Partially-Averaged Navier-Stokes

Model for Turbulence: A

Sharath S. Girimaji
Department of Aerospace Engineering,
Texas A&M University,
College Station, TX 77843
Reynolds-Averaged
Navier-Stokes to Direct Numerical
Simulation Bridging Method
A turbulence bridging method purported for any filter-width or scale resolutionfully
averaged to completely resolvedis developed. The method is given the name partially
averaged Navier-Stokes (PANS) method. In PANS, the model filter width (extent of partial
averaging) is controlled through two parameters: the unresolved-to-total ratios of kinetic
energy f k and dissipation f . The PANS closure model is derived formally from the
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model equations by addressing the following
question: if RANS represents the closure for fully averaged statistics, what is the corre-
sponding closure for partially averaged statistics? The PANS equations vary smoothly
from RANS equations to Navier-Stokes (direct numerical simulation) equations, depend-
ing on the values of the filter-width control parameters. Preliminary results are very
encouraging. DOI: 10.1115/1.2151207

1 Introduction vestigation of fundamental premise or model validity. It is there-

Speziale 1 was among the first to propose a new turbulence
model paradigm that combines the advantages of Reynolds-
averaged Navier-Stokes RANS method with those of large-eddy
simulations LES. Speziale suggested that such a variable-filter
model must have the following qualities: it must function as i a
reasonably sophisticated RANS model when the intended cutoff
wave number is in the largest scales of motion, ii a LES subgrid
closure if the desired cutoff is in the inertial scales, and iii DNS
when all scales of motion are resolved. The development of such
a model was at first a mere academic exercise, but soon its im-
mense practical utility became apparent. In a variety of engineer-
ing flows involving large-scale unsteadiness, it became clear that
RANS approach was physically inadequate and LES was compu-
tationally too expensive. The need emerged for a turbulence
model that resolved only the largest dynamically important fluc-
tuating scales without the burden of having to resolve inertial
scales. Speziales pursuit of a turbulence closure method that
could function effectively at all levels of scale resolution or filter
width quickly attained engineering relevance. Presently, this ap-
proach is called a bridging or hybrid method. Currently, several
bridging strategies are under consideration: e.g., detached-eddy
simulations DES 2; hybrid RANS/LES; limited numerical
scales method LNS 3; unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier
Stokes method URANS 4; and very large-eddy simulations
VLES 1. The objective of these bridging models is to extract
important large-scale unsteady features of a turbulent flow at
minimal computational expense. The mixed methods resolve more
scales of motion than RANS and significantly lesser scales than a
typical LES. Compelled by immediate engineering needs, the
mixed methods are being increasingly used without adequate in-
Contributed by the Applied Mechanics Division of ASME for publication in the
JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received February 5, 2004; final manu-
script received November 8, 2005. Review conducted by D. Siginer. Discussion on
the paper should be addressed to the Editor, Prof. Robert M. McMeeking, Journal of
Applied Mechanics, Department of Mechanical and Environmental Engineering,
University of California-Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-5070, and will be
accepted until four months after final publication of the paper itself in the ASME
JOURNAL OF APPLIED MECHANICS.
fore important, and timely, to develop bridging models from first
principles.
We develop a bridging method inspired by the modeling para-
digm of Speziale 1. The method is given the name partially
averaged Navier-Stokes PANS model and is purported for any
filter widthfrom RANS to direct numerical simulations DNS.
We start with the premise that RANS closure provides a model for
the physical effect of averaging over all scales of fluctuations.
Therefore, we propose the model for the physical effect of partial
averaging must be incumbent in the RANS closure. The objective
of our work is to extract, from a given RANS, the latent PANS
model for partial averaging. The PANS development involves two
important steps. The first step is to identify the physically appro-
priate filter-width control parameters. We reason that the degree of
filtering can be best quantified by ratios of unresolved-to-total
kinetic energy and dissipation. For a PANS simulation, these
filter-control parameters must be specified. Given the control pa-
rameters, the second step is to derive the PANS equations from
the parent RANS closure by asking the question: if the RANS
equations represent the closure of the fully averaged turbulence
statistics, what is the implied closure for partially averaged statis-
tics? In PANS more scales of motion will be resolved than in the
parent RANS, depending on the specified values of the filter-
control parameters. If these ratios are set to unity, RANS equa-
tions are recovered. If, on the other hand, the ratios are set to zero,
the PANS equations reduce to Navier-Stokes as required of a
bridging model. Clearly, the PANS model will inherit much of its
physics from the parent RANS closure. The better the parent
RANS, the superior will be the corresponding PANS for partially
averaged fields. However, for any given RANS model, the PANS
computation can be expected to yield improved performance at
higher computational expense as more scales of motion more
scales are resolved exactly. Apart from the model development,
we will also present some preliminary results for validation.
The PANS method is distinct from standard LES in three im-
portant aspects: i the decomposition of the velocity field is based
on kinetic energy content rather than on cutoff wave number; ii
the filter demarcating calculated resolved and modeled unre-

Journal of Applied Mechanics Copyright 2006 by ASME MAY 2006, Vol. 73 / 413

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 solved motion is implied rather than explicit, requiring no filter-
ing operation during computation; and iii the SFS subfilter
scale constitutive relationship is independent of grid spacing, i.e.,
Tij =

xk
Vi,V j,Vk + p,Vi jk + p,V jik
Vi,V j
xk

the physical resolution filter width is decoupled from numerical 5
resolution. Clearly, the numerical resolution must be in commen- The subfilter kinetic energy and dissipation associated with any
surate with the desired filter width. Although distinctly different operator angular brackets can be defined as
from LES, the PANS method shares some similarities with the
currently popular URANS unsteady RANS method 5,6. The
similarities and differences between URANS and PANS is dis-
cussed in detail in 7.
1
Ku = Vi,Vi;
2
u = Vi Vi
,
x j x j
6

