VOL. 26, NO.

6 AIAA JOURNAL JUNE 1988

Near-Wall Turbulence Models

for Complex Flows Including Separation
H. C. Chen* and V. C. Patelf
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa

Results of a computational experiment designed to investigate the performance of different near-wall treatments
in a single turbulence model with a common numerical method are reported. The complete fully elliptic, Reynolds-
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

averaged Navier-Stokes equations have been solved using a low-Reynolds-number model, a new two-layer model, and
a two-point wall-function method, in thek-s turbulence model, for the boundary layer and wake of two axisymmetric
bodies. These tests enable the evaluation of the performance of the different approaches in flows involving longitudinal
and transverse surface curvatures, streamwise and normal pressure gradients, viscous-inviscid interaction, and sepa-
ration. The two-layer approach has been found to be quite promising for such flows and can be extended to other
complex flows.

I. Introduction Thus, there exists a need for a more general, and yet
practical, approach to the problem of accurately resolving the
T HE overall success of all modern turbulence models, in
internal as well as external flows, is determined in large
measure by the treatment of the boundary conditions at solid
near-wall region in flows involving three dimensionality, un-
steadiness, and separation. In the present study, we explore an
walls. The popular wall-function method, which is based on the approach that is intermediate in complexity to the wall func-
assumed universality of the law of the wall and the related tion method, on the one hand, and the low-Reynolds-number
concept of turbulence in equilibrium, completely avoids the models, on the other.
solution of the equations of motion and turbulence model in Herein, we pursue further the two-layer modeling concept
the wall region. This approach has been utilized in the well considered by the authors in Ref. 2. There, a simple alge-
known k-z model, and in the more elaborate Reynolds-stress braically prescribed eddy-viscosity model for the wall region
closure models, even in flows where the continued validity of was coupled to the k-e, model for the outer flow to describe the
the underlying physical assumptions becomes questionable. details of the flow in the immediate vicinity of the trailing edge
For example, the notion of the law of the wall, and the assump- of a flat plate. While this approach was quite successful for that
tion that all turbulence quantities can be specified in terms of particular problem, and could be extended to certain other
the friction velocity, fail at and beyond separation since the types of flows, it suffers from the disadvantage that the inner
flow in the neighborhood of the wall is no longer controlled by layer is still described in terms of the friction velocity. Conse-
the wall shear stress. Similarly, in three-dimensional flows, the quently, that approach cannot be used for separated flows and
law of the wall provides, at best, only the magnitude of the cannot be readily extended to unsteady or three-dimensional
velocity, leaving its direction to be determined by other means. flows. However, the feasibility of coupling a simple, but more
Quite arbitrary computational expedients have to be intro- reliable, turbulence model for the flow close to the wall with a
duced to overcome these fundamental problems in the applica- more general model for the flow beyond was established. This
tion of wall functions to complex practical flows. two-layer approach is also attractive from a practical stand-
An alternative to the use of wall functions is to employ point. Since the momentum and continuity equations are
turbulence models which are valid all the way to the wall. From solved up to the wall, it provides the means to include the
a critical evaluation of many such "low-Reynolds-number" or complexities noted above without invoking wall functions.
"near-waif extensions of two-equation turbulence models, Second, the physical uncertainties of near-wall turbulence
Patel et al.1 concluded that none was entirely successful in models and the numerical difficulties of resolving the very large
predicting the essential and well-documented features of the gradients of turbulence parameters are alleviated by reducing
flow close to a solid wall even in the relatively simple case of the number of turbulence-model equations to be solved in the
two-dimensional, attached, steady flows. Their use in more sublayer and the buffer region.
complex flows, therefore, introduces uncertainties in addition A general numerical method for the solution of the fully
to the numerical difficulties of accurately resolving the large elliptic Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations, developed
gradients of the two-turbulence transport parameters. by the authors3'4 is used in conjunction with the low-Reynolds-
number and two-layer models to evaluate the relative merits of
different treatments of the near-wall flow. In particular, one of
the more promising two-equation low-Reynolds-number mod-
Received April 6, 1987; presented as Paper 87-1300 at the AIAA els identified in Ref. 1, namely that of Lam and Bremhorst,5
19th Fluid Dynamics, Plasma Dynamics and Laser Conference, and a two-layer model, which combines the standard k-s model
Honolulu, HI, June 8-10, 1987; revision received Oct. 7, 1987. Copy- with the one equation model of Wolfshtein6 in the near-wall
right © American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., region, are used to calculate unseparated and separated flows
1987. All rights reserved.
* Associate Research Scientist, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research. over the tail and in the wake of two elongated bodies of revo-
Member AIAA. lution for which experimental data were obtained by Huang et
fProfessor of Mechanical Engineering, Iowa Institute of Hydraulic al.7'8 The results are also compared with those obtained with
Research. Associate Fellow, AIAA. the two-point wall-function method of Chen and Patel.3
641
 642 H. C. GHEN AND V. C. PATEL AIAA JOURNAL

II, Equations and Calculation Method V\ 1

- ww = v. (1 2 — I — - k (4c)
The details of the general numerical method developed for r I 3
the solution of three-dimensional turbulent shear flows with a — dU d'V
wall-function approach are described in Ref. 3, and its applica- -uv = v (4d)
tion to the solution of the fully elliptic, Reynolds equations for
the flow in the boundary layer and wake of a flat plate is where k = (uu + vv.+ ww)/2 is the turbulent kinetic energy.
considered in Ref. 2. Consequently, we outline here only the The governing equations (1-3) then become
equations and solution procedures as they are adapted for the
study of near-wall turbulence models in the flow over axisym- dU 1d
metric bodies. + (5)
ox r or
Equations
The exact Reynolds-averaged equations of continuity and Sp 28k
momentum for unsteady, incompressible axisymmetric mean
flow in cylindrical polar coordinates (;c,r,0)are
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

dU 1 d (6)
-- (1)
r dr

dU dU dU d —
— + U— + V— + j- (./> + uu)
dt dx dr dx
d — uv 1 (7)
+ — (uv) + — -- V2U = Q (2)
dr r R
where
dV dV dV d — d —
— + U-— + V— + — (uv) +-(/> +vv)
dt dx dr dx dr
R R
2
- - V V - —^2 | = 0 (3) These equations can be solved for (U,V,p) when a suitable
R r
turbulence model is employed for the eddy-viscosity distribu-
where tion. We shall use the k-£ model for this purpose. In this model,
v, is related to the turbulent kinetic energy k, and its rate of
dissipation 8, by

(8)
(U,V) are the mean velocity components in the (jc,r) direction,
(u,v,w) are the fluctuating velocity components in the (jt,r,0) and k and s are obtained from the transport equations
directions, respectively, ris time, p is pressure, and R = U0L/v
is the Reynolds number, in which U0 is the freestream velocity,
L is the body length, and v is the kