Improvement of double-buffer problem in LES–RANS interface region by introducing an anisotropy-resolving subgrid-scale model

  • Ken-ichi Abe
Original Article


The “double-buffer problem” has been regarded as a crucial concern for the strategy behind the hybrid large eddy simulation (LES)/Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) model (or HLR model, for short). Such models are likely to show unphysical mean-velocity distributions in the LES–RANS interface region, where “super-streak structures” also appear that look like low-speed streaks generated in the near-wall region of wall turbulence. To overcome this difficulty, the stochastic backscatter model, in which the vortex structures in the interface region are divided into smaller scales, holds promise due to the effect of random source term imposed in the momentum equation. Although this method is effective, several parameters must be prescribed and their specification process is arbitrary and ambiguous. An alternative advanced HLR model has been proposed, in which an anisotropy-resolving subgrid-scale (SGS) model was adopted in the LES region as well as a one-equation nonlinear eddy viscosity model in the RANS region. Previous investigations indicated that this HLR model did not exhibit or, at least, largely reduced the “double-buffer problem” in the mean-velocity distribution, with no special treatment being applied. The main purpose of the present study is to reveal why this HLR model improves the predictive performance in the LES–RANS interface region. Specifically, we focus on the role of the extra anisotropic term introduced in the SGS model, finding that it plays an important role in enhancing vortex structures in the interface region, leading to a considerable improvement in model performance.