The outline of the paper is as follows. After the introduction Throughout, subscript u indicate PANS unresolved statistics.
Sec. 1, we present the general hybrid modeling issues in Sec. 2. When the averaging is over all scales of motion denoted by
In Sec. 3, the premise of the PANS model is first formulated. This over bar, the filtered velocity becomes the mean velocity and the
is followed by the development of the PANS closure equations. SFS stress reduces to Reynolds stress-RVi , V j: where RA , B
Preliminary results are presented in Sec. 4 to demonstrate the
= AB AB. The RANS statistics are related to their PANS counter-
potential capability of PANS. We close with a brief discussion in
part according to 8
Sec. 5.
V j = V j = U j ; RVi,V j ViV j ViV j = Vi,V j + RUi,U j
7
2 Modeling Fundamentals
The RANS kinetic energy and dissipation are denoted by K and .
We start with the instantaneous incompressible flow equations:
Averaging over all scales leads Eqs. 2 and 5 to collapse to the
RANS equations. Thus, the form of the statistical hierarchy of
Vi Vi p 2V i 2 p Vi V j
+ Vj = + ; = 1 Eqs. (2)(5) is invariant of the filter, when the filtered equations
t x j xi x jx j x i x i x j xi are expressed in terms of the generalized central moments 8.
Consider partially averaged flow variables-Ui = Vi; This feature of the Navier-Stokes equation is given the name
averaging-invariance property. Much like tensor invariance and
pU = p-where the angular brackets denote an arbitrary implicit Galilean invariance requirements on RANS models, the averaging
or explicit filter that is constant preserving and commutes with invariance imposes a crucial constraint on bridging models.
spatial and temporal differentiation. Partial averaging corresponds Based on the objective of bridging models, we propose the
to filtering a portion of the fluctuating scales. Throughout the pa- following constraints on the PANS model: i The bridging model
per the words filtering and averaging will be used synonymously. must vary smoothly and seamlessly from RANS to DNS as the
The partially averaged Navier-Stokes equation can be written as filter-control parameters are varied the Speziale 1 guideline.
8 The URANS approach has not been able to demonstrate a smooth
variation 6. ii The filter-width control parameters that quantify
Ui Ui Vi,V j pU 2U i the extent of averaging in a bridging model must be identified. For
+ Uj + = + ;
t x j x j xi x jx j example, in URANS, the extent of implied filtering is not clear.
iii The form of the bridging model closures must be invariant of
2 pU Ui U j 2Vi,V j the filter when expressed in terms of the appropriate generalized
= + 2 central moments. This constraint rules out many of the hybrid
x i x i x j x i x i x j methods that switch from RANS to LES, depending on some local
In Eq. 2, Vi , V j is the generalized central second moment. length scale.
Generalized central second and third moments of random vari-
ables A, B, and C are defined as 8
3 PANS Model Development
A,B = AB AB
The goal now is to develop a SFS stress Vi , V j closure
model that accurately reflects the extent of partial averaging and is
A,B,C = ABC AB,C BC,A consistent with the guidelines formulated in Sec. 2. The
CA,B ABC 3 averaging-invariance principle permits the use of LES- or RANS-
type closure modeling. Most of the popular LES closures are al-
The subfilter scale SFS stress Vi , V j is a positive semi-definite gebraic in nature zero-equation models and are best suited for
tensor exhibiting much of the same properties as Reynolds stress. cutoff in the small inertial scales of motion. On the other hand,
Its evolution equation can be written without any further assump- RANS models are purported for averaging over all scales of mo-
tions as 8 tion and, hence, carry sufficient physics to accurately represent
partially averaged fields. Furthermore, years of modeling experi-
Vi,V j Vi,V j ence is incumbent in the RANS models and they have been tested
+ Uk = Pij + ij Dij + Tij 4
t xk widely in important engineering flows. Important issues, such as
tensor invariance, realizability, and effects of extra strain rate due
In Eq. 4, the various terms on the right-hand side rhs can be to rotation, buoyancy, etc., are best addressed at the level of
classified as production Pij, pressure-correlation ij, dissipa- RANS closure using well-tested techniques 9. As the PANS
tion Dij, and transport Tij of SFS stress: bridging model is purported for use at all degrees of physical
resolution including RANS, we suggest that there be at least as
U j Ui much physics in the PANS models as in some of the more ad-
Pij = Vi,Vk V j,Vk ; ij = 2p,Sij; vanced two-equation RANS models. Therefore, we base the
xk xk
PANS models on the RANS paradigm. In this paper, we will

develop the theoretical framework for adapting RANS models to
Ui U j the PANS method. Although the development here is at the level
Dij = 2 ,
xk xk of the two-equation closure, the methodology is equally valid for

