Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

Adaptive Detached-Eddy Simulation of Three-Dimensional Diffusers

[+] Author and Article Information
Paul Durbin

Aerospace Engineering,
Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011
e-mail: durbin@iastate.edu

Zifei Yin

Aerospace Engineering,
Iowa State University,
Ames, IA 50011
e-mail: zifeiyin@iastate.edu

Elbert Jeyapaul

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
Missouri University of Science and Technology,
Rolla, MO 65409

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received September 25, 2015; final manuscript received June 24, 2016; published online July 13, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Francine Battaglia.

J. Fluids Eng 138(10), 101201 (Jul 13, 2016) (8 pages) Paper No: FE-15-1688; doi: 10.1115/1.4034004 History: Received September 25, 2015; Revised June 24, 2016

An adaptive method for detached-eddy simulation (DES) is tested by simulations of flow in a family of three-dimensional (3D) diffusers. The adaptive method either adjusts the model constant or defaults to a bound if the grid is too coarse. On the present grids, the adaptive method adjusts the model constant over most of the flow, without resorting to the default. Data for the diffuser family were created by wall-resolved, large-eddy simulation (LES), using the dynamic Smagorinsky model, for the purpose of testing turbulence models. The family is a parameterized set of geometries that allows one to test whether the pattern of separation is moving correctly from the top to the side wall as the parameter increases. The adaptive DES model is quite accurate in this regard. It is found to predict the mean velocity accurately, but the pressure coefficient is underpredicted. The latter is due to the onset of separation being slightly earlier in the DES than in the LES.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.


Spalart, P. R. , 2009, “ Detached-Eddy Simulation,” Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech., 41(1), p. 181. [CrossRef]
Spalart, P. R. , Deck, S. , Shur, M. L. , Squires, K. D. , Strelets, M. K. , and Travin, A. K. , 2006, “ A New Version of Detached-Eddy Simulation, Resistant to Ambiguous Grid Densities,” Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn., 20(3), p. 181. [CrossRef]
Strelets, M. , 2001, “ Detached Eddy Simulation of Massively Separated Flows,” AIAA Paper No. 2001-0879.
Reddy, K. R. , Ryon, J. A. , and Durbin, P. A. , 2014, “ A DDES Model With a Smagorinsky-Type Eddy Viscosity Formulation and Log-Layer Mismatch Correction,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 50, p. 103. [CrossRef]
Yin, Z. , Reddy, K. R. , and Durbin, P. A. , 2015, “ On the Dynamic Computation of the Model Constant in Delayed Detached Eddy Simulation,” Phys. Fluids, 27, p. 025105.
Cherry, E. M. , Elkins, C. J. , and Eaton, J. K. , 2008, “ Geometric Sensitivity of Three-Dimensional Separated Flows,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 29(3), p. 803. [CrossRef]
Ohlsson, J. , Schlatter, P. , Fischer, P. F. , and Henningson, D. S. , 2010, “ Direct Numerical Simulation of Separated Flow in a Three-Dimensional Diffuser,” J. Fluid Mech., 650, p. 307. [CrossRef]
Jeyapaul, E. , and Durbin, P. A. , 2010, “ Three-Dimensional Turbulent Flow Separation in Diffusers,” AIAA Paper No. 2010-918.
Wilcox, D. C. , 1993, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, La Cacada, CA.
Lilly, D. K. , 1992, “ A Proposed Modification of the Germano Subgrid-Scale Closure Method,” Phys. Fluids A, 4(3), p. 633. [CrossRef]
OpenCFD, 2004, “ OpenFOAM: The Open Source CFD Toolbox,” OpenCFD Ltd., Berkshire, UK.
Lund, T. S. , Wu, X. , and Squires, K. D. , 1998, “ Generation of Turbulent Inflow Data for Spatially-Developing Boundary Layer Simulation,” J. Comput. Phys., 140(2), pp. 233–258. [CrossRef]
Jeyapaul, E. , 2011, “ Turbulent Flow Separation in Three-Dimensional Asymmetric Diffusers,” Ph.D. thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, IA.


Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Geometry of the diffuser: top and side views. The front and top faces are flared.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

U velocity contours predicted by LES for the diffuser series, normalized by inflow bulk velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

LES predicted pressure coefficient Cp for the diffuser series

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

LES results for Cp and mean velocity profiles compared to experimental and DNS data. An RANS prediction of Cp is included to illustrate the typical level of inaccuracy. For velocity profiles, dashed lines denote LES while solid lines represent DNS.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Diffuser geometry and computational domain for AR=2.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cp along the centerline of the bottom wall: AR=2.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Secondary velocity magnitude Uy2+Uz2, normalized by inflow bulk velocity, in the recycling region: AR=1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Secondary velocity magnitude, normalized by bulk velocity, at x = 0: AR=1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

(a) Cp along the centerline of the bottom wall for AR=1,  1.5,  2.5, and 4 and (b) comparison of Cp with AR=1

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Velocity profiles at mid-z locations. Top row: AR=1 and 1.5 and bottom row: AR=2.5 and 4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Velocity profiles at mid-y locations. Top row: AR=1 and  1.5 and bottom row: AR=2.5 and 4.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

DDES predicted U velocity contours, normalized by inflow bulk velocity

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Instantaneous and averaged CDES and contours of fd for AR=2.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Instantaneous Q contoured by U velocity component, velocity normalized by inflow bulk velocity



Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In