Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.

org/ on March 14, 2016

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009) 367, 28492860

doi:10.1098/rsta.2008.0269

Large eddy simulation for aerodynamics:

status and perspectives
B Y P IERRE S AGAUT 1, *
1

AND

S E BASTIEN D ECK 2

Institut Jean Le Rond dAlembert, Universite Pierre et Marie Curie-Paris 6,

4 place Jussieu, case 162, 75252 Paris Cedex 5, France
2
Department of Applied Aerodynamics, ONERA, 29 avenue de la Division
Leclerc, BP 72, 92322 Cha
tillon Cedex, France

The present paper provides an up-to-date survey of the use of large eddy simulation
(LES) and sequels for engineering applications related to aerodynamics. Most recent
landmark achievements are presented. Two categories of problem may be distinguished
whether the location of separation is triggered by the geometry or not. In the rst case,
LES can be considered as a mature technique and recent hybrid Reynolds-averaged
NavierStokes (RANS)LES methods do not allow for a signicant increase in terms of
geometrical complexity and/or Reynolds number with respect to classical LES. When
attached boundary layers have a signicant impact on the global ow dynamics, the use
of hybrid RANSLES remains the principal strategy to reduce computational cost
compared to LES. Another striking observation is that the level of validation is most of
the time restricted to time-averaged global quantities, a detailed analysis of the ow
unsteadiness being missing. Therefore, a clear need for detailed validation in the near
future is identied. To this end, new issues, such as uncertainty and error quantication
and modelling, will be of major importance. First results dealing with uncertainty
modelling in unsteady turbulent ow simulation are presented.
Keywords: computational uid dynamics; turbulence modelling;
large eddy simulation; aerodynamics

1. Introduction
During the last few decades, most numerical efforts in the eld of applied
aerodynamics have been focused on the simulation of nominal operational
congurations. As a consequence of the rules of design, most practical external
ow congurations exhibit only limited separated ow areas and smooth
gradients. Therefore, steady methodologies for turbulent ow prediction are able
to handle these ow elds with a sufcient degree of accuracy. New industrial
needs in aerodynamics deal with transient dynamics of separated ows
(e.g. internal ows) as well as the control of noise and the capability to predict
unsteady dynamic loads so that the simulation of three-dimensional unsteady
turbulent ows is now required. Indeed, this need is becoming an especially
* Author for correspondence (pierre.sagaut@upmc.fr).
One contribution of 16 to a Discussion Meeting Issue Applied large eddy simulation.

2849

This journal is q 2009 The Royal Society

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

2850

P. Sagaut and S. Deck

pressing issue since a wide range of unsteady phenomena that have serious
implications in terms of achievable performance, acoustic environment or safety
has to be considered, and therefore requires to be accurately predicted as soon as
possible in the design cycle of ight vehicles or cars. In such congurations, a
steady Reynolds-averaged NavierStokes (RANS) solution would not be what
the engineer needs.
In addition to the modelling issue, the challenge of handling complex
geometries relates not only to computing cost, but also to solution quality in
terms of meshing and validation of the computed unsteady eld as will be
discussed in 3 and 5.
2. Large eddy simulation and sequels
One of the main properties of a turbulent ow is its multiscale aspect and the
concept of kinetic energy cascade is often cited. Direct numerical simulation
(DNS) enables one to get an accurate three-dimensional and time-dependent
description of all the active scales in the turbulent ow without resorting to any
modelling assumptions. The total number of nodes may be scaled as OReL3 ,
where Re L denotes the Reynolds number based on the spatial integral scale.
Furthermore, if walls are present, the near wall structures need to be resolved
leading to an even stronger dependence on the Reynolds number. Unfortunately,
turbulent ows encountered in engineering applications exhibit such a wide range
of excited length and time scales that DNS remains too costly by several orders of
magnitude at relevant Reynolds numbers (z105108). This is the reason why
modelling is necessary to study turbulent ows, prior to solving the Navier
Stokes equations. Nevertheless, DNS remains a research tool which allows one to
get signicant insight into turbulence physics and to explore control strategies
(Moin & Mahesh 1998).
The large eddy simulation (LES) technique relies on a decomposition of the
aerodynamic eld between the large scales (responsible for turbulence
production) and the small scales of the ow, the former being directly resolved
while the effect of the latter is taken into account through the use of a model. The
primary obstacle to practical use of LES on industrial ows which involve
attached wall boundary layers at high Reynolds number remains computational
power resources. Indeed, the scales of motion responsible for turbulence
production impose severe demands on the grid resolution near solid walls.
As an example, the grid extension sizes DxCz50, DyCz1 and DzCz15 are those
classically retained in LES to capture the near wall structures. In Spalart (2000),
it is proposed that LES of wall turbulence should be considered as a quasi DNS
since the resolution of the near wall layer is roughly only 10 times less expensive
than DNS. For instance, Spalart et al. (1998) report that full LES of the ow
around a three-dimensional wing will not be tractable until the year 2045, even
assuming that wall modelling has been achieved.
LES has been applied to many ow regimes, most of them being illustrated on
academic congurations, e.g. compressible ows with shock induced separation
(Garnier et al. 2001, 2002), compressible cavity ows with complex aeroacoustic
couplings (Larcheveque et al. 2003, 2004) and heat transfer in low-speed
separated ows (Labbe et al. 2002). Most existing application-driven simulations
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