414 / Vol. 73, MAY 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 the adaptation of more sophisticated RANS models, including
second-moment closures SMC and algebraic Reynolds stress
models ARSM.
The RANS two-equation model used in this development is
2 = fk;
K Ut
t = C Sij
K K t K
+ U j =P+
t x j x j k x j
t
+ U j
x j
= Ce1
P
K
2
Ce2 +
t
K x j x j
where P =RVi , V jVi / x j and are the RANS production and unresolved-to-total dissipation. It is, therefore, natural to quantify
dissipation. Recall that Vi Ui. The values for the various coeffi-
cients used in our works are C = 0.9; Ce1 = 1.44; Ce2 = 1.92; k
= 1.0; and = 1.3.
At the two-equation closure level, the PANS development in-
volves three important steps: i identification of the PANS filter-
control parameters; ii postulation/development of the SFS stress
constitutive relationship; and iii derivation of the unresolved ki-
netic energy and dissipation evolution equations. The constitutive
relation determines the anisotropy of the SFS stress, and the evo-
lution equations set the energy level of the unresolved field. Our
consideration will be restricted to the Boussinessq constitutive
relationship. Nonlinear constitutive relations and algebraic Rey-
nolds stress closures can be used instead of the Boussinesq ap-
proximation without affecting the remainder of the development.
3.1 Identification of Filter Control Parameter. In LES, the
filter width is closely linked to the numerical grid size. The larger
the cutoff wave number, the more accurate the calculation as more
scales are resolved exactly. The cutoff wave number enters the
calculations via explicit filtering and subgrid-stress constitutive
relationship and thus controls the physical resolution. For PANS it
is important to identify the corresponding physical resolution pa-
rameter that i quantifies the filtering and ii appears in the clo-
sure model to ensure that the required filtering is achieved.
In many of the current LES closures, such as Smagorisnsky
model, it is tacitly assumed that the unresolved scales are in equi-
librium with the resolved scales. Furthermore, it is assumed that
the production of the unresolved energy is equal to dissipation.
These assumptions permit the estimation of the subgrid stress in
terms of the cutoff wave number and resolved strain. Thus, the
cutoff wave number can serve to characterize the unresolved
scales and quantify the resolution. However, these LES closure
assumptions are completely invalid if the cutoff is in energy-
containing production scales or large inertial scales. For such a
cutoff, we need a more detailed characterization of the unresolved
scales. Based on our experience in RANS, we deem that adequate
characterization of the PANS scale requires, at a minimum, the
knowledge of the kinetic energy and dissipation of the unresolved
scales. Knowing these quantities, the characteristic length, veloc-
ity, and time scales Lu , Uu , Tu of the largest unresolved-scales
can be estimated
3 K1.5
u Ku
Uu = Ku ; Lu = ; Tu =
2 u u
The unresolved dissipative motion can be characterized using un-
resolved dissipation and viscosity
0.75
uu = u0.25 ; lu = ; tu = 10
0.25
u
We suggest that the extra knowledge of these scales not known in
LES is crucial for accurate characterization and subsequent mod-
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
eling of the unresolved scales.
The ratio of the PANS to RANS subscript t characteristic
scales are
Uu Lu f 1.5
k Tu f k
= ; = ;
Lt f Tt f
uu lu tu
= f 0.25
; = f 0.25
; = f 0.50
11
ut lt tt
In the above,
8
fk =
Ku
K
, f =
u
12
are the ratios of the unresolved-to-total kinetic energy and
the extent of PANS filtering using f k and f . These two parameters
are the partial average-quantification and, hence, filter-control pa-
rameters. Note that turbulence physicslarge scales contain most
of the kinetic energy and much of the dissipation occurs in the
smallest scalesdictates 0 f k f 1. The smaller the f k, the
finer is the filter: f k = 1 represents RANS and f k = 0 indicates DNS.
Unity value of f implies that the RANS and PANS unresolved
small scales are identical. Smaller values of f would require the
resolution of dissipative scales of motion.
It is generally desirable to have the filter width vary as a func-
tion of space as in DES. Rapid spatial variation of a filter in
physical space will be considered in future works as it introduces
an additional complication of a filtering operation that does not
commute with spatial differentiation. In this paper, we will as-
sume that the spatio-temporal variation of the implied PANS filter
is slow compared to that of flow variables. Averaging invariance
can be a useful constraint even when the filters are slowly varying
functions of space.
3.2 Constitutive Relationship. When the Boussinesq consti-
tutive approximation is invoked in conjunction with averaging-
invariance requirement for arbitrary filters, we get
K2u
Vi,V j = uSij ; where u = Cu 13
u
The objective of PANS dynamics is to reduce the effective vis-
cosity from its RANS value according to the desired filter width,
leading to the liberation of more scales of motion. It would appear
from Eq. 13 that such a reduction can be accomplished by i
simply assigning Cu a smaller value than RANS-C and/or ii
manipulating the levels of Ku and u in such a manner that the
K2u / u is smaller than its RANS counterpart. Fixed-point analysis
of the PANS/RANS equations can provide a cause-effect relation-
ship between these parameters and the resulting stresses. Such an
analysis of the RANS equations has been performed in 9. Simi-
lar analysis of the PANS equations are performed in 7, which
will be discussed further in the Results section. The conclusions
from the two studies are:
1. The asymptotic unresolved kinetic energy growth rate is
governed only by the values of C1 and C2. The value of C
does not affect the normalized kinetic energy growth rate.
Furthermore, C1 and C2 also affect the anisotropy of the
9 stresses.
2. The value of Cu affect only the anisotropy, but not the
energetics. This may appear counterintuitive, but the follow-
ing sequence of events leads to that behavior. A reduced Cu
value not only reduces production of turbulent kinetic en-
ergy but also leads to reduced production of dissipation. Re-
duced production of dissipation results in lower values of
dissipation. Lower dissipation, in turn, leads to higher-than-
desired levels of unresolved kinetic energy. Thus, the desired
effect of partial averaging, which is to lower the levels
MAY 2006, Vol. 73 / 415
 PANS kinetic energy and effective viscosity cannot be ac-
complished by merely lowering Cu value. Tku =
u Ku
x j ku x j
21

