes
in grid size or shape, as this can lead to a significant
loss of accuracy. The following recommendations can
be made, Hirsch (2007)
. Avoid jumps in grid density or in grid size.
. Avoid highly distorted cells or small grid angles.
. Ensure that the grid stretching is continuous.
. Avoid unstructured tetrahedral meshes in
boundary layer regions.
 International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics
. Refine the grids in regions with high gradients,
such as boundary layers, leading edges of airfoils
and any region where large changes in flow
properties might occur.
. Make sure that the number of points in the
boundary layers is sufficient for the expected
accuracy; more than 10 points over the inner part
of the boundary layer thickness should be
considered.
. Monitor the grid quality by adequate mesh
parameters, available in most of the grid
generators, such as aspect ratio, internal angle,
concavity, skewness, negative volume.
Tough quantitative evaluation strongly depends on
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014
the flow solver and on the region of the flow domain
where the constraint is applied, one could advise to use
a mesh with an aspect ratio lower than 2,000 and a
minimum grid angle of 158 degrees. Following these
guidelines will ensure optimal convergence, provided
the numerical schemes obey also some basic rules, such
as monotonicity, in order to avoid spurious oscilla-
tions. This raises the issue of the order of accuracy of
the numerical discretisation, in particular for the
convection terms. It is a current practice to discretise
the convection terms of the turbulent transport
equations with a first order upwind scheme, to ensure
robustness and monotonicity. The numerical dissipa-
tion associated with first order upwind scheme is
generally considered as excessive, see Hirsch (2007) for
more details, but this is overshadowed by the strong
influence of the source terms, as opposed to the
situation with the basic conservation laws, which do
not have significant source terms. Our experience with
various turbulent models, comparing second order
discretisations with first order on different grids, did
not show any significant difference in the results,
confirming that the source terms have a dominating
effect. The only observation was a reduction of
robustness with the second order scheme. According
to P. Spalart (private communication) the calibration
of the model constants of the Spalart–Allmaras
model are not influenced by the first order discretisa-
tion of the convection terms, as this was done on
such simple flows that the numerical solutions were
grid-converged.
The question may arise, however, if high order
schemes are considered for the basic RANS equations,
a subject of recent interest; Venkatakrishnan et al.
(2003), Ladeinde et al. (2006), Wolkov et al. (2007).
This will require the higher order discretisation of the
turbulent transport equations, opening a new area of
research. An alternative option can be considered by
applying adaptive grids but this leaves still many
problems open, associated to the grid complexity and
297
also to the issue of keeping the load balance of the
partitions with massive parallel simulations.
On the other hand, with implicit methods, fully
coupled Jacobians for the momentum and turbulence
equations together should be considered, for theore-
tical reasons. However, taking into account the full
Jacobians raises serious problems of robustness,
because of the nonlinear properties of the source
terms. Hence, we need simplifications, such as linear-
isations, or reduction to point implicit approach, or to
a full decoupling of the turbulence model equations,
which is widely applied.
The modelling of separation
Attached flows can be considered as well represented
by current turbulence models, but most of the
industrial flows are associated with local separation
regions which can have a significant effect on the flow
evolution and global performance of the flow systems.
This is particular the case with internal flows, where
the separation effects are amplified by the closed
environment and the accumulated wall effects.
We discuss here two representative test cases
illustrating a well known deficiency of turbulence
models in presence of subsonic separation and a
second surprising case of transonic shock induced
separations, leading to numerical non-symmetrical
solutions with certain turbulence models.
The OBI diffuser
An asymmetric plane diffuser at a Reynolds number,
based on the channel height of about 20,000 is
considered here. This test case is based on the
experiments performed by Obi et al. (1993) and Buice
and Eaton (1997). Because a close examination of the
data from Obi et al. (1993) revealed inconsistencies in
the two-dimensional mass and momentum balances,
the experiment was repeated by Buice and Eaton
(1997), and the latter dataset is used here. Computa-
tions are performed on a grid made of 39,000 cells. The
clustering at the solid walls has been defined to have yþ
close to unity at the first inner cell along the inclined
and the flat walls. Five different turbulence models are
used: the models of Spalart and Allmaras (1992), the
k-e model of Yang and Shih (1993), Wilcox k-o model
(1988), Menter’s SST variant (1994) and the variant of
the v2-f model described by Lien and Kalitzin (2001).
The description of these various models as well as
details on this test case and an extended set of results
can be found in Haase et al. (2006).
