Preface

Summary

Scientific papers on how to represent in mathematical form the types of fluid motion we call turbulent flow have been appearing for over a century while, for the last sixty years or so, a sufficient body of knowledge has been accumulated to tempt a succession of authors to collect, systematize and distil a proportion of that knowledge into textbooks. From the start a bewildering variety of approaches has been advocated: thus, even in the 1970s, the algebraic mixing-length models presented in the book by Cebeci and Smith jostled on the book-shelves with Leslie's manful attempt to make comprehensible to a less specialized readership the direct-interaction approach developed by Kraichnan and colleagues. As the progressive advance in computing power made it possible to apply the emerging strategy of computational fluid dynamics to an ever-widening array of industrially important flows, however, eddy-viscosity models (EVMs) based on the solution of two transport equations for scalar properties of turbulence (essentially, length and time scales of the energy-containing eddies) emerged as the modelling strategy of choice and, correspondingly, have been the principal focus in several textbooks on the modelling of turbulent flows (for example, Launder and Spalding, Wilcox and Piquet).

Today, two-equation EVMs remain the work-horse of industrial CFD and are applied through commercially marketed software to flows of a quite bewildering complexity, though often with uncertain accuracy. However, there has been a major shift among the modelling research community to abandon approaches based on the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations in favour of large-eddy simulation (LES) where the numerical solution for any flow adopts a three-dimensional, time-dependent discretization of the Navier–Stokes equations using a model to account simply for the effects of turbulent motions too fine in scale to be resolved with the mesh adopted – that is, a sub-grid-scale (or sgs) model. While acknowledging that LES offers the prospects of tackling turbulence problems beyond the scope of RANS, a further major driver for this changeover has been the manifold inadequacies of the stress-strain hypothesis adopted by linear eddy-viscosity models. While such a simple linkage between mean strain rate and turbulent stress seemed adequate for a large proportion of two-dimensional, nearly parallel flows, its weaknesses became abundantly clear as attention shifted to recirculating, impinging and three-dimensional shear flows. Although an LES approach will, most probably, also adopt an sgs model of eddy-viscosity type, the consequences are less serious for two reasons. First, the majority of the transport caused by the turbulent motion will be directly resolved by the large eddies and secondly, the finer scale eddies that must still be resolved by the sub-grid-scale model of turbulence will arguably be a good deal closer to isotropy. Thus, adopting an isotropic eddy viscosity as the sgs model may not significantly impair the accuracy of the solution.