Based on the findings of the fixed-point analysis of the model
equations, we will not modify the value of Cu
C u = C
This decision is further justified in our related asymptotic analysis
work 7, which is discussed later in the paper. In the future, we
will consider the modification of Cu as a function of partial av-
eraging. This can introduce other filter control parameters.
3.3 PANS Closure Equations. We now develop the evolution
equations for Ku and u as functions of f k and f . The logic fol-
lows from the simple question: if Eq. 8 represents the kinetic
energy and dissipation of the fully averaged fluctuating field, then
what are the equations for specified fractions of the energy and
where ku is the corresponding Prandtl number, which needs to be
determined.
14 To complete the modeling of ku, the transport of Ku due to the
resolved velocity fluctuations U j U j must be known. For this
transport term, two of the simplest closures that are consistent
with the averaging-invariance requirement are suggested. The first
is based on the assumption that the resolved fluctuations do not
contribute to SFS energy transport ZT, zero-transport model
Ku
U j U j =0 22
x j
This simplification leads to from 20 and 21

dissipation.
Taking the trace of 5 leads to the following averaging- u f Ku u Ku
Tku = = 23
invariant form of the unresolved kinetic-energy evolution equation x j k f 2k x j x j ku x j
8
Thus, the zero-transport models lead to
Ku Ku Ui
+ Uj = Pu u + Tku where Pu = Vi,V j 15
t x j x j f 2k
ku k ZT assumption 24
The transport term Tku needs closure modeling. Although the f
form of the unresolved kinetic energy equation is dictated by the The second proposal is, in some sense, the maximum transport
averaging-invariance constraint, the content of this equation MT model in which the transport is proportional to the eddy
comes from the requirement that the ratio of unresolved-to-total viscosity of the resolved fluctuations, r = t u
kinetic energies must be f k. Since f k is a constant, the evolution of
RANS and PANS kinetic energies are related according to
Ku
+ Uj
Ku
= fk
K
+ UjK
16
U j U j
Ku
=
r Ku

x j x j k x j
25

t x j t x j
From Eqs. 20 and 21, this leads to the following closure for the
This Ku evolution is following the mean RANS velocity field. unresolved-kinetic energy Prandtl number
The evolution of Ku following PANS filtered velocity field can be
written as ku k MT assumption 26
Ku
t
+ Uj
Ku
x j
= fk
Ku
t
+ Uj
Ku
x j

+ U j U j
Ku
x j
The two Prandtl-number assumptions are assessed in ongoing
work and will be discussed further in the Results section.

We now develop PANS-unresolved dissipation u equation
t K Ku
= fk P + + U j U j from the requirement that PANS-RANS dissipation ratio is f .
x j k x j x j This requirement yields

17
u u
where the substitution for the term in the square brackets has been + U j =0 27
made from Eq. 8. To achieve the required f k, Eq. (17) must be t x j
consistent with (15). From these equations, we can write leading to

Pu u + Tku = f k P+
t K

x j k x j
+ U j U j
Ku
x j
u
+ U j
u
x j
= f

+ U j

x j

t t

18
P 2 t
The relationship between various RANS terms and the corre- = f Ce1 Ce2 + 28
sponding PANS terms are now evident. Equating the source/sink K K x j x j
terms local processes and noting = u / f , we get
As RANS variables are not known, to close the u equation all
1 u terms must be expressed in PANS variables U j , Ku , u , Pu and
Pu u = f kP , implying P = Pu u + 19 PANS parameters f k , f . We then have
fk f
This relationship will be used later to close the PANS dissipation
equation. Comparison of the advection/transport terms nonlocal
processes in Eq. 18 leads to noting Ku = f kK
u
t
+ Uj
u
x j
= Ce1 f k
Pu
Ku
Ce2
f k 2u
+
t u
f Ku x j x j

+ U j U j
u
x j

Tku
t Ku

x j k x j

U j U j
Ku
x j The RANS production P is obtained from Eq. 19. Again, the u
29

=
u f Ku
x j k f k x j
2
U j U j
Ku
x j
20
transport due to the resolved scalesthe U j U j termis the
only term that requires modeling. For the resolved-velocity trans-
port term, we again propose two closure options: ZT model as in
The averaging-invariance principle permits a transport closure Eq. 22 and MT model as in Eq. 25. Finally, the fully closed
model of the following form: equation can be written as

