INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS IN FLUIDS
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 2010; 00:2–25

arXiv:1704.08368v1 [physics.flu-dyn] 26 Apr 2017

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/fld

Surface-sampled simulations of turbulent flow at high Reynolds
number
Neil D. Sandham, Roderick Johnstone, Christian T. Jacobs∗
Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, University Road, Southampton, SO17 1BJ,
United Kingdom

SUMMARY
A new approach to turbulence simulation, based on a combination of large-eddy simulation (LES) for the
whole flow and an array of non-space-filling quasi-direct numerical simulations (QDNS), which sample the
response of near-wall turbulence to large-scale forcing, is proposed and evaluated. The technique overcomes
some of the cost limitations of turbulence simulation, since the main flow is treated with a coarse-grid LES,
with the equivalent of wall functions supplied by the near-wall sampled QDNS. Two cases are tested, at
friction Reynolds number Reτ = 4200 and 20 000. The total grid node count for the first case is less than
half a million and less than two million for the second case, with the calculations only requiring a desktop
computer. A good agreement with published DNS is found at Reτ = 4200, both in terms of the mean velocity
profile and the streamwise velocity fluctuation statistics, which correctly show a substantial increase in nearwall turbulence levels due to a modulation of near-wall streaks by large-scale structures. The trend continues
at Reτ = 20 000, in agreement with experiment, which represents one of the major achievements of the new
approach. A number of detailed aspects of the model, including numerical resolution, LES-QDNS coupling
strategy and sub-grid model are explored. A low level of grid sensitivity is demonstrated for both the QDNS
and LES aspects. Since the method does not assume a law of the wall, it can in principle be applied to flows
that are out of equilibrium. Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Received . . .

KEY WORDS: Turbulence models, Turbulent flow, LES: Large Eddy Simulations, Navier-Stokes,
Incompressible flow, Finite difference
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls [Version: 2010/05/13 v2.00]

2

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

1. INTRODUCTION

Despite advances in hardware and in particular the use of massively parallel supercomputers,
applications of direct numerical simulation (DNS) are limited in terms of the Reynolds number
(Re) that can be reached, owing to the cost of the simulations. Measured in terms of number of grid
points, the cost scales strongly with Re, for example the number of grid points required scales as
37/14

ReL

(where L is the distance from the leading edge) for boundary layer flow [1] and smaller

timesteps are also required as the grid becomes finer. A cheaper approach is large-eddy simulation
(LES) where only the larger scales are simulated, while smaller scales are modelled. However, near
a wall the smaller scales play a predominant role and to obtain sufficient accuracy many LES in
practice end up being ‘wall-resolved’ LES, where grid node counts are significantly lower than
DNS (typically of the order of 1%) but a strong scaling with Re remains, meaning that LES is also
too expensive for routine application, for example to flow over a commercial aircraft wing. The
alternative of wall-modelled LES has much more attractive scaling characteristics (fixed in terms
of boundary layer thickness, for example), but relies very heavily on a wall treatment. Given that
there is no accurate reduced-order model for turbulence near a wall (which would require some
kind of breakthrough solution of the ‘turbulence problem’), a lot of reliance would be placed on
the near-wall model, with little likelihood of significant improvements over second-moment closure
approaches based on the Reynolds-averaged equations. In this paper we consider an alternative
approach whereby small-domain simulations are used to represent the near-wall turbulence, in a
non-space-filling manner, and linked to an LES away from the wall, where the sub-grid models
might be expected to work with reasonable accuracy.
To understand the new approach, an appreciation of recent progress in understanding the physics
of near-wall turbulence is useful. The inner region, consisting of the viscous sublayer and the buffer
layer, out to a wall-normal distance of z + ≈ 100 (where z is the wall normal distance and the

∗ Correspondence

to: Faculty of Engineering and the Environment, University of Southampton, University Road,

Southampton, SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom.
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

3

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

dimensionless form is z + = zuτ /ν , where ν is the kinematic viscosity and uτ =

p

τw /ρ is the

friction velocity, with τw = µ (du/dz)w the wall shear stress, µ = ρν being the viscosity and ρ
the density) follows a known regeneration cycle [2], whereby vortices develop streamwise streaks,
which give rise to instabilities that create new vortices. The streamwise scales are up to 1000 in
wall units (ν/uτ ), while the spanwise scale is 100 (sufficient to sustain near-wall turbulent cycles
[3]), but one should note that the probability distributions are smooth over a range of scales, and
the regeneration process doesn’t involve single Fourier modes with these wavelengths. The outer
region of a turbulent flow follows a different known scaling, where a defect velocity (relative to
the centreline in internal flows, or the external velocity in boundary layers) scales with uτ and the
geometry of the flow (for example boundary layer thickness). As the Reynolds number is increased
an overlap between these inner and outer-layers is found and, at very high Re, recent pipe flow
experiments [4] provide good evidence for a logarithmic region in the mean velocity profile.
Within the logarithmic region of turbulent boundary layers, pipes and channels very large scale
motions (VLSMs) (sometimes referred to as ‘superstructures’) have been observed, for example
in [5]. These structures are in addition to the near-wall turbulence cycle and possible organised
motions in the outer part of the flow. Interestingly these VLSM structures are longer than those of
the outer layer [6, 7, 5, 8]. The presence of both outer-layer motions and VLSMs means that the
near-wall flow cannot be considered as a separate feature, but one that is modulated by larger-scale
flow features. This leads to increases in the near-wall fluctuations as Re is increased, as has been
shown experimentally. For example [4] shows a small increase in the near wall (z + = 12) peak
in streamwise fluctuation level and a much larger increase for z + > 100, eventually leading to a
separate peak in the fluctuation profile.
Further insight into the near-wall structure of turbulent flow has been obtained recently from a
resolvent-mode analysis of the mean flow [9]. The resolvent modes are obtained from a singular
value decomposition of the linearised Navier-Stokes equations subject to forcing and shows the
response of the flow. From this type of analysis, Moarref et al. [8] extracted near-wall, outer layer
and mixed scalings. In particular, at very high Reynolds number three kinds of structures were

Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

4

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

shown to be present, including a near-wall structure whose scaling was in good agreement with the
regeneration cycle discussed above. In the outer region the spanwise width of structures was shown
to scale with the channel half height, whereas in the logarithmic region the width had a mixed
scaling. Given these insights into the key structures in turbulent wall-bounded flow, it is interesting
to consider a simulation approach based on resolving these classes of structures.
There have been a small number of previous attempts to combine different simulations to resolve
the various layers of flow near a wall. A multi-block approach was developed by Pascarelli et al.
[10]. This method includes a multi-layer structure with a large block covering the channel central
region and smaller blocks near the wall that were periodically-replicated. Simulations were only
carried out at low Re but it was observed that the flow adjusted very quickly to the imposition of
periodic spanwise boundary conditions at the block interfaces. The method envisioned more layers
at high Re. The cost saving at the Re simulated was found to be modest and the method would
not capture the modulation of small scales by large scales, since the same near-wall box was used
everywhere. Another approach has been proposed recently [11] in which a minimal flow unit for
near-wall turbulence is coupled to a coarse-grid LES for the whole domain, with a rescaling of both
simulation at each timestep. It is not clear from the description whether the minimal flow simulation
feeds back the correct local shear stresses to the large structures, but results from this approach are
shown to reproduce experimental correlations for skin friction [12] within 5% up to Reτ = 10, 000.
In the present contribution we consider an approach that uses multiple near-wall simulations
that are able locally to respond to changes in the outer-layer environment, provided by an LES. In
return the near-wall simulations provide the wall shear stress required by the LES as a boundary
condition. The general arrangement is sketched on Figure 1 for a simulation of turbulent channel
flow. In effect the set of near-wall simulations (shown in red on the figure) are used as the nearwall model. However these simulations are only sampled (not continuous) in space, hence a
large saving in computational cost is possible. As a shorthand notation we will refer to the nearwall simulations as quasi-DNS (QDNS) since no sub-grid model is used, but resolutions do not
need to be fine enough for these to be fully-resolved DNS. The approach proposed here follows

Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

5

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

Figure 1. Schematic of the computational arrangement for simulation of turbulent channel flow. The outer
box is the LES domain, while the red-shaded boxes are the computational domains for the quasi-DNS.

the style of heterogeneous multiscale methods (HMM), a general framework in which different
modelling techniques/algorithms are applied to different scales and/or areas of the computational
grid [13, 14, 15, 16]. More specifically, the crux of HMM is the coupling of an overall macroscale
model (i.e. the LES in this case) with several microscale models (i.e. the QDNS blocks); it is
these microscale models that can provide missing/more accurate data (i.e. the shear stress boundary
conditions) back to the macroscale model.
A similar multiscale reduced-order approach was formulated independently by [17] and applied
to a quasigeostrophic model of the Antarctic Cirumpolar Current. The velocity field and potential
vorticity gradient were advanced in time using a coarse grid model; this model comprised small
embedded subdomains at each ‘coarse’ grid location (in contrast to the use of blocks encompassing
multiple coarse grid points in this work), within which smaller-scale eddies evolved on a separate
spatial and temporal scale. This is similar to the method proposed here in that the domain
comprises smaller turbulence-resolving simulations that are coupled with a coarser grid simulation.
Furthermore, the components of the eddy potential vorticity flux divergence were computed and
averaged in the subdomains and fed back to the coarse grid model, much like the near-wall averaged
shear stresses computed in the approach described here. However, unlike the present work, the state
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

6

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

of the eddy-resolving embedded subdomains was not carried over between coarse grid time-steps
and was reset each time to a given initial condition.
In this paper we set out the method and present results from a proof-of-concept simulation of
turbulent channel flow, also showing the sensitivity of the method to various numerical parameters.
Section 2 provides details of the numerical approach and its implementation as a Fortran code.
Section 3 presents the proof-of-concept results from the simulation of turbulent channel flow. The
potential for extension of the method to very high Reynolds number is then discussed in Section 4.
The paper closes with some conclusions in Section 5.

2. NUMERICAL FORMULATION

2.1. Numerical method
The same numerical method is used for both the LES and the near-wall QDNS domains shown in
Figure 1, all of which have periodic boundary conditions applied in the wall-parallel directions x and
y . Within these domains the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations are solved on stretched (in z )

grids, using staggered variables (with pressure p defined at the cell centre and velocity components
ui at the centres of the faces), by an Adams-Bashforth method. The governing equations are the

continuity equation

∂ui
=0
∂xi

(1)

∂p
1 ∂ 2 ui
∂ui uj
∂ui
= δi1 −
+
,
+
∂t
∂xj
∂xi
Reτ ∂xj ∂xj

(2)

and the momentum equations

where all variable are dimensionless (normalised using the channel half height, friction velocity,
density and kinematic viscosity) and the term δi1 provides the driving pressure gradient. Enforcing
a constant pressure gradient or constant mass flow rate are the two main approaches to ensuring that
the flow field evolves with a near-constant wall shear velocity [18]. In the present work, the constant
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

7

pressure gradient δi1 frequently used in similar channel flow simulation setups (e.g. [19, 20, 21])
is used only in the LES, whereas for the QDNSs it is set to zero and a constant mass flow rate is
employed for consistency reasons so that there is conservation of mass between the LES and QDNS.
It was found that using only the LES stresses alone to drive the QDNS simulations resulted in too
high a flow velocity. Any inaccuracies in the shear stresses would increase over time since there was
no mechanism in place to keep the wall shear velocity (and therefore Reτ ) near the desired constant
value.
Grids are uniform in the wall-parallel directions x and y and stretched in the wall-normal (z )
direction according to

z=

tanh(aζ)
,
tanh(a)

(3)

where a is a stretching parameter and ζ is uniformly spaced on an appropriate interval (−1 ≤ ζ ≤ 1
in the LES for example).
The Adams-Bashforth method advances the solution in time using two steps. In the first step a
provisional update of the velocity field is made according to

u∗i = uni + ∆t




3 n 1 n−1 1 ∂pn−1
+ δi1 ,
H i − Hi
+
2
2
2 ∂xi

(4)

where

Hi = −

∂ui uj
1 ∂ 2 ui
+
.
∂xj
Re ∂xj ∂xj

(5)

A final correction is then made to give

3 ∂pn
,
un+1
= u∗i − ∆t
i
2 ∂xi

(6)

where the pressure is obtained by solution of

2 ∂u∗i
∂2p
=
.
∂xi ∂xi
3∆t ∂xi
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

(7)
Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

8

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

Application of a fast Fourier transform in horizontal planes leads to a tridiagonal matrix that is
solved directly.