2851

LES for aerodynamics

resolved

DNS

what we
have

PHYSICS

methods

hybrid RANSLES

LES
READINESS

COMPUTATIONAL COST INCREASING

what we need

zonal methods
strong RANSLES coupling
global hybrid methods
weak RANSLES coupling

effect of grid
refinement

PHYSICAL
NUMERICAL
unsteady statistical approaches

modelled

Figure 1. Classication of unsteady approaches according to levels of modelling and readiness.

Adapted from Sagaut et al. (2006).

deal with simplied or reduced geometries, e.g. thin slices of wings or blades
(Manoha et al. 2000; Mary & Sagaut 2002; Raverdy et al. 2003). Among key
issues in the eld of LES, one can mention the denition of robust subgrid models
which perform equally in a wide range of ow parameters (Meyers et al. 2006),
the prescription of unsteady turbulent inow conditions (Sagaut et al. 2004) and
the development of subgrid models for new physical mechanisms such as subgrid
noise production (Seror et al. 2001).
Hybrid RANSLES methods have been developed to alleviate this resolution
constraint in the near-wall region, another strategy being the use of local increase in
the grid resolution (Quemere et al. 2001; Terracol et al. 2001). According to Sagaut
et al. (2006), hybrid methods can be classied into two major classes, namely the
global and the zonal hybrid methods. Similarly, Frolich & von Terzi (2008) propose
to classify the hybrid approaches as unied models and segregated models. Another
way may consist in distinguishing weak and strong RANSLES coupling methods
(see gure 1). The zonal hybrid methods are based on a discontinuous treatment of
the RANSLES interface. In practice, information must be exchanged at the
RANSLES interface between two solutions with very different spectral content.
The global hybrid methods are based on a continuous treatment of the ow variables
at the interface between RANS and LES. These methods, like detached eddy
simulation (DES; Spalart et al. 1998) introduce a grey area in which the solution is
neither pure RANS nor pure LES since the switch from RANS to LES does not imply
an instantaneous change in the resolution level. These methods can be considered as
weak RANSLES coupling methods since there is no mechanism to transfer the
modelled turbulence energy into resolved turbulence energy. Despite a wide number
of approaches (and acronyms), these methods are close to each other (Sagaut et al.
2006; Fro
lich & von Terzi 2008) and can very often be rewritten as variants of a
small group of generic approaches. In practice, they tend to decrease the level of
RANS eddy viscosity, thus permiting strong instabilities to develop. Let us note that
hybrid RANSimplicit LES approaches are also potentially of great interest.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