Turbulence Large eddy simulation Anisotropy-resolving SGS model Hybrid LES/RANS model Interface region 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Smagorinsky, J.: General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. I. The basic experiment. Mon. Weather Rev. 91, 99–164 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P., Cabot, W.H.: A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model. Phys. Fluids A 3, 1760–1765 (1991)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lilly, D.K.: A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid-scale closure method. Phys. Fluids A 4, 633–635 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zang, Y., Street, R.L., Koseff, J.R.: A dynamic mixed subgrid-scale model and its application to turbulent recirculating flows. Phys. Fluids A 5, 3186–3196 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horiuti, K.: A new dynamic two-parameter mixed model for large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 9, 3443–3464 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Morinishi, Y., Vasilyev, O.V.: A recommended modification to the dynamic two-parameter mixed subgrid scale model for large eddy simulation of wall bounded turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids 13, 3400–3410 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Balaras, E., Benocci, C., Piomelli, U.: Two-layer approximate boundary conditions for large-eddy simulations. AIAA J. 34, 1111–1119 (1996)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nikitin, N.V., Nicoud, F., Wasistho, B., Squires, K.D., Spalart, P.R.: An approach to wall modeling in large-eddy simulations. Phys. Fluids 12, 1629–1632 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamba, F.: An attempt to combine large eddy simulation with the \(k\)-\(\varepsilon \) model in a channel-flow calculation. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 14, 323–336 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davidson, L., Peng, S.H.: Hybrid LES-RANS modelling: a one-equation SGS model combined with a \(k\)-\(\omega \) model for predicting recirculating flows. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 43, 1003–1018 (2003)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Batten, P., Goldberg, U., Chakravarthy, S.: Interfacing statistical turbulence closures with large-eddy simulation. AIAA J. 42, 485–492 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanjalic, K., Hadziabdic, M., Temmerman, L., Leschziner, M.A.: Merging LES and RANS strategies: zonal or seamless coupling? In: Friedrich, R., et al. (eds.) Direct and Large Eddy Simulation V, pp. 451–464. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Temmerman, L., Hadziabdic, M., Leschziner, M.A., Hanjalic, K.: A hybrid two-layer URANS-LES approach for large eddy simulation at high Reynolds numbers. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 26, 173–190 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spalart, P.R., Deck, S., Shur, M.L., Squires, K.D., Strelets, MKh, Travin, A.: A new version of detached-eddy simulation, resistant to ambiguous grid densities. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 20, 181–195 (2006)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Breuer, M., Jaffrezic, B., Arora, K.: Hybrid LES/RANS technique based on a one-equation near-wall model. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 22, 157–187 (2008)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Deck, S.: Recent improvements in the Zonal Detached Eddy Simulation (ZDES) formulation. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 26, 523–550 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abe, K.: A hybrid LES/RANS approach using an anisotropy-resolving algebraic turbulence model. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 26, 204–222 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Piomelli, U., Balaras, E., Pasinato, H., Squires, K.D., Spalart, P.R.: The inner-outer layer interface in large-eddy simulations with wall-layer models. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 538–550 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Abe, K.: An advanced switching parameter for a hybrid LES/RANS model considering the characteristics of near-wall turbulent length scales. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 28, 499–519 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Abe, K.: An improved anisotropy-resolving subgrid-scale model with the aid of a scale-similarity modeling concept. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 39, 42–52 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Uruma, O., Kihara, H., Abe, K.: An improvement of hybrid LES/RANS model for complex turbulence with the aide of an anisotropy-resolving subgrid-scale model. In: Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Space Technology and Science, Nagoya, Japan, Paper No. 2013-e-18, June 2–9 (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Abe, K.: An investigation of SGS-stress anisotropy modeling in complex turbulent flow fields. Flow Turbul. Combust. 92, 503–525 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ohtsuka, T., Abe, K.: On the role of an anisotropy-resolving extra term for a subgrid-scale model in near-wall turbulence. J. Comput. Sci. Technol. 7, 410–425 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Abe, K., Ohtsuka, T.: On the effect of an anisotropy-resolving subgrid-scale model on turbulent vortex motions. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Symposium on Engineering Turbulence Modelling and Measurements, Marbella, Spain, Paper No. S4-1, Sep. 17–19 (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bardina, J., Ferziger, J.H., Reynolds, W.C.: Improved subgrid scale models for large eddy simulation, AIAA Paper, No. 80-1357 (1980)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Inagaki, M.: A new wall-damping function for large eddy simulation employing Kolmogorov velocity scale. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 32, 26–40 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Abe, H., Kawamura, H., Matsuo, Y.: Surface heat-flux fluctuations in a turbulent channel flow up to \(Re_\tau =1020\) with Pr = 0.025 and 0.71. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 25, 404–419 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Muto, M., Tsubokura, M., Oshima, N.: Negative Magnus lift on a rotating sphere at around the critical Reynolds number. Phys. Fluids 24, 014102 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kim, J., Moin, P.: Application of a fractional-step method to incompressible Navier–Stokes equations. J. Comput. Phys. 59, 308–323 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Amsden, A.A., Harlow, F.H.: A simplified MAC technique for incompressible fluid flow calculations. J. Comput. Phys. 6, 322–325 (1970)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rhie, C.M., Chow, W.L.: Numerical study of the turbulent flow past an airfoil with trailing edge separation. AIAA J. 21, 1525–1532 (1983)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rajamani, B., Kim, J.: A hybrid filter approach to turbulence simulation. Flow Turbul. Combust. 85, 421–441 (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Germano, M.: Properties of the hybrid RANS/LES filter. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 17, 225–231 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lee, M., Moser, R.D.: Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to \(Re_\tau = 5200\). J. Fluid Mech. 774, 395–415 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Abe, K., Kondoh, T., Nagano, Y.: On Reynolds stress expressions and near-wall scaling parameters for predicting wall and homogeneous turbulent shear flows. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 18, 266–282 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abe, K., Kondoh, T., Nagano, Y.: A new turbulence model for predicting fluid flow and heat transfer in separating and reattaching flows—I. Flow field calculations. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 37, 139–151 (1994)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abe, K., Jang, Y.J., Leschziner, M.A.: An investigation of wall-anisotropy expressions and length-scale equations for non-linear eddy-viscosity models. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 181–198 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Aeronautics and AstronauticsKyushu UniversityFukuokaJapan

Personalised recommendations