416 / Vol. 73, MAY 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 u
t
+ Uj
u
x j
= Ce1 f kPu u
fk ffk
f f k
u
Ku
Ce2
f k 2u
f Ku
+
t u
x j x j
+ U j U j
u
x j
P u u 2u u u
= Ce1 C*e2 +
Ku K u x j u x j
where
fk f 2k
C*e2 Ce1 + Ce2 Ce1; u for ZT;
f f
u = for MT 31
The two-equation PANS model is given by Eqs. 15 and 30.
The form of the equations are clearly invariant to averaging. The
filter-control parameter manifests only via the modified model co-
efficients. In the PANS equations derivation, the form of the con-
stitutive relationship is never invoked. This derivation is com-
pletely valid for any linear or nonlinear including explicit
algebraic Reynolds stress model constitutive relationship.
In the absence of transport and in the limit of f approaching
unity, this result is similar to the LES dissipation transport model
of 10. That model 10 was derived for homogeneous turbulence
in spectral space using splitting technique. In that method 10,
there is a distinct demarcation between the resolved and unre-
solved field and the split must be in the inertial range. The current
derivation does not invoke such spectral splitting and by introduc-
ing a second control parameter f we extend the applicability into
dissipation range, resulting in a complete bridging model. Also,
we derive the model in more realistic inhomogeneous turbulent
flows, leading to modifications in turbulent Prandtl numbers.
Thus, the present derivation can be considered a significant gen-
eralization of the important result of 10.
3.3.1 Reynolds Number Sensitivity. A unique feature of PANS
subgrid closure is its sensitivity to Reynolds number. Most sub-
grid closure models e.g., all versions of the Smagorinsky model
are not directly sensitive to the Reynolds number of the unre-
solved scales. For example, the closures cannot distinguish be-
tween two flows with similar resolved fields but vastly different
unresolved fields. Narrow low Reynolds number or wide high
Reynolds number unresolved energy spectra elicit the same clo-
sure from these models as long as the resolved strain rates are
identical. On the contrary, in PANS closure, the extent of the
unresolved spectrum or, equivalently, the separation between the
energy containing and dissipative scales can be imposed on the
model by suitably specifying f . For example, in high Reynolds
number flows in which the dissipative scales are not resolved f is
specified as unity. At the other extreme, the physics of low Rey-
nolds number flows, in which there is no discernible separation of
scales, can be accurately captured by f k f . The physics of mod-
erate Reynolds numbers can be capture by suitably setting f in
the range 1 , f k.
3.3.2 Near-Wall Treatment. The near-wall modeling is an im-
portant issue in LES and any non-Reynolds averaging approach. A
satisfactory and efficient affordable near-wall resolution wall
treatment has proved elusive even in such a mature methodology
as LES. A detailed investigation of the PANS unsteady near-wall
treatment will be undertaken in the future. Here, we propose a
simple approximation. In the near-wall region, there is no separa-
tion of scales, as the Reynolds number is low, leading to f k f
and MT model for the Prandtl numbers. This collapses the PANS
equations almost back to RANS equations. Therefore, as a first
step, the wall-boundary treatment for PANS can be similar to that
of RANS.
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
Settings
Table 1 PANS simulation setting in
Choice
FLUENT
Simulation type
Solver
3D, Unsteady
Segregated, implicit
Temporal discretization Second order
Turbulence model k- 2eqn. with modified PANS parameters
30 Pressure PRESTO
Pressure-velocity coupling SIMPLE
Momentum Second-order upwind
Turbulent kinetic energy Second-order upwind
Turbulent dissipation rate Second-order upwind
Boundary Conditions
Inlet Velocity
Outlet Outflow
Top wall No-slip wall
Bottom wall No-slip wall
Lateral Periodicity
3.3.3 Specification of Filter-Control Parameter. In an LES
computation, the cutoff wave number must be specified in order to
perform a simulation. Generally, the cutoff wave number is taken
to be inversely proportional to the grid size. Hence, in LES the
physical resolution and the numerical resolution are closely
coupled. Such a coupling is possible only when the LES closure
assumptions discussed earlier are valid. In PANS, as in RANS, the
turbulence closure model is decoupled from the numerical resolu-
tion. In PANS the filter control parameters must be specified for a
given simulation. The prescription of f k and f would depend on
the desired physical resolution and affordability of numerical
resolution. Unless the dissipation scales are to be resolved, f can
be set to unity. For high Reynolds number simulations, when the
intended cutoff is in the inertial range, f k is the only resolution
parameter of relevance. Clearly, the smaller the f k, the larger is the
grid resolution required. The computational grid must be incom-
mensurate with the chosen filter width. To some extent, the length
scale in Eq. 9 can provide guidance for grid spacing. In general,
for given f k and f , the grid should be chosen from a grid
resolution/independence study as is routinely done in RANS
calculations.
4 Results and Discussion
Any new turbulence model, such as the PANS, must be subject
to a wide range of tests. Our objective is to compare the parent
RANS results to PANS results of various filter widths. The goal is
to establish, with decreasing f k, that PANS i leads to liberation
of more and more scales of motion and ii yields mean flow and
turbulence correlation statistics that are more accurate than the
parent RANS. Clearly, the degree of accuracy will depend on the
quality of the parent RANS model. Here, we will employ the
standard two-equation K- RANS model, which is known to be
inadequate in complex flows. We will then demonstrate that the
predictive capability of the corresponding PANS improves
substantially with decreasing f k, thereby validating the bridging
methodology.
In general, the validity of a model must be judged based on its
collective performance over a series of benchmark problems.
Here, we present both a priori asymptotic analysis and prelimi-
nary a posteriori flow-computation examinations of the PANS
method. While a flow computation can be used to evaluate a
model in that single flow, fixed-point/asymptotic analysis provide
valuable insight into the inherent dynamic character of a model
equation. Thus, asymptotic analysis is equally important for as-
sessing the suitability of a model for the purported applications.
4.1 Asymptotic Analysis. In the RANS method, analytical
fixed-point analysis has been very useful for calibrating and as-
sessing closure coefficients and model behavior. Since, PANS is
inherently unsteady, establishing the nature of its asymptotic time-
dependent behavior when subject to time-dependent forcing is im-
MAY 2006, Vol. 73 / 417
 Fig. 2 Time-step sensitivity study. In all the computations fk
= 0.6 and grid size is 95 106