Figure 2 shows the influence of the choice of the
turbulence model on the length of the recirculation
zone, as well as comparisons between calculated and
 298 C. Hirsch and B. Tartinville
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014

Figure 2. Comparison of RANS simulations with different turbulence models for the OBI axisymmetric diffuser. The top figure
(including streamlines in red and the velocity magnitude in colour) shows the position and extends of the separation region,
whereas the bottom figure compares calculated and measured pressure distribution, wall shear stress at the bottom wall, and
velocity profiles at the four positions indicated in the lower insert. (Courtesy Haase et al. 2006.)

measured pressure distribution and wall shear stress at
the bottom wall, velocity profiles at the positions
indicated in the lower insert. From these figures it
appears that the k-e and k-o models are unable to
properly capture the recirculation region and that
more recent turbulence models such as the SST and v2-
f models produce a maximum backward velocity that is
closer to experimental data. Such a finding has also
been observed by Iaccarino (2000) when using k-e and
v2-f models. It can be observed that the Spalart–
Allmaras turbulence model results do match pretty
well on the measured velocity profile at the down-
stream corner of the inclined wall. The last figure is
noteworthy, as it demonstrates a clear weakness of all
the tested turbulence models, in that the velocity
profile in the downstream duct of the diffuser is
experimentally fully recovered, whereas the calculated
profiles still show remaining effects of their earlier
separation. Furthermore, the pressure recovery along
the inclined wall is over-estimated by all the models.
This is in accordance with the observed underestima-
tion of the velocity above this wall, resulting from an
underestimated extends of the separation region.
Furthermore, LES of this test case can also be
found in the literature (Kaltenbach et al. 1999). They
show a very good agreement between experimental
data and computed results in the recirculation region.
For instance, the location of the separation and
 International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics
Figure 3. Typical mesh for the UCAM wind tunnel, showing here half of the tunnel section, with the upper wall removed for
display.
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014
reattachment points are accurately predicted when
compared with data from Buice and Eaton. (1997).
The agreement between results from LES without
sidewalls and the experimental data also confirms the
nearly two-dimensional nature of the flow, although
separation is often tri-dimensional. Because the velo-
city profiles far downstream of the diffuser are not
shown in this article, we cannot state if the velocity
recovery is well captured by LES. This test case clearly
shows that current turbulence models need serious
improvements for prediction of separated flows, as well
as for the prediction of the mixing-recovery effects. We
can hope that the gained knowledge on turbulence
from advanced DNS and LES will contribute to this
highly needed improvement of current turbulence
models.
Shock-boundary layer interactions in internal flows
This case is part of the current UFAST EU project
(http://www.ufast.gda.pl/) aimed at the investigation
of unsteady effects of shock wave induced separation.
Experimental data are obtained at the University of
Cambridge (UCAM) by the team of Dr. Olger
Babinsky on the interaction of a planar normal shock
with a turbulent boundary layer (Bruce and Babinsky
2008). Three cases are considered: Mach number 1.3,
1.4 and 1.5. At a Mach number of about 1.3, the
boundary layer remains attached; on the other hand at
the higher Mach numbers of 1.4 and 1.5, a separation
appears downstream of the shock. The Reynolds
number based on the boundary layer thickness
30 mm upstream of the shock is of the order of
200,000.
Grid and computation settings
To have a proper development of the boundary layer
downstream of the sonic throat, the nozzle was
included in the computational domain and the full
299
3D geometry of the wind tunnel has been meshed. A
block-structured mesh with about 3.3 6 106 cells has
been generated. The clustering at the solid walls has
been defined to have yþ close to unity at the first inner
cell and the maximum expansion ratio in the boundary
layer is about 1.2 (Figure 1).
The Euranus flow solver from Numeca Interna-
tional has been used to perform these simulations. It is
a structured multi-block Navier-Stokes code using
finite volume approach. Central-space discretisation is
employed together with Jameson type artificial dis-
sipation. A four-stage Runge-Kutta scheme is selected
for the temporal discretisation. Multi-grid, local time
stepping and implicit residual smoothing are also used
to speed-up the convergence.
At the nozzle entry, the total pressure and
temperature are imposed in accordance with figures
provided by UCAM. The walls are assumed adiabatic
and smooth. The outlet, where the static pressure is
imposed, is located 330 mm downstream of the
measured shock position.
According to information provided by UCAM the
exact location of the laminar to turbulent transition is
unknown. Because the location of the shock wave
should strongly depend on the thickness of the
turbulent boundary layer, it has been decided to adapt
the outlet pressure in order to match the location of the
experimental shock wave.