2.2. Model implementation
The model code was written in Fortran 90, with conditional statements used to enable/disable
the LES parameterisation depending on the flag set in the simulation setup/configuration file.
Each iteration of the combined LES-QDNS approach entailed first running each QDNS simulation
individually with its own setup file (containing the number of timesteps to perform, for example);
the LES was then run immediately afterwards to complete the iteration (and thus a single LES
timestep, as explained in the next subsection). The setup and execution of these simulations was
performed using a Python script that ensured the simulations were run in the correct order, and also
performed statistical averaging and postprocessing of the simulation results. Such postprocessing
includes the averaging of the shear stresses from all the QDNS and writing out these results to a
file in a format that the LES expects, as discussed in the next section. Note that, while the model
itself was written in Fortran and could only be executed in serial, the Python script that handled the
execution of the simulations was parallelised such that all of the QDNS were executed at the same
time, with the results then being combined/postprocessed via MPI Send/Receive operations. The
mpi4py library [22] was used for this purpose. For a setup involving N × N QDNS per wall, the
LES-QDNS approach requires (N × N × 2) + 1 MPI processes (N × N × 2 processes for the total
number of QDNS, and one process for the LES).

2.3. Interconnection between LES and QDNS
The basic arrangement for the simulations is as shown on figure 1. To illustrate the details we
consider a baseline case at Reτ = 4200, corresponding to the highest current Reτ for DNS of channel
flow [23]. The DNS used a domain of size 2π by π by 2 with a 2048 × 2048 × 1081 grid. The
smallest resolved length scale in a DNS needs to be O(η), where η is the Kolmogorov length scale
[24]. The choice of O(η) grid spacing in the DNS of [23] therefore satisfied this requirement, and is
consistent with known guidelines for the choice of wall units in turbulent channel flow simulations
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

9

(see e.g. [19, 25, 26]). Here we attempt the same configuration using an LES in a domain 6 × 3 × 2†
on a 24 × 24 × 42 grid (with stretching parameter a set to 1.577) with a 4 × 4 array of QDNS on
each wall, each QDNS using a 243 grid (with stretching parameter a set to 1.4) covering a domain in
wall units of 1000 × 500 × 200. The total number of grid points is less than half a million, or 0.01%
of the DNS. In this baseline case the QDNS grid spacing in wall units is ∆x+ = 41.7, ∆y + = 20
with the first cell centre at z + = 1.5.
The choice of QDNS resolution follows guideline values in the literature (e.g. ∆x+ typically less
than 50 in the spanwise direction compared to 20 for DNS [27]) such that the cost of the QDNS
is approximately an order of magnitude less than a full DNS near the wall [28]. It was found that
refining this further had little impact on the accuracy of the results, as discussed in Section 3. Seen
in plan view the entire QDNS occupies one LES cell (i.e. Lx,QDNS = ∆xLES and Ly,QDNS = ∆yLES .
In the wall-normal direction the QDNS overlaps the LES, in this case by three cells, to avoid using
the immediate near-wall points that are most susceptible to errors in the accuracy of the sub-grid
modelling. These three cells cover the region out to z + = 200 with the centre of the first LES cell at
z + = 30. The LES grid was deliberately kept very coarse in order to highlight the potential savings

of the proposed method and how it takes advantage of the separation of scales, although it was found
a posteriori that it needed refining to a 96 × 96 × 56 grid in order to yield a much better mean flow
prediction (see Section 3).
The required resolution for DNS and QDNS scales strongly with Reynolds number [27], with
37/14

the number of DNS grid points being proportional to Re9/4 [29] (or ReL

in the more recent

calculations of [1]). The resolution requirements for QDNS are likely to be similar to that of wallresolving LES which scales proportional to ∼ Re2 [30, 31, 1], while wall-modelled LES scales

† Note

that the domain size of 6 × 3 × 2 did not match exactly with the DNS domain size of 2π × π × 2 because such

round numbers were convenient for wall unit measurements and choice of QDNS block size. The results were found not
to be sensitive to this small inconsistency.
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

10

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

(a) z+ =335

3.0

30

2.5

27

2.0
y

24
1.5
21
1.0
18

0.5
0.0

0

1

2

3
x

4

5

6

(b) z+ =13

500

15

24
21

400

18
15

200

12

y+

300

9
100
0
0

6
200

400

600

800

1000

3

x+

Figure 2. Plan view showing (a) streamwise velocity contour lines at z + = 335 from the LES at Reτ = 4200
with the dark areas showing the locations of the QDNS domains, (b) expanded view of filled contours of
streamwise velocity at z + = 13 in one of the QDNS sub-domains.

weakly with Reynolds number (Re2/5 [30, 1]). In terms of resolving the turbulence structures, smallscale eddies and streaks near the wall scale with wall units while the LSMs scale with domain size
[8].
The time step for the QDNS is set to ∆t = 0.0001 and 25 QDNS steps are run before one LES
update (i.e. the LES operates on a timestep of 0.0025). The respective Courant number criteria need
to be respected for both the LES and QDNS simulations, which determines the number of QDNS
steps per LES step.
The QDNS are driven by the LES. The QDNS are run in constant mass-flux mode with the mass
fluxes in x and y provided by the LES. At the upper boundary conditions the QDNS use w = 0
and apply a viscous stress corresponding to the shear stresses from the LES. This effectively sets
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