The neglect of transport reduces the model equations to coupled

ordinary differential equations that can be easily computed. In 7,
the homogeneous equations are forced with a periodic resolved
velocity gradient and the unresolved statistics are calculated by
numerical integration. The time-dependent shear forcing used is of
the form
St = Sm + S f sin2t 32
In Eq. 32, Sm corresponds to the mean shear; S f represents the
approximate amplitude of resolved fluctuating shear; and is the
frequency of fluctuation. Because of the periodic forcing, PANS
production, dissipation, and Reynolds stress anisotropies exhibit
time dependence. The time-averaged behavior as a function f k
for various amplitudes and frequencies of forcing are examined.
The time-averaged values of the various turbulence quantities are
defined as

t0+T
1
Q = Qtdt 33
T t0

where T is of the order of five eddy turnover times. The main

Fig. 1 Grid-size sensitivity study in a 2D flow past a cylinder in
2D domain. a Centerline velocity profile from various PANS
fk = 0.6 computations on different grids. The time step in all
computations is 0.008 s. b Similar plot for fk = 0.8 computa-
tions. The time step in all these computations is 0.025 s.
portant. Much like fixed-point analysis of RANS equations, this
analytical examination can reveal important intrinsic features of
the PANS equations. A detailed asymptotic investigation of PANS
is performed in 7, and we report the important results here.
The homogeneous PANS equations are Eqs. 15 and 30 with-
out the transport terms. Transport only transfers energy from place
to place in physical space and does not contribute to overall pro-
duction or dissipation of energy. Hence, the neglect of transport
terms does not alter the overall energetics of the turbulent field.
results from 7 are
1. The temporal behavior of PANS kinetic energy, dissipation,
and Reynolds stress depends strongly on the amplitude S f
and frequency of forcing.
2. The time-averaged values of the unresolved quantities are,
however, nearly constant after a short initial transition pe-
riod. The time-averaged value of production-to-dissipation
ratio which determines the energetics and shear anisotropy
b12 progressively decrease in magnitude with smaller f ks,
indicating that the desired filtering effect has been achieved.
3. The time-averaged values are nearly independent of S f and
.
4. The time-averaged values are, however, strong functions of
f k. These values are nearly identical to the constant forcing
case when S f = 0.
5. Simple fixed-point analysis of the constant-forcing PANS

Table 2 Flow past a square cylinder

Case Grid Re/ 103 St CDmean CDrms CLrms

URANS 95 107 21 22 0.132 1.44 0.0022 0.27

PANS f k = 0.7 95 107 21 22 0.133 1.77 0.129 0.994
PANS f k = 0.4 95 107 21 22 0.130 1.97 0.216 1.19
LES 185 105 25 22 0.1260.132 2.032.32 0.160.20 1.231.54
Exp 21.4 0.132 2.1

418 / Vol. 73, MAY 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use


Fig. 3 Profiles of normal Reynolds stresses along the center-
line from various calculations: fk = 1.0, ---; fk = 0.7 ; fk = 0.4,
; LES, ; Durao expt., ; Lyn expt.,
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
shows that, asymptotically, Pu / u varies linearly with
f kgoing from the RANS value to DNS value of unity:
Pu
u lim t
=
C*e2 1
Ce1 1
=1+
f k Ce2 Ce1
f Ce1 1
34
Thus, the PANS SFS velocity field progressively gets weaker and
isotropic with smaller f k as required. On the contrary in URANS
wherein the model coefficients are constants at RANS values,
the unresolved scales will be as energetic as the RANS scales
irrespective of implied resolution as was found by 7. This ex-
plains the high energy levels of the unresolved field found in the
computation of 5.
4.2 Flow Simulations. Currently, several large-scale PANS
computations of flow past square cylinder, high and low-Reynolds
number flow past circular cylinder, flow in a square cavity, and
flow over a surface-mounted cube are underway. In all these stud-
ies, the commercial CFD code FLUENT is used with the model
coefficients appropriately modified, depending on the specified
filter-control parameter. The choice of FLUENT as the computa-
tional platform is motivated by the reason that it is the most
widely used commercial code for engineering applications. It is
important that the capabilities of a new engineering model, such
as the PANS, be demonstrated on FLUENT rather than on a special-
purpose code. The various solvers used in the FLUENT simulations
are detailed in Table 1. The standard wall-function approach is
used for the first near-wall grid point.
In these studies, detailed PANS results mean flow and Rey-
nolds stress profiles are being compared to those of other meth-
ods, such as URANS, DES, and LES. The main conclusions are:
i The ZT model is most appropriate for the turbulent transport in
high Reynolds number flows. The MT model is better for low
Reynolds number flows. ii When the Reynolds number is
smallno scale separationf k and f must be approximately
equal for best agreement with data. iii PANS is an effective
bridging model: the computed results go from RANS to LES/
DNS/experimental data as f k is reduced from unity to zero. All
these studies will be published in detail elsewhere. In support of
the PANS theory developed in this paper, we present selected
preliminary results from simulations of i flow past a circular
cylinder, ii flow past a square cylinder, and iii flow in a three-
dimensional 3D cavity. The results clearly demonstrate PANS
ability to function as a bridging model. Before the results are
presented, we first perform a grid-dependence study.
4.2.1 Grid and Time-Step Dependence Study. The PANS
model closure for various filter widths is developed without any
reference to numerical issues. However, in any computation, the
numerical grid size must be in accordance with the model filter
width. Much like the Navier-Stokes and RANS equations, the
PANS closure model of a given filter width is amenable to a
formal grid convergence study. In our implementation, we use the
wall-function boundary condition at solid boundaries. As the wall
function is dependent on the distance from the wall, our PANS
simulations cannot be totally grid independent. However, we will
demonstrate that the calculations are only very weakly dependent
on grid size at reasonably fine resolution. For this demonstration
we employ two-dimensional 2D flow past a square cylinder.
Although two-dimensional simulations cannot capture turbulence
physics, they can serve to establish the grid convergence proper-
ties of the model equations at reasonable cost.
Two sets of PANS simulations of f k values of 0.8 and 0.6 are
performed. The f value for both sets of simulations is unity. For
each f k, computations are performed on several grids. The coars-
est grid used is 85 85, and the finest is 400 400. Various time-
steps ranging from 0.025 to 0.00625 are used. The flow Reynolds
number in these computations is 140,000. Periodic boundary con-
ditions are imposed in the spanwise direction in three-
MAY 2006, Vol. 73 / 419
 Table 3 Flow past a circular cylinder