Application uncertainties
Because of the lack of precise information or to
simplifications (for instance in the geometry) several
uncertainties can potentially affect the results of the
CFD calculation and its comparison to experimental
data. Two major uncertainties can be listed:
. According to report from UCAM, the location
of the laminar to turbulent transition is
unknown.
 300 C. Hirsch and B. Tartinville
. The inlet boundary conditions for the turbulent
quantities are unknown.
The surprising appearance of non-symmetrical solutions
At the higher Mach numbers 1.4 and 1.5 involving
separations, CFD results obtained with different
codes exhibit nonsymmetrical solutions, depending
on the turbulence model used, whereas the geo-
metry is symmetrical while the experiments seem to
indicate symmetrical flow patterns, although slight
asymmetries cannot totally be excluded, as seen from
Figure 4.
CFD results on the UCAM configuration have
been computed with a variety of turbulence models. At
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014
the lowest Mach, whatever turbulence model is used all
the results display a symmetrical behaviour. At Mach
1.4, the Spalart–Allmaras and SST turbulence model
produce a non-symmetrical solution, whereas the k-e
model leads to a symmetrical solution. At the highest
Mach of 1.5, no symmetrical solution was obtained. It
Figure 4. Oil flow visualisation from UCAM (M ¼ 1.5) (left) and IMP (M ¼ 1.45) (right).
Figure 5. Convergence history with different turbulence models.
appears also that the solution is symmetrical on
coarser grid levels, and becomes non-symmetrical
when using a refined mesh. Furthermore, a series of
numerical tests have been performed to verify the
sensitivity of the non-symmetrical solutions to numer-
ical schemes and parameters. None of the tests
suppressed the non-symmetrical behaviour.
To investigate if the non-symmetrical pattern is
only linked to the Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model
a series of simulations have been conducted with six
different turbulence models: Baldwin–Lomax, Spalart–
Allmaras, k-e, k-o, SST and v2-f. All the other
parameters of these simulations are identical. Because
even the back-pressure is maintained fixed for all these
simulations, the shock location depends on the
predicted location of the laminar to turbulent transi-
tion, and could be different from the experimental
shock location at x ¼ 0.6 m.
The convergence history of all these simulations is
displayed in Figure 5. The first finding is that the
Baldwin–Lomax model cannot converge at the same
 International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics
level as the other models. It appears that two models
produce a convergence in two steps: the Spalart–
Allmaras and the SST, appearing to converge first to
a symmetrical solution, followed by an increase in
the residuals which further converge to the non-
symmetrical solution. The other models converge
continuously towards a residual of 1076. The v2-f
model has a more erratic behaviour with a residual
drop between 1075 and 1076. All calculations are
performed in single precision.
The solutions are displayed on Figures 6 and 7 and
two important recirculation zones can also be observed
in the corners, showing that the flow is highly tri-
dimensional. The asymmetry seems to be driven by the
excessive corner separation and several questions still
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014
remain unanswered. Even if the experiments would
indicate some level of asymmetry, it remains far less
compared to the CFD results, which reveal some major
shortcomings in the prediction of separation, as already
mentioned with the OBI diffuser case. In particular, the
interaction length in CFD seems much greater than in
the experiments; the separation length in CFD seems
too large and too much effective blockage tends to be
predicted by the turbulence models.
Furthermore, to check the flow pattern without any
shock wave, a simulation has been conducted on the
fine mesh with the Spalart–Allmaras model with an
increased back pressure. The flow does not display any
non-symmetrical pattern indicating that the non-
symmetrical pattern is due to the shock-boundary
layer interaction and the induced three-dimensional
Figure 6. Mach number distribution at mid-span.
301
corner separation. Finally, and in order to further check
the possible causes of the non-symmetrical patterns, a
simulation has been performed on quarter of the
computational domain (assuming two planes of sym-
metry) with Spalart–Allmaras and k-e turbulence
models. Though the latter model produces a lambda
shock that is close to the observed one, the lambda shock
produced by the former is too thick and reaches the
symmetry plane. Furthermore, the corner flow separa-
tion is much more intense when using the Spalart–
Allmaras model compared to the k-e model. This means
that the non-symmetrical behaviour can be because
of a complex interplay between the turbulence model,
the corner flow separation, and the lambda shock.
A similar behaviour was observed on another test
case with a curved nozzle run at the IMP in Gdansk,
Poland; see Doerffer (2007) for some details. Experi-
mental data at Mach 1.35 and 1.45 for a flat wall
nozzle (UFAST case), an accelerating nozzle and
curved nozzle have been collected over the last years.