2852

P. Sagaut and S. Deck

It is now commonly accepted that hybrid RANSLES is the main strategy to

drastically reduce computational cost (compared to LES) in a wide range of
complex industrial applications if attached boundary layers have a signicant
impact on the global ow dynamics. Again, this raises the challenge of validating
unsteady simulations on complex geometries.
3. Need for validation
Computational power has dramatically increased over the last few decades.
A consequence of this upsurge in computational power is the rapid increase in the
size of subsequent datasets, with unsteady 50100 million point grid simulations
being now conducted with increasing regularity.
As the need for higher accuracy simulations has increased, the computational
uid dynamics (CFD) community has in turn put emphasis on assessing the
quality of the results and now focuses a great deal of its effort on validation of
advanced methods. Let us remember that the validation of inviscid calculations
was primarily focused on the capability to evaluate the wall pressure distribution
while the validation of steady viscous calculations was mainly based on the
correct assessment of the boundary layer integral quantities. Now the ow-eld
model has to include a comprehensive unsteady description of turbulence
including uctuations both in pressure and velocities. It is worth adding that
numericists have at their disposal the temporal evolution of all hydrodynamic
quantities in the entire volume of the ow with the best accuracy which allows a
deep investigation of the ow physics.
Disappointingly, many authors present only one-point and rst-order statistics
to assess their unsteady simulations. This may appear paradoxal since the
development of advanced methods is precisely motivated by their potential
capability to predict the uctuating eld in complex congurations. Therefore,
we introduce in table 1 a classication of the level of validation of unsteady data
issued from CFD. Level 1 concerns the comparison of integral quantities such as
lift or drag with measurements. The ability of a method to reproduce rst(e.g. mean velocity prole) and second-order statistics (such as mean squared
value, r.m.s. proles) represents level 2 and 3 respectively. Single-point spectral
analysis describes how the r.m.s. levels are distributed in frequency since getting
the correct amount of energy does not necessarily mean that the frequency
content is well reproduced. Classical spectral analysis (level 4) may be completed
with a two-point analysis (level 5) which allows us to get further insight into the
spatial organization of the ow at a given frequency. When the nature of
the mechanisms of interest is time-dependent, e.g. in transient processes such as
ow bifurcation, the random process is said to be non-stationary and may require
timefrequency and nonlinear coupling analysis (level 6). Levels 4, 5 and 6 are
illustrated in Larcheveque et al. (2003, 2004, 2007), in which both postprocessing tools and extensive comparisons with particle image velocimetry and
hot wire data are displayed.
In addition, it is worthwhile to stress that comparing numerical data
with experiment is by far not trivial, mainly because the datasets are of very
different duration. Indeed, experimental time-series often exceed 10 s while 1 s is
considered a small eternity in CFD. Note the antinomic aspect between the
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

LES for aerodynamics

2853

Table 1. Levels of validation of simulation techniques: nomenclature.

grade

level of validation

1
2
3
4
5
6

integral forces (lift, drag and pitch)

mean aerodynamic eld (velocity or pressure proles)
second-order statistics (r.m.s. quantities)
one-point spectral analysis (power spectral densities)
two-point spectral analysis (correlation, coherence and phase spectra)
high-order and timefrequency analysis (timefrequency, bicoherence spectra)

needs for statistics and the constraints imposed by CFD. Indeed, to perform
a statistical analysis in good conditions, the signal has to be well sampled on a
sufcient duration because the spectral information needs to be averaged on
many blocks to be statistically converged. In practice, unsteady signals issued
from CFD are most often oversampled on a short duration (due to high CPU
cost). From a statistical point of view, it is strictly speaking not relevant to
compare two sequences of data whose duration differs signicantly. In other
words, a comparison between experiment and numerical data has to be
conducted cautiously with full knowledge of the facts.

4. Illustrative examples
We now address the issue of the state-of-the-art knowledge about the use of LES
and hybrid RANSLES techniques to predict the ow in complex threedimensional systems. We deliberately choose here to include only works published
in international peer-reviewed journals, since they have been validated by a
commonly agreed selection process and are available to the whole CFD practioner
community. Some exceptions are made for some RANSLES applications, since
only a very few of them have been published in international journals.
LES is now a mature technique (let us recall that the seminal paper by
Smagorinsky was published 45 years ago), but most published works in peerreviewed international journals are restricted to fundamental studies of academic
ows and developments related to LES theory. Nevertheless, LES is now used to
compute full-scale complex three-dimensional systems. Some signicant landmark achievements are reported in the top half of table 2. These applications are
recent. A detailed analysis of the related papers reveals that they rely on old
methods, i.e. on numerical algorithms and subgrid modelling approaches
published 1015 years ago. The delay between the original publication of the
methods and their practical use is certainly due to the exponential increase of
computing power and the time needed to develop general purpose NavierStokes
solvers with LES capabilities. As a matter of fact, it is observed that the amount
of memory needed for these recent LESs is much larger than those of the
landmark DNSs recorded in the early 1990s. But an interesting fact is that LES is
successfully used to predict the global behaviour of complex systems in which
attached boundary layers are of minor importance, such as a full-scale ve-stage
centrifugal pump or engine combustor chamber.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

reference

Kato et al. (2003, 2007)