Case ReD Grid t* Cd Cpb St sep

PANS f k = 1.0 1.4 10 5

85 85 0.21 1.02 0.511 0.238 105
PANS f k = 0.7 1.4 105 150 135 42 0.0525 1.35 0.769 0.26 99.77
PANS f k = 0.5 1.4 105 150 135 42 0.0525 1.37 0.8 0.26 95.86
LES 13, Case 1.4 105 325 325 64 2.0 104 1.454 1.764 0.204 95
B1, Dynamic
DES 14, 1.4 105 150 109 42 0.05 1.08 1.04 0.21 77
Case LS8
Experimental 15 1.4 105 1.237 1.21 0.179 77

dimensional simulations and wall condition on the cylinder sur- lower resolution than the one used here. However, here our com-
face and transverse boundaries. The inflow is a uniform flow with putations are performed on the same grid to isolate the effect of f k
2% turbulence intensity. The fully developed condition is used at in the model.
the outflow. The computed flow is inherently unsteady, and the
flow velocities are averaged after statistical stationarity is 4.2.3 Flow Past Circular Cylinder. The PANS results are
established. again compared to LES 13, DES 14, and experiment 15. The
The mean streamwise velocity profiles along the centerline prediction of coefficient of drag Cd, the coefficient of back pres-
from various f k = 0.6 simulations are shown in Fig. 1a. The time sure C pb and the angle of separation sep again improve sig-
step in all these simulations of various grid sizes is 0.008 s. Simi- nificantly with smaller f k values Table 3. In Fig. 4, the surface
lar profiles from the various f k = 0.8 computations time-step C p distribution is shown for the various PANS calculations and
0.025 are given in Fig. 1b. It is found that for resolution better other competing methods. It is seen that URANS performs very
than 95 107, the mean flows solutions on various grids are con- poorly. The PANS results approach the experimental results with
fined to a narrow range of values. The extremes of the observed decreasing f k. The f k = 0.5 PANS case is nearly as accurate as an
range of behavior are shown in the figures. It is seen that the LES computation with ten times as many grid nodes and more
bands of f k = 0.8 and f k = 0.6 cases are distinctly different. The accurate than the DES calculation Fig. 4. The conclusion is
difference between the results on various grids for a given f k is clearly that the PANS can go from RANS to experiments
very small compared to the difference between simulations of smoothly as f k value is decreasedthe hallmark of a bridging
different f k values. For, example, all the f k = 0.6 simulations pre- model.
dict a much smaller separation bubble than the f k = 0.8 cases. 4.2.4 Three-Dimensional Driven Cavity Flow. Computations
Clearly, the PANS results are reasonably grid insensitive in this of the 3D driven cavity show that the RANS model captures the
range. mean flow profiles adequately well. Thus, PANS simulations with
Next, in Fig. 2, we present the results from f k = 0.6 simulations decreasing f k do not lead to significant improvements in predict-
of different time steps but identical grid size 95 107. The be- ing the mean flow variables. However, as seen in Fig. 5, with
havior is again constrained to a narrow band of values. This again
demonstrates reasonable insensitivity to time step, provided the
time increment is 0.025 s.
4.2.2 Three-Dimensional Flow Past Square Cylinder. In the
three-dimensional flow past a square cylinder study, we perform
PANS simulations with f k values of 1, 0.7 and 0.4. Guided by the
grid and time-step sensitivity study, we employ a grid of size 95
107 21 and time step 0.025 s for adequate accuracy at reason-
able cost. It is found that this grid is just adequate for the f k
= 0.4 case and finer than necessary for the other cases. Therefore,
any difference between the various f k computations are purely a
consequence of changing filter width and not numerical in origin.
The PANS results of various filter widths are compared to
URANS, LES 11, and experimental 12 data. The f k = 1 com-
putation can be viewed as the standard two-equation URANS
method. We find that with decreasing f k decreasing filter width,
the PANS results approach the experimental values for all
quantitiesStrouhal number, coefficient of lift, coefficient of
dragconsidered. These results are tabulated in Table 2. We fur-
ther compare the PANS centerline mean-streamwise velocity pro-
file obtained with various f k and with experimental results and
LES. It is found figure not shown that reducing f k leads to im- Fig. 4 Profiles of Coefficient of pressure distribution along the
proved agreement with experimental data. In Fig. 3, we compare cylinder surface for various fk values: , Experimental data
the Reynolds stress component uu of various PANS simula- from Achenbach for flow Reynolds number of ReD = 1 105; ,
LES data from Wang et al. at ReD 106; , DES data from Travin
tions to experimental and LES data. The results go from unaccept-
et al. 14 at ReD 1.4 105 data from run LS 8 corresponding to
able in the f k = 1 case to better than LES agreement in the f k laminar separation case. For laminar separation to occur the
= 0.4 case. It should be cautioned that the accuracy of low f k turbulent viscosity is set to zero at the inflow boundary; ,
comes, in general, at the expense of increased computational cost. data from PANS with fk = 0.5; , data from PANS with fk = 0.7;
For example, the f k = 0.7 and 1.0 computations require markedly ---, data from PANS with fk = 1.0.