Calculations from IMP also showed CFD results on
the flat wall nozzle at Mach 1.45 with a nonsymmetrical
pattern when using the Spalart–Allmaras turbulence
model, while results at Mach 1.35 are symmetrical.
Calculations with three flow solvers Fine/Turbo,
SPARC and Fluent all produce a non-symmetrical
solution. When using either a coarser mesh, or the
Speziale et al. turbulence model, the solution remains
symmetrical. Computations performed by adding
chamfers at the flat walls with different thickness of
0.01, 1 and 5 mm – to be compared to the size of the
 302 C. Hirsch and B. Tartinville
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014
Figure 7. Limiting streamlines along bottom and lateral walls.
tunnel 100 mm – show that the nonsymmetrical
solution is suppressed with a thick enough chamfer.
This confirms that the asymmetrical solution is because
of the corner flow separation at the shock location.
Conclusions
RANS simulations are the current reference for
industrial CFD simulations in complex configurations,
and although many valuable results are obtained,
including applications towards CFD-based shape
optimisation, severe deficiencies have been identified
with all of the current turbulence models.
The most significant ones are related to the
inaccurate prediction of 2D and 3D separation and
to an insufficient incorporation of mixing effects, as
shown on the presented geometrical simple test cases.
It is expected that the accumulation of DNS and LES
databases will allow significant improvements in the
near future.
References
Bruce, P.J.K. and Babinsky, H., 2008. Unsteady shock wave
dynamics. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 603, 463–473.
Buice, C.U. and Eaton, J.L., 1997. Experimental investiga-
tion of flow through an asymmetric plane diffuser.
Report No.TSD-107, Thermosciences Division, Depart-
ment of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University,
Stanford, CA, USA.
Doerffer, P., 2007. European research on unsteady effects of
shock wave induced separation UFAST-project. In:
Proceedings of the 8th international symposium on
experimental and computational aerothermodynamics of
internal flows, ISAIF8-0051, Lyon, July 2007.
Haase, W., et al., eds., 2006. FLOMANIA - a European
initiative on flow physics modelling. Notes on numerical
fluid mechanics and multidisciplinary design (NNFM),
Vol. 94 XI. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
Hirsch, C., 2007. Numerical computation of internal and
external flows: the fundamentals of computational fluid
dynamics. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, Hardbound,
680 pages.
Iaccarino, G., 2000. Prediction of the turbulent flow in a
diffuser with commercial CFD codes. Center for turbu-
lence research. Annual research briefs, 271–278.
Kaltenbach, H.J., et al., 1999. Study of the flow in a planar
asymmetric diffuser using large eddy simulations. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics, 390, 150–185.
Ladeinde, F., et al., 2006. The first high-order CFD
simulation of aircraft: challenges and opportunities. In:
44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibition.
Reno, NV, USA. AIAA-Paper-2006–1526.
Lien, F.S. and Kalitzin, G., 2001. Computations of transonic
flow with the v2-f turbulence model. International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow, 22, 53–61.
Menter, F.R., 1994. Two-equations eddy-viscosity turbu-
lence models for engineering applications. AIAA Journal,
32, 1598–1605.
Obi, S., Aoki, K., and Masuda, S., 1993. Experimental
and computational study of turbulent separating
flow in an asymmetric plane diffuser. In: Ninth Sympo-
sium on turbulent shear flows, 16–19 August, Kyoto,
Japan, 305.
 International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics
Spalart, P.R. and Allmaras, S.R., 1992. A one-equation
turbulence model for aerodynamic flows. AIAA Paper,
92–0439.
Venkatakrishnan, V., et al., 2003. Higher order schemes for
the compressible Navier-Stokes equations. In: 16th AIAA
computational fluid dynamics conference, 23–26 June,
Orlando, FL. AIAA Paper 2003–3987.
Wilcox, D.C., 1988. Reassessment of the scale-determining
equation for advected turbulence model. AIAA Journal,
26, 1299–1310.
Downloaded by [INSA de Lyon - DOC INSA] at 15:57 23 February 2014
303
Wolkov, A., Hirsch, C., and Leonard, B., 2007. Discontin-
uous Galerkin method on unstructured hexahedral grids
for 3D Euler and Navier-Stokes equations. In: 18th
AIAA CFD conference, AIAA paper 2007–4078.
Yang, Z. and Shih, T.H., 1993. A k-e model for turbulence
and transitional boundary layer. In: R.M.C. So, ed. Near
wall turbulent flows, 165–175.