11

du/dz and dv/dz at the upper boundary of the QDNS and, together with the enforced mass flux,

drives the QDNS to match the LES in these aspects. Each QDNS is thus driven by the local LES
conditions and simulates the response of wall turbulence to large-scales present in the LES. Figure
2 shows a snapshot of the results from a simulation. The streamwise velocity is shown in a plan
view. Part (a) of the figure shows the whole LES domain at z + = 335, with QDNS sub-domains
visible as the dark areas. Part (b) of the figure zooms in on one of the QDNS domains, showing
streamwise velocity contours near the wall (z + = 13). In this arrangement it can be seen how the
4 × 4 array of QDNS samples the large-scale structures from the LES. At the end of the 25 QDNS

time steps the shear stresses (du/dz)w and (dv/dz)w are averaged over each QDNS and linearly
interpolated back to the LES to provide the lower boundary condition. Such a boundary condition is
considered a good first approximation, despite the QDNS blocks not resolving turbulence structures
down to the Kolmagorov length scale, because the QDNSs are capable of resolving the near-wall
streaks to reduce the empiricism required at the wall [32, 27]. It may be more desirable to use more
information from the QDNS (e.g. transferring all components of the Reynolds stress tensor back to
the LES and computing a contribution to the eddy viscosity for use in the LES) to obtain a more
accurate result. Nevertheless, the current sampling technique and the interpolation back to the full
LES domain is advantageous since it exploits the emerging spectral gap that exists between the large
and small scales at large Reynolds number [8].
Larger domains are handled by increasing the size of the LES domain and increasing the number
of QDNS blocks. It should be noted that there is only a very small amount of communication
between the LES and QDNS calculations (four floating point numbers into each QDNS and two
returned per 25 steps of computational effort). Thus the introduction of the QDNS subdomains
brings with it an additional level of parallelism, with parallel treatment also possible within the LES
and QDNS blocks using conventional strategies.
Once fully developed, the turbulent dynamics are homogeneous in the spanwise and streamwise
directions [19] and thus the use of a regular grid on each wall is a justifiable initial choice.
However, instead of keeping the QDNS blocks stationary, it may be more appropriate to move

Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

12

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

(a)

(b)

30

25

25

20

20
u+

u+

30

15
10

Lozano-Duran DNS
LES
QDNS

15
10

Lozano-Duran DNS
LES
QDNS

5
0
−1.0

−0.8

−0.6

5

−0.4

−0.2

0.0

0

100

101

102

103

104

z+

z

Figure 3. Comparison of the combined LES/QDNS results for mean streamwise velocity with DNS [23]
(solid line) at Reτ = 4200 (a) in linear scale, and (b) in semi-logarithmic co-ordinates. Open triangles show
the QDNS (carried out on 243 grids), squares the LES (on a 24 × 24 × 42 grid).

the blocks downstream with the flow speed in an attempt to track smaller-scale turbulent structures.
It is possible that the effects of these turbulent small-scale structures are being dissipated by the
averaging procedure or simply by the region of lower resolution outside the QDNS block, with
downstream blocks becoming increasingly inaccurate as a result. It is unclear how many QDNS
blocks will be required in general, but the number is likely to scale with Reτ in order to obtain
adequate sampling near the wall.

3. PROOF OF CONCEPT AND SENSITIVITY TO NUMERICAL PARAMETERS
The mean streamwise velocity u+ and root mean square (RMS) of the streamwise velocity
fluctuations u+
RMS were used as performance measures. These are defined, for each point k in the
z -direction, by

Ny
S X
Nx X
X
1
u+
u =
i,j,k ,
SNx Ny
+

(8)

s=1 i=1 j=1

Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

13

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

4.0
Lozano-Duran DNS
Sampled wall QDNS
Unmodulated QDNS

3.5
3.0

u+
RMS

2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

0

50

100
z+

150

200

Figure 4. Root-mean-square streamwise velocity in the near-wall region at Reτ = 4200, comparing the
QDNS (triangles) from the mixed QDNS-LES simulation with DNS (solid line) and with a separate QDNS,
in which the near-wall region is not modulated by structures from the outer region.

and

u+
RMS

v
u
u
u
= t


Ny
Nx X
S X
X
1
2
 − u+ 2 .
u+
i,j,k
SNx Ny

(9)

s=1 i=1 j=1

where u+
i,j,k is the dimensionless velocity at grid point (i, j, k). The quantities Nx and Ny are the
number of grid points in the x and y directions. The quantities were not accumulated over all timesteps, but were instead accumulated every S timesteps, where S was chosen to be sufficiently small
to ensure a steady average. In addition, the mean velocity relative to the friction velocity was also
considered. This quantity is defined as

1
+
uf
=
2

Z

1

u+ dz.

(10)

−1

The mean streamwise velocity for the baseline case is shown in figure 3 in linear and semilogarithmic co-ordinates in parts (a) and (b) respectively, showing a composite of the LES results
(with squares, omitting the first 3 cells) and the near-wall QDNS (shown with triangles). Overall a
reasonable match to the reference DNS is observed despite the very low grid node count. The QDNS
simulations correctly capture the viscous sublayer and buffer layer, while the LES captures the outer
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

14

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

layer. Both the QDNS and LES undershoot the reference DNS by about 5% at the LES/QDNS
interface and the LES gives noticeably too low a centreline velocity (by 3%). The mean velocity
relative to the friction velocity is 23.3 which is ∼0.9% lower than the DNS and 2.9% lower than
Dean’s correlation [12], which together provide a useful measure of the overall accuracy of this
approach. With all the data available from the QDNS, it would in principle be possible to improve
the near-wall sub-grid modelling in the LES to address the undershoot at the interface (for example
the eddy viscosity can be computed from the QDNS and used in the LES), however in the present
contribution we use the same (Smagorinsky) sub-grid model for all cases.
An interesting feature emerges when one considers the root mean square (RMS) of streamwise
velocity fluctuations from the QDNS simulations, shown on figure 4. To assemble this figure, as with
the QDNS shown in figure 3, all 16 QDNS on one wall were averaged in horizontal planes and over
time. The result is generally in good agreement with the DNS. There is an overshoot in the peak at
z + = 12, which is likely due to under-resolution within the QDNS blocks; similar over-shoots have

been observed in the RMS streamwise velocity for large eddy simulations of turbulent channel flow
(at lower Reτ values of 180, 395 and 640) where the near-wall zone is not adequately resolved by
the grid [33, 34]. The RMS levels agree well with DNS further away from the wall, showing that the
current methodology has correctly captured the modulation of near-wall turbulence by outer-layer
motions that is seen experimentally [35]. For comparison, a separate QDNS was run with only the
mean mass flow and velocity gradients imposed, giving an unmodulated result (shown on figure 4
with the chain dotted line) for comparison. It can be seen that the effect of modulation of near-wall
turbulence by outer-layer structures is to increase the RMS levels by a factor of ∼2.5 at this Reynolds
number. The effect of increasing RMS with Reynolds number would only be properly obtained in
conventional LES using the wall-resolved approach, which would however be significantly more
expensive than the current method. A wall-resolved LES grid to do the same calculation as shown
here (allowing for a factor of four under-resolution in all directions compared to the reference DNS)
would need 71 million grid points, compared to less than half a million employed here. The nested

Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

15

4.0
Lozano-Duran DNS
Sampled wall LES

3.5

+
+
u+
RMS , vRMS , wRMS

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

z

Figure 5. Root-mean-square turbulence statistics from the LES part of the simulation, compared to DNS
[23] at Reτ = 4200

LES approach of [11] also gives the modulation effect, but not the multi-block model of [10], which
uses the same replicated near-wall block everywhere on the wall.
The extremely coarse-grid LES shows significant errors in the structure of the turbulence as the
wall is approached. Figure 5 shows RMS values of all velocity components compared to DNS. Here,
only the resolved part of the LES is shown, but nevertheless there is a significant overshoot relative
to the DNS. In particular the streamwise velocity fluctuations are significantly higher and the wallnormal velocity fluctuations are significantly lower than the DNS. In both cases the effect of the
wall extends to much higher values of z than it should, due no doubt to the severe under-resolution
of turbulence near the wall, with only larger structures resolved on the LES grid. It should be noted
that the sub-grid model used here is the classical Smagorinsky model and no effort has been made
to optimise the model formulation in the near-wall region. Other formulations such as dynamic
Smagorinsky or WALE would be expected to do better, but the grid is so coarse in these cases that
good agreement is not to be expected. A more limited expectation is that the LES resolve sufficient
features of the turbulence to provide a reasonable model of the outer-flow, with the shear stress at
the wall provided by the QDNS and not so dependent on the subgrid modelling (since only the local
flow derivatives are passed to the QDNS as boundary conditions).
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

16

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

(a)

30

Lozano-Duran DNS
Baseline
Refined QDNS

25

Lozano-Duran DNS
Baseline
Refined QDNS

3.5
3.0

20

2.5
u+
RMS

u+

(b)

4.0

15

2.0
1.5

10

1.0
5
0

0.5
100

101

102
z+

103

0.0

104

0

50

100
z+

150

200

Figure 6. Sensitivity of the mean streamwise velocity and near-wall RMS streamwise velocity at Reτ = 4200
to grid resolution of the QDNS, comparing the baseline case (243 ) with a refined case (323 ).

(a)

30
25

Lozano-Duran DNS
Baseline
Refined LES

3.5
3.0

20

2.5
u+
RMS

u+

(b)

4.0

Lozano-Duran DNS
Baseline
Refined LES

15

2.0
1.5

10

1.0
5
0

0.5
100

101

102
z+

103

104

0.0

0

50

100
z+

150

200

Figure 7. Sensitivity of the mean streamwise velocity and near-wall RMS streamwise velocity at Reτ = 4200
to grid resolution of the LES, comparing the baseline case (242 × 42) with a refined case (962 × 56).

Any simulation-based model of turbulence is only useful if it provides a suitable degree of grid
independency. In the current case the resolution required for the QDNS is reasonably well known,
based on previous DNS. Figure 6 (a) shows a negligible effect on the mean flow of increasing the
near-wall QDNS from 243 to 323 , which is still well below the levels required for a resolved DNS
(643 would give a resolution of ∆x+ = 15.6, ∆y + = 7.8 and a first grid point at z + < 1). One effect
of the increased resolution is the reduced near-wall peak of the RMS streamwise velocity, shown
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

17

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

(a)

(b)

30

25

25

20

20
u+

u+

30

15
10

Lozano-Duran DNS
LES
QDNS

15
10

Lozano-Duran DNS
LES
QDNS

5
0
−1.0

−0.8

5

−0.6

−0.4

−0.2

0

0.0

100

101

102

103

104

z+

z

Figure 8. Comparison of the combined LES/QDNS results for mean streamwise velocity with DNS [23]
(solid line) at Reτ = 4200 (a) in linear scale, and (b) in semi-logarithmic co-ordinates. Open triangles show
the QDNS (carried out on 243 grids), squares the refined LES (on a 96 × 96 × 56 grid).
(a)

30
25

4

15

3

10

2

5

1

0

100

101

Lozano-Duran DNS
Baseline
1x1 QDNS
2x2 QDNS
6x6 QDNS

5

u+
RMS

u+

20

(b)

6

Lozano-Duran DNS
Baseline
1x1 QDNS
2x2 QDNS
6x6 QDNS

102

103

104

0

0

50

100
z+

z+

150

200

Figure 9. Sensitivity of the mean streamwise velocity and near-wall RMS streamwise velocity at Reτ = 4200
to the QDNS arrangement, comparing the baseline case (42 on each wall) with two coarser cases (22 and 12
on each wall) and one finer case (62 on each wall).

on figure 6(b), with the correct trend to agree with the DNS in the limit of very fine resolution.
Additionally there is a slight improvement (<4%) in the RMS from around z + = 80 onwards.
The effect of the grid resolution of the LES in all directions is tested in figure 7(a), where the
LES grid is changed from 24 × 24 × 42 to 96 × 96 × 56 and the stretching parameter a is decreased
from 1.577 to 1.28 (in order for the LES to overlap the QDNS blocks by three cells as before).
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

18

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

(a) z+ =322

3.0

32

2.5

28

2.0
y

24
1.5
20
1.0
16

0.5
0.0

0

1

2

3
x

4

5

6

(b) z+ =13

500

12

24
21

400

18
15

200

12

y+

300

9
100
0
0

6
200

400

600

800

1000

3

x+

Figure 10. Plan view showing (a) streamwise velocity contour lines at z + = 322 from the LES at Reτ =
20000 with the dark areas showing the locations of the QDNS domains, (b) expanded view of filled contours

of streamwise velocity at z + = 13 in one of the QDNS sub-domains.