Nozu et al. (2008)
Fureby (2008)
Fureby (2008)
Boileau et al. (2008)
Richard et al. (2006)

Hedges et al. (2002)

Lockard et al. (2004)
Viswanathan & Squires (2008)
Morton et al. (2004)
Forsythe et al. (2004)
Medic et al. (2008)
Deck & Thorigny (2007)
Brunet & Deck (2008)
Chauvet et al. (2007)
Trapier et al. (2008)
Deck (in press)

conguration

ve-stage centrifugal pump

urban ow
torpedo
manoeuvring submarine
combustor chamber
four-valve combustion engine

landing gear
landing gear
missile forebody
military ghter
military ghter
gas turbine
afterbody
civil aircraft
ghter jet
supersonic inlet
launcher nozzle

0.1
0.2
0.21
0.27
0.3

0.7
0.82
1
1.8
6

60 and 90
30
65

4.2

025.5

a (8)

0.094

0.1
0.34
0.044
0.1
0.013

1
150

0.5
0.1

L (m)

0.6

2.1
13
2.85

1.1
2.8
0.2
2.9
21

10
50100
12
5
0.3

ReL!106

2.5
13.3
2.18.75
3.9
2.8510
857
8.3
10
11
1020
11

37
10
1.56
4.48.6
2040
0.6

Nxyz!106

2(3)(4)
(2)(3)(4)
(1)2
1(3)
1
2
(1)2345
234
2(3)
2346
1234

4
12
123
12
1(2)(3)
1(3)

validation

2854

0
0
0
0
0.1
0.2

MN

Table 2. Typical LES-like simulations for complex applications. (Validation level nomenclature: (n) means that information of level n (as dened in
table 1) is provided in the paper but not compared with reference data (i.e. experimental/DNS data). First and second blocks are related to classical
LES and RANSLES, respectively. a and L denote the angle of attack and the length scale, respectively.)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

P. Sagaut and S. Deck

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

LES for aerodynamics

2855

Figure 2. Zonal detached eddy simulation of the ow over a subscale civil aircraft at 4.2 degree
angle of attack (courtesy of V. Brunet, ONERA; from Brunet & Deck (2008)).

Hybrid RANSLES approaches have received increasing attention among

turbulence modelling specialists, code developers and industrial CFD engineers.
So far, the validation effort has been mainly focused on two-dimensional
geometries, the span being treated as a homogeneous direction. These are
mandatory problems in relatively simple geometries but are now becoming
supported by a wider set of applications on more complicated geometries. For the
sake of conciseness, only examples of three-dimensional applications are gathered
in table 2.
Several off-design unsteady applications (such as high angle of attack wing
aerodynamics or afterbody ows) can now be simulated accurately. Conversely,
thin layer separations as well as shock/boundary layer interactions remain
challenging congurations. Nevertheless, gure 2 shows that the simulation of
the unsteady ow around a civil aircraft conguration is feasible without waiting
for 2045. Such a simulation has been performed thanks to the use of a zonal DES
approach (Deck 2005) allowing for the reduction of the cost of the simulation
compared to a LES by limiting explicitly the extent of the DES zones. Note that
from an engineering standpoint, full LES of a complete wing would give too
much information in some useless regions such as the leading edge or
pressure side where traditional RANS modelling is often sufcient. Therefore,
the authors promote the use of a zonal treatment of turbulence to treat
complex congurations while other authors (Spalart 2009) may differ, but debate
is useful.
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