420 / Vol. 73, MAY 2006 Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Fig. 5 Vorticity structure in 3D driven cavity flow computations with various fk values
decreasing f k more fluctuating scales are liberated and the vortic-
ity and fluctuating flow fields are significantly different. Although
no quantitative measure of the flow topography is available for
comparison, the qualitative features of f k = 0.2 case agrees best
with experimental data. For example, the number of vortex pairs
observed in the f k = 0.2 case matches the number observed in ex-
periments 16,17.
Based on these preliminary results, it can be reasonably con-
cluded that the PANS methodology proposed in this paper satisfies
the requirements of a bridging model.
5 Conclusion
Following the turbulence modeling paradigm proposed by Spe-
ziale 1, we formulate and develop the partially averaged Navier-
Stokes PANS bridging technique for modeling turbulent flows.
The PANS closure model is formally extracted from the RANS
closure, for given filter-control parameters. Many important prac-
tical issues, such as near-wall PANS modeling, a priori strategy
for specifying f k and f , and precise model for the turbulent trans-
port term, need further investigation. Yet, there is reasonable the-
oretical justification and adequate preliminary computational evi-
dence to be cautiously optimistic about this new methodology.
Acknowledgment
I would like to dedicate this paper to Professor Charles Gregory
Speziale, a good friend and mentor. This material is based on
work supported by NASA under Grant No. NAG-01-005.
References
1 Speziale, C. G., 1996, Computing Non-Equilibrium Flows With Time-
Dependent RANS and VLES, 15th ICNMFD.
2 Spalart, P. R., 2000, Trends in Turbulence Treatments, Fluids 2000, Denver,
AIAA Paper No. 2000-2306.
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded From: http://appliedmechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 09/12/2017 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
3 Batten, P., Goldberg, U., and Chakravarthy, S., 2002, LNS-An Approach
Towards Embedded LES, AIAA Paper No. 2002-0427.
4 Khorrami, M. R., Singer, B., and Berkman, M. E., 2002, Time-Accurate
Simulations and Acoustic Analysis of Slat Free Shear Layer, AIAA J., 407,
pp. 12841291.
5 Khorrami, M. R., Singer, B., and Lockard, D., 2002, Time-Accurate Simula-
tions and Acoustic Analysis of Slat Free Shear Layer: Part 2, AIAA/CEAS
Aeroacoustics Conference and Exhibit, Breckenridge, CO, AIAA Paper No.
2002-2579.
6 Hedges, L. S., Travin, A. K., and Spalart, P. S., 2002, Detached-Eddy Simu-
lation Over a Simplified Landing Gear, ASME J. Fluids Eng., 124, pp. 413
423.
7 Girimaji, S. S., Jeong, E., and Srinivasan, R., 2006, PANS Method for Tur-
bulence: Fixed Point Analysis and Comparison With URANS, ASME J. Appl.
Mech., 73, pp. 422429.
8 Germano, M., 1992, Turbulence: The Filtering Approach, J. Fluid Mech.,
238, pp. 325336.
9 Girimaji, S. S., 2000, Pressure-Strain Correlation Modeling of Complex Tur-
bulent Flows, J. Fluid Mech., 422, pp. 91123.
10 Schiestel, R., 1987, Multiple Time-Scale Modeling of Turbulent Flows in
One-Point Closures, Phys. Fluids, 30, pp. 722731.
11 Sohankar, A., and Davidson, L., 2000, Large Eddy Simulations of Flow Past
a Square Cylinder: Comparison of Different Sub-Grid Scale Models, ASME
J. Fluids Eng., 122, pp. 3947.
12 Lyn, D. A., Einav, S., Rodi, W., and Park, J. H., 1992, A Laser-Doppler
Velocimetry Study of the Ensemble-Averaged Characteristics of the Turbulent
Wake of a Square Cylinder, J. Fluid Mech., 304, pp. 285319.
13 Breuer, M. A., 1995, A Challenging Test Case for Large Eddy Simulation:
High-Reynolds Number Circular Cylinder Flow, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 21,
pp. 648654.
14 Travin, A., Shur, M., Strelets, M., and Spalart, P., 1999, Detached Eddy
Simulations Past a Circular Cylinder, Flow, Turbul. Combust., 63, pp. 293
313.
15 Cantwell, B., and Coles, D., 1983, An Experimental Study of Entrainment
and Transport in the Turbulent Near Wake of a Circular Cylinder, J. Fluid
Mech., 136, pp. 321374.
16 Jordan, S. A., and Ragab, S. A., 1994, On the Unsteady and Turbulent Char-
acteristics of Three-Dimensional Shear-Driven Cavity Flow, ASME J. Fluids
Eng., 116, pp. 439449.
17 Prasad, A. K., and Kosef, J. R., 1989, Reynolds Number and End-Wall Ef-
fects on a Lid-Driven Cavity Flow, Phys. Fluids, 1, pp. 208218.
MAY 2006, Vol. 73 / 421