This increases the LES grid point count by a factor of 21 and the timestep is reduced by a factor
of 4 due to Courant number restrictions, but relatively little change is seen in the mean flow. The
main effect is for the centreline velocity prediction to change from a 3% undershoot to a <1%
undershoot. Similarly, the disagreement at the interface between the LES and QDNS blocks is
reduced from about 5% to 2%. While the agreement at the near-wall peak in the streamwise velocity
RMS results, shown in figure 7(b), is better when a refined LES grid is used, the same cannot
be said for the results for z + >∼25 which deviate away from the DNS data. Both RMS velocity
curves from our simulations followed a trend similar to that of the DNS results (namely the initial
peak in the near-wall region followed by a relatively gradual decrease further away from the wall).
These RMS curves were found to be sensitive to the method of averaging the bulk velocity and
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

19

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

(a)

35
30

(b)

4.0

Log law
LES Re=4200
LES Re=20000

LES Re=4200
LES Re=20000

3.5
3.0

25

2.5
u+

u+
RMS

20
15

2.0
1.5

10

1.0

5
0 0
10

0.5
101

102

103

104

105

0.0

0

z+

50

100
z+

150

200

Figure 11. Comparison of (a) the mean and (b) the near-wall RMS streamwise velocities for cases at
Reτ = 4200 and at Reτ = 20000

velocity derivatives from the LES to enforce the mass flow rate in the QDNSs. For each block, a
number of LES grid points were used for the averaging. It was observed that too small an averaging
window caused the RMS velocity curve to be significantly higher than the DNS results, which
was likely caused by small grid-to-grid point oscillations (in turn caused by under-resolution of
the turbulence) being picked up near the wall. On the other hand, too large an averaging window
can introduce turbulence smoothing, reducing the turbulent kinetic energy levels in the QDNS and
therefore causing the curve to be lower than that of the DNS. The latter may have had an effect
here since the number of grid points used in each averaging window (Nx /4 × Ny /4) was obviously
greater in the refined case (with the length and width of the averaging window remaining the same).
Note that the choice of averaging size did not significantly alter the mean streamwise velocity results
which were consistently better than the results from the coarser LES grid. The ultimate convergence
of the LES back to the DNS would require much finer grids and large parallel simulations, which
is beyond the scope of the current investigation. Nevertheless, the limited sensitivity to the grid at
these very low resolutions is promising.
Finally in this section, we consider the effect of the basic arrangement of the QDNS blocks.
The baseline configuration has 4 × 4 blocks, as sketched in figure 1. This configuration seems to
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

20

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

be capable of resolving near-wall flow features, as illustrated by the velocity contours that were
shown on figure 2. Figure 9 shows the effect of reducing the number of near-wall blocks to 2 × 2
and 1 × 1, which clearly under-samples the flow features. The mean flow on figure 9(a) shows that
the principal effect of reducing the near-wall block count is to slightly diminish the accuracy of the
near-wall turbulence. This is possibly due to aliasing effects when trying to sample the very highfrequency turbulent structures. Whilst this result is not catastrophic, it does lead to the conclusion
that 4 × 4 blocks is probably a minimum number of blocks for a reasonable prediction of the mean
flow for the current domain size. On the other hand, increasing the number of near-wall blocks to
6 × 6 yields an improved mean flow prediction particularly near the LES-QDNS interface. While

the RMS curve for the 6 × 6 case displays the correct shape, the values continue to overshoot the
DNS data near the wall. As already noted, these RMS values are sensitive to the averaging procedure
used to enforce the mass flow rate in the QDNS blocks.

4. EXTENSION TO HIGHER REYNOLDS NUMBER

Since the method has been proposed here as a way of simulating high Reynolds number flows,
it is of interest to test the approach at even high Reynolds numbers. In this section we consider
a simulation at Reτ = 20 000, which is a factor of nearly 5 higher than that used in the previous
section. If we keep the same near-wall QDNS configuration, with 4 × 4 blocks, each of 323 points
on the same domains in wall units, we end up with sub-domains that are 0.05 long, 0.025 in the
spanwise direction, with z + = 200 reached at z = 0.01. Maintaining the same link between the LES
and QDNS (i.e. one ∆xLES matching to the entire QDNS subdomain) as in the previous section, and
retaining approximately the same stretching property of the grid (i.e. maximum to minimum ∆z ) we
end up with an LES grid of 120 × 120 × 90. Courant number considerations again lead to a choice
of 25 iterations of the QDNS per LES step, with ∆tLES = 0.00035. Even at the higher Reτ most
of the cost (> 90%) resides in the QDNS simulations and most of the additional cost is due to the
increased number of time steps required at the higher Reτ , which (if it works) represents a linear
scaling of the total simulation cost with Reτ in the channel flow example here.
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