2856

P. Sagaut and S. Deck

Besides, table 2 brings out the fact that the validation (i.e. thorough
comparison with measurements) of the unsteady solution is often insufcient
(level of validation!3). This is both surprising and disappointing since the main
purpose of hybrid methods is precisely to provide an unsteady description of the
ow. On top of this observation, this promotes the acquisition of unsteady
databases to validate LES and RANSLES methods.
An interesting point is that, as far as massively separated ows are addressed
and that a detailed description of the boundary-layer dynamics (e.g. prediction of
the turbulent heat transfer) is not considered, classical LES seems to be as useful
as hybrid RANSLES methods. Another observation is that the capability of
hybrid methods to provide a more accurate description of heat transfer and skin
friction in fully three-dimensional complex systems than usual LES (eventually
supplemented with a crude algebraic wall model) remains to be assessed.
Nevertheless, a recent simulation seems to indicate that some DES variants are
able to yield an accurate description of shock/boundary layer interactions at a
lower cost than classical LES.
5. Modern validation procedures: uncertainty and error quantication
The above discussion dealt with classical validation, i.e. with a procedure in
which results coming from a deterministic simulation of an exactly dened
system are compared with reference data that are assumed to be perfect and
associated with an identical system. In practice, the validation process is much
more complex and less accurate. The main reasons are the following. First, really
complex systems (such as a ve-stage pump) are never perfectly known, in the
sense that very ne details of both the geometry and boundary conditions are not
available. Therefore, the computational model can never exactly reproduce the
physical system. The second problem, which has already been mentioned, is that
the CFD and measurements exhibit very different sampling time and sampling
frequency, leading to sometimes very different statistical convergence rate and
accuracy of quantities selected for comparison. A last uncertainty source
originates in measurement errors.
Therefore, uncertainties and errors should be taken into account to perform
fully relevant comparisons. A key point is the capability to evaluate the
sensitivity of the CFD solution with respect to computational parameters, a
reliable solution being a solution with low sensitivity. The computation of the
sensitivity amounts to evaluating the gradient of the solution with respect to
parameters of interest. Many mathematical methods can be used for that
purpose, ranging from local linearization (e.g. adjoint problem-based approaches)
to fully nonlinear response surface reconstruction. The latter has been very
recently applied to LES. The generalized polynomial chaos approach, which
allows for a Galerkin-type reconstruction of the response surface with pseudospectral accuracy, was used by Lucor et al. (2007) to compute the sensitivity of
the kinetic energy spectrum in decaying isotropic turbulence with respect to the
arbitrary constant which appears in the Smagorinsky subgrid model. A typical
output is the probability density function of the energy spectrum at all resolved
scales. Another method, namely the Kriging method, which is an optimal
statistical linear interpolation technique, was used by Jouhaud et al. (2008) to
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

2857

LES for aerodynamics

(a) 3.0

(b) 3.0

(i)

2.5

2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0
0.5

0.5

1.0

1.5

(ii)

(i)

0
0.6

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

(ii)

3.0

2.5

0.7

2.5
2.0
2.0
1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5
0.1

3.0

0.1

0.2

(iii)

3.0

2.5

2.5

2.0

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

0.5

0.5

0.05

0.1

0.2

0.3

0
0.2

0.05

0.10

(iii)

0.1

0.1

Figure 3. Kriging-based prediction of the range of variation of the LES mean ow in a complex
conguration. (a) X/DZ1; (b) X/DZ8. Symbols, measurements; solid lines, LES solution
computed with standard values of numerical stabilization parameter and Smagorinsky constant;
dashed lines, envelope of the LES solution predicted thanks to the response surface. Adapted from
Jouhaud et al. (2008).

investigate the sensitivity of the LES of the ow in the cooling system of an

aeronautical engine. Both the numerical stabilization tuning parameter and the
Smagoginsky model constant were considered as uncertain parameters, since
their optimal values are known to be case-dependent. A typical output here was
the prediction of the range of variation of the computed mean ow thanks to the
response surface (see gure 3). It is observed that the computed mean velocity
eld sensitivity varies very signicantly, depending on both the location and the
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

2858

P. Sagaut and S. Deck

selected velocity component. The new information retrieved from the response
surface is related to the possibility to perfectly match measurements at some
point on the computational grid or to globally minimize the discrepancies with
experimental values by adjusting computational parameters. In such a case, a
validated method is a method whose response surface encompasses reference
data. This allows for the denition of optimal LES parameters on a given
computational grid.

6. Concluding remarks
As a conclusion, let us emphasize that even if universal methods for industrial
unsteady ows will not be available in the near future, useful results for design
and understanding of ow physics can be obtained by adapting the level
of modelling to the considered problem without waiting for the next generation of
supercomputers. The next foreseen challenges in applied numerical aerodynamics
will be rstly the capture of the boundary-layer dynamics including transition
and pressure-gradient-driven separation issues and secondly the capability to
handle accurately geometrically complex congurations with validated unsteady
tools. In the near future, if (really) complex congurations are considered, the
validation procedure should account for uncertainties and errors which arise from
the very denition of the computational model and the postprocessing of data of
different nature. Accurate validations of system simulations will also require
adequate experimental databases, which are still missing.

References
Boileau, M., Staffelbach, G., Cuenot, B., Poinsot, T. & Berat, C. 2008 LES of an ignition sequence
in a full helicopter combustor. Combust. Flame 154, 222. (doi:10.1016/j.combustame.2008.02.
006)
Brunet, V. & Deck, S. 2008 Zonal detached eddy simulation of transonic buffet on a civil aircraft
type conguration. In Fluid Dynamics Conference. AIAA paper 2008-4152.
Chauvet, N., Deck, S. & Jacquin, L. 2007 Zonal-detached-eddy simulation of a controlled
propulsive jet. AIAA J. 45, 24582473. (doi:10.2514/1.28562)
Deck, S. 2005 Zonal-detached eddy simulation of the ow around a high-lift conguration. AIAA J.
43, 23722384. (doi:10.2514/1.16810)
Deck, S. In press. Delayed detached eddy simulation of self-sustained unsteadiness and side-loads
in an overexpanded nozzle ow. Shock Waves. (doi:10.1007/S00193-009-0199-5)
Deck, S. & Thorigny, P. 2007 Unsteadiness of an axisymmetric separating ow: numerical
investigation. Phys. Fluids 19, 065 103. (doi:10.1063/1.2734996)
Forsythe, J. R., Squires, K. D., Wurtzler, K. E. & Spalart, P. R. 2004 Detached-eddy simulation of
the F-15E at high alpha. J. Aircraft 41, 193200. (doi:10.2514/1.2111)
Frolich, J. & von Terzi, D. 2008 Hybrid RANS/LES methods for the simulation of turbulent ows.
Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 44, 349377. (doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2008.05.001)
Fureby, C. 2008 Towards the use of large eddy simulation in engineering. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 44,
381396. (doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2008.07.003)
Garnier, E., Sagaut, P. & Deville, M. 2001 A class of explicit ENO lters with application to
unsteady ows. J. Comput. Phys. 170, 184204. (doi:10.1006/jcph.2001.6732)
Garnier, E., Sagaut, P. & Deville, M. 2002 Large-eddy simulation of the shock/boundary layer
interaction. AIAA J. 40, 19351944. (doi:10.2514/2.1552)
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