21

Figure 10 shows a plan view of the simulation at Reτ = 20 000, for comparison with figure 2
which showed the equivalent figure at Reτ = 4200. Part (a) of figure 10 shows the streamwise
velocity field from the LES at z + = 322, with the QDNS block superimposed, although these are
too small to be clearly visible. Figure 10(b) shows the flow in one of the QDNS blocks at z + = 13,
showing qualitatively the same near-wall streak structure as was seen in the lower Reynolds number
case. Compared with figure 2(a), figure 10(a) shows a much wider range of scales. The imprint
of very large structures can be seen in figure 10(a) as streamwise-elongated zones of higher- or
lower-than-average streamwise velocity. Superimposed on this are smaller-scale structures down to
the grid scale. On the one hand this increase in the range of scales is a more accurate picture of
a turbulent flow than the picture shown in figure 2(a), since a wider range of the turbulent energy
cascade is captured. On the other hand, this picture also illustrates a possible weakness of the current
approach, since the linear interpolation method used to feedback the shear stress from the QDNS to
the LES will clearly not be accurate, apart from very close to the QDNS locations.
Statistical results for the simulation at Reτ = 20 000 are shown on figure 11, comparing the results
with the logarithmic law of the wall u+ = 1/κ log z + + b with κ = 0.39 and b = 4.5 (where these
values have been chosen to agree with the DNS data from [23]). The solution overshoots the log law
by about 6% near the LES-QDNS interface. It seems unlikely that sub-grid models can be blamed
for the overshoot, although this is something that could be tested. Compared to [12] the mean flow
prediction is approximately 9% too low, although we should note that the Reynolds number in this
simulation is well above the highest Reynolds number used by Dean to make his correlations. In
general the RMS streamwise velocity fluctuations shown on figure 11(b) follow the expected trend,
with the RMS increasing as Reτ increases. The near-wall peak clearly increases with the fivefold
increase in Reτ , although the RMS at z + = 100 decreases by 20% before once again rising slightly
above the Reτ = 4200 line. Therefore, the method proposed here clearly has limitations dependent
on Reτ , which could be mitigated through the use of finer LES resolution or more QDNS blocks
which have been shown to improve the results in the Reτ = 4 200 case.

Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

22

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

In summary, the effect of increasing Reynolds number is partly captured by the method presented
in this section, which is based on a computational cost (including the number of time steps) that
scales approximately proportional to Reτ . However the results at Reτ = 20, 000 deviate from the
logarithmic law, suggesting that the quality of the results will decrease with further increases in
Reτ . To improve on this probably requires more computational resource, and in this respect it is
interesting that the trend to over-predict the logarithmic law of the wall was also seen when the
number of QDNS blocks was reduced to 2 × 2 and 1 × 1, as shown in figure 9. This suggests that
one method to increase the accuracy of the simulations is to increase the number of QDNS blocks,
for example to 32 × 32 at Reτ = 20 000. Although this parallelises trivially, it formally represents a
scaling of the computational grid with Re2τ for channel flow, albeit with a much lower constant of
proportionality than wall-resolved LES. Another method of increasing the accuracy at higher Reτ
would be to increase the domain size of the QDNS, also resulting in a higher scaling exponent.
These estimates may be reduced if the resolution of structures associated with the mixed scaling of
[8] is the limiting factor. Otherwise, for very high Reτ one may need to apply the method recursively,
with successively smaller domains as the wall is approached.

5. CONCLUSIONS

A new approach to simulating near wall flows at high Reynolds number has been presented and
tested. The method relies on LES for the whole domain, but with the skin friction supplied from a
set of quasi-DNS of the near-wall region (out to a wall normal distance of z + = 200). These nearwall simulations use periodic boundary conditions and are not space-filling, but provide an estimate
of the two components of skin friction, given the instantaneous near-wall velocity gradients. The
method has an extremely small communication overhead between the LES and quasi-DNS and
is thus suitable for scaling to large core counts. The accuracy of the method was demonstrated
for a turbulent channel flow at Reτ = 4200, for which less than half a million points were used,
compared to the reference DNS that used over 4 billion points. Besides the low cost, a particular
feature of the new simulation approach is that it is able to predict the effect of modulation of
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

23

small-scale near-wall features by large structures, residing either in the logarithmic or outer regions
of the flow. This makes it possible, for example, to study the effects of wall-based flow control
schemes in a high-Reynolds number external environment. The method is found to be robust to
changes in grid resolution. An O(Reτ ) total cost extrapolation to Reτ = 20 000 demonstrated some
limitations, suggesting that accurate simulations at higher Reτ probably have a higher total cost
scaling (including an increase in grid points and in the number of timesteps), however at much
lower cost relative to wall-resolved LES. For the particular case considered here, that of turbulent
channel flow, wall functions for LES based on the logarithmic law of the wall would be expected to
work well. The advantage of the current approach is that the log law is not assumed and it would
be expected that the effects of a range of non-equilibrium flow conditions could be captured, so
long as the surface sampling is sufficient relative to the dominant large-scale structure in the flow.
Overall the new method offers the potential for engineering calculations at high Reynolds number
at a substantially lower computational cost compared to current LES techniques.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

A significant part of this work was first presented at the 8th International Conference on Computational Fluid
Dynamics (ICCFD); see [36]. CTJ was supported by a European Commission Horizon 2020 project grant
entitled “ExaFLOW: Enabling Exascale Fluid Dynamics Simulations” (grant reference 671571). RJ was
supported partially by the UK Turbulence Consortium (EPSRC grant EP/L000261/1). The authors would
like to acknowledge the support of iSolutions at the University of Southampton and the use of the in-house
Iridis 4 compute cluster. The data files generated as part of this work will be available through the University
of Southampton’s institutional repository service.

REFERENCES

1. Choi H, Moin P. Grid-point requirements for large eddy simulation: Chapman’s estimates revisited. Physics of
Fluids Jan 2012; 24(1), doi:{10.1063/1.3676783} .
2. Jimenez J, Pinelli A. The autonomous cycle of near-wall turbulence. Journal of Fluid Mechanics Jun 25 1999;
389:335–359, doi:{10.1017/S0022112099005066} .
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