LES for aerodynamics

2859

Hedges, L. H., Travin, A. K. & Spalart, P. R. 2002 Detached eddy simulations over a simplied
landing gear. J. Fluids Eng. 124, 413423. (doi:10.1115/1.1471532)
Jouhaud, J. C., Sagaut, P., Enaux, B. & Laurenceau, J. 2008 Sensitivity analysis and
multiobjective optimization for LES numerical parameters. J. Fluids Eng. 130, 021 401.
(doi:10.1115/1.2829602)
Kato, C., Kaiho, M. & Manabe, A. 2003 An overset nite element large-eddy simulation method
with application to turbomachinery and aeroacoustics. J. Appl. Mech. 70, 4956. (doi:10.1115/
1.1530637)
Kato, C., Yamade, Y., Wang, H., Guo, Y., Miyazawa, M., Takaishi, T., Yoshimura, S. & Takano,
Y. 2007 Numerical prediction of sound generated from ows with a low Mach number. Comput.
Fluids 36, 5368. (doi:10.1016/j.compuid.2005.07.006)
Labbe, O., Sagaut, P. & Montreuil, E. 2002 Large-eddy simulation of heat transfer over a
backward-facing step. Int. J. Numer. Heat Transfer A 42, 7390. (doi:10.1080/104077802
90059431)
Larcheveque, L., Sagaut, P., Mary, I., Labbe, O. & Comte, P. 2003 Large-eddy simulation of a
compressible ow past a deep cavity. Phys. Fluids 15, 193210. (doi:10.1063/1.1522379)
Larcheveque, L., Sagaut, P., Le, T. H. & Comte, P. 2004 Large-eddy simulation of a compressible
ow in a three-dimensional open cavity at high Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 516, 265301.
(doi:10.1017/S0022112004000709)
Larcheveque, L., Sagaut, P. & Labbe, O. 2007 Large-eddy simulation of a subsonic cavity ow
including asymmetric effects. J. Fluid Mech. 577, 105126. (doi:10.1017/S0022112006004502)
Lockard, D. P., Khorrami, M. R. & Li, F. 2004 High resolution calculation of a simplied landing
gear. In 10th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference. AIAA paper 04-2887.
Lucor, D., Meyers, J. & Sagaut, P. 2007 Sensitivity analysis of LES using polynomial chaos.
J. Fluid Mech. 585, 255279. (doi:10.1017/S0022112007006751)
Manoha, E., Troff, B. & Sagaut, P. 2000 Trailing-edge noise prediction using large-eddy simulation
and acoustic analogy. AIAA J. 38, 575583. (doi:10.2514/2.1015)
Mary, I. & Sagaut, P. 2002 Large-eddy simulation of ow around an airfoil near stall. AIAA J. 40,
11391145. (doi:10.2514/2.1763)
Medic, G., Kalitzin, G., You, D., Weide, V. D., Alonso, J. J. & Pitsch, H. 2008 Integrated RANSLES computation of an entire gas turbine jet engine. In 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit. AIAA paper 2007-1117.
Meyers, J., Sagaut, P. & Geurts, B. J. 2006 Optimal model parameters for multi-objective largeeddy simulations. Phys. Fluids 18, 095 103. (doi:10.1063/1.2353402)
Moin, P. & Mahesh, K. 1998 Direct numerical simulation: a tool in turbulence research. Annu.
Rev. Fluid Mech. 30, 539578. (doi:10.1146/annurev.uid.30.1.539)
Morton, S. A., Cummings, R. M. & Kholodar, D. B. 2004 High resolution turbulence treatment of
F/A-18 tail buffet. In 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics
and Material Conference. AIAA paper 04-1676.
Nozu, T., Tamura, T., Okuda, Y. & Sanada, S. 2008 LES of the ow and building wall pressures in
the center of Tokyo. J. Wind Eng. Indust. Aerodyn. 96, 17621773. (doi:10.1016/j.jweia.2008.
02.028)
Quemere, P., Sagaut, P. & Couaillier, V. 2001 A new multidomain/multiresolution method for
large-eddy simulation. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 36, 391416. (doi:10.1002/d.134)
Raverdy, B., Mary, I., Sagaut, P. & Liamis, N. 2003 High resolution large-eddy simulation of the
ow around a low-pressure turbine blade. AIAA J. 41, 390397. (doi:10.2514/2.1989)
Richard, S., Colin, O., Vermorel, O., Benkenida, A., Angelberger, C. & Veynante, D. 2006
Towards large eddy simulation of combustion in spark ignition engines. Proc. Combust. Inst. 31,
30593066. (doi:10.1016/j.proci.2006.07.086)
Sagaut, P., Garnier, E., Tromeur, E., Larcheveque, L. & Labourasse, E. 2004 Turbulent inow
conditions for LES of subsonic and supersonic wall-bounded ows. AIAA J. 42, 469478.
(doi:10.2514/1.3461)
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)

Downloaded from http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/ on March 14, 2016

2860

P. Sagaut and S. Deck

Sagaut, P., Deck, S. & Terracol, M. 2006 Multiscale and multiresolution approaches in turbulence.
London, UK: Imperial College Press.
Seror, C., Sagaut, P., Bailly, C. & Juve, D. 2001 On the radiated noise computed by large-eddy
simulation. Phys. Fluids 13, 476487. (doi:10.1063/1.1336150)
Spalart, P. R. 2000 Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flows
21, 252263. (doi:10.1016/S0142-727X(00)00007-2)
Spalart, P. R. 2009 Detached-eddy simulation. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 41, 181202. (doi:10.1146/
annurev.uid.010908.165130)
Spalart, P. R., Jou, W. H., Strelets, M. & Allmaras, S. R. 1998 Comments on the feasibility of LES
for wings and on a hybrid RANS/LES approach. In Proc. 1st AFSOR Int. Conf. on DNS/LES,
Ruston, LA, pp. 137147.
Terracol, M., Sagaut, P. & Basdevant, C. 2001 A multilevel algorithm for large-eddy simulation of
turbulent compressible ows. J. Comput. Phys. 167, 439474. (doi:10.1006/jcph.2000.6687)
Trapier, S., Deck, S. & Duveau, P. 2008 Delayed detached eddy simulation and analysis of
supersonic inlet buzz. AIAA J. 46, 118131. (doi:10.2514/1.32187)
Viswanathan, A. K. & Squires, K. D. 2008 Detached eddy simulation around a forebody with
rotary motion. AIAA J. 26, 21912201. (doi:10.2514/1.4756)

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A (2009)