24

N. D. SANDHAM, R. JOHNSTONE, C. T. JACOBS

3. Jimenez J, Moin P. The minimal flow unit in near-wall turbulence. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1991; 225:213–240,
doi:10.1017/S0022112091002033.
4. Hultmark M, Vallikivi M, Bailey SCC, Smits AJ. Turbulent Pipe Flow at Extreme Reynolds Numbers. Physical
Review Letters Feb 28 2012; 108(9), doi:{10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.094501} .
5. Monty JP, Stewart JA, Williams RC, Chong MS. Large-scale features in turbulent pipe and channel flows. Journal
of Fluid Mechanics OCT 25 2007; 589:147–156, doi:{10.1017/S002211200700777X} .
6. Adrian RJ, Meinhart CD, Tomkins CD. Vortex organization in the outer region of the turbulent boundary layer.
Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2000; 422:1–54, doi:10.1017/S0022112000001580.
7. Adrian RJ. Hairpin vortex organization in wall turbulence. Physics of Fluids 2007; 19(4), doi:10.1063/1.2717527.
8. Moarref R, Sharma A, Tropp J, McKeon B. Model-based scaling of the streamwise energy density in highReynolds-number turbulent channels. Journal of Fluid Mechanics Nov 2013; 734:275–316, doi:10.1017/jfm.2013.
457.
9. McKeon BJ, Sharma AS. A critical-layer framework for turbulent pipe flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics Sep 2010;
658:336–382, doi:{10.1017/S002211201000176X} .
10. Pascarelli A, Piomelli U, Candler G. Multi-block large-eddy simulations of turbulent boundary layers. Journal of
Computational Physics Jan 1 2000; 157(1):256–279, doi:{10.1006/jcph.1999.6374} .
11. Tang Y, Akhavan R. A nested-LES wall-modeling approach for high Reynolds number wall flows. Abstract,14th
European Turbulence Conference, Lyon, France 2013.
12. Dean R. Reynolds-number dependence of skin friction and other bulk flow variables in 2-dimensional rectangular
duct flow. Journal of Fluids Engineering-Transactions of the ASME 1978; 100(2):215–223.
13. E W, Engquist B. The Heterognous Multiscale Methods. Communications in Mathematical Sciences 03 2003;
1(1):87–132. URL http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.cms/1118150402.
14. E W, Engquist B, Huang Z. Heterogeneous multiscale method: A general methodology for multiscale modeling.
Physical Review B Mar 2003; 67:092 101, doi:10.1103/PhysRevB.67.092101.
15. E W, B E, Li X, Ren W, Vanden-Eijnden E. The heterogeneous multiscale method: A review. Communications in
Computational Physics 2007; 2(3):367–450.
16. Lee Y, Engquist B. Multiscale numerical methods for passive advection-diffusion in incompressible turbulent flow
fields. Journal of Computational Physics 2016; 317:33–46, doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2016.04.046.
17. Grooms I, Majda AJ, Shafer Smith K. Stochastic superparameterization in a quasigeostrophic model of the Antarctic
Circumpolar Current. Ocean Modelling 2015; 85:1–15, doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.10.001.
18. Berselli LC, Iliescu T, Layton WJ. Mathematics of Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flows. Springer Science &
Business Media, 2006.
19. Kim J, Moin P, Moser R. Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low Reynolds number. Journal of
Fluid Mechanics 1987; 177:133–166, doi:10.1017/S0022112087000892.
20. Orlandi P, Leonardi S. Direct numerical simulation of three-dimensional turbulent rough channels: Parameterization
and flow physics. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 2008; 606:399–415, doi:10.1017/S0022112008001985.
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

25

SURFACE-SAMPLED SIMULATIONS OF TURBULENT FLOW

21. Busse A, Lützner M, Sandham ND. Direct numerical simulation of turbulent flow over a rough surface based on a
surface scan. Computers & Fluids 2015; 116:129–147, doi:10.1016/j.compfluid.2015.04.008.
22. Dalcı́n L, Paz R, Storti M. MPI for Python. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing 2005; 65(9):1108–1115,
doi:10.1016/j.jpdc.2005.03.010.
23. Lozano-Duran A, Jimenez J. Effect of the computational domain on direct simulations of turbulent channels up to
Re-tau=4200. Physics of Fluids Jan 2014; 26(1), doi:{10.1063/1.4862918} .
24. Moin P, Mahesh K. Direct Numerical Simulation: A Tool in Turbulence Research. Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 1998; 30(1):539–578, doi:10.1146/annurev.fluid.30.1.539.
25. Moser RD, Kim J, Mansour NN. Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to Reτ =590. Physics of
Fluids 1999; 11(4):943–945, doi:10.1063/1.869966.
26. Lee M, Moser RD. Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to Reτ ≈ 5200. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics 2015; 774:395–415, doi:10.1017/jfm.2015.268.
27. Spalart PR. Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow
2000; 21(3):252–263, doi:10.1016/S0142-727X(00)00007-2.
28. Sagaut P, Deck S, Terracol M. Multiscale and Multiresolution Approaches in Turbulence: LES, DES and Hybrid
RANS/LES Methods: Applications and Guidelines. 2nd edn., Imperial College Press, London, UK, 2013.
29. Rogallo RS, Moin P. Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Flows. Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics 1984; 16:99–
137, doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.16.010184.000531.
30. Chapman DR. Computational Aerodynamics Development and Outlook. AIAA Journal 1979; 17(12):1293–1313.
31. Leschziner M, Li N, Tessicini F. Simulating flow separation from continuous surfaces: routes to overcoming the
Reynolds number barrier. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical
and Engineering Sciences 2009; 367(1899):2885–2903, doi:10.1098/rsta.2009.0002.
32. Spalart PR, Jou WH, Strelets M, Allmaras SR. Comments on the feasibility of LES for wings, and on a hybrid
RANS/LES approach. Advances in DNS/LES: Proceedings of the First AFOSR International Conference on
DNS/LES, 4-8 August 1997, Ruston, Louisiana, USA, Liu C, Liu Z (eds.), Greyden Press, Columbus, Ohio, USA,
1997.
33. Veloudis I, Yang Z, McGuirk JJ. LES of Wall-Bounded Flows Using a New Subgrid Scale Model Based on Energy
Spectrum Dissipation. Journal of Applied Mechanics 2008; 75(2), doi:10.1115/1.2775499.
34. Singh S, You D, Bose ST. Large-eddy simulation of turbulent channel flow using explicit filtering and dynamic
mixed models. Physics of Fluids 2012; 24(8):085 105, doi:10.1063/1.4745007.
35. Hutchins N, Marusic I. Large-scale influences in near-wall turbulence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society A-Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences Mar 15 2007; 365(1852):647–664, doi:{10.1098/rsta.
2006.1942}.
36. Sandham ND, Johnstone R. Surface-sampled simulations of turbulent flow at high Reynolds number. Proceedings
of the Eighth International Conference on Computational Fluid Dynamics (ICCFD8), Chengdu, Sichuan, China,
July 14-18, 2014, ICCFD8-2014-296, 2014.
Copyright c 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Prepared using fldauth.cls

Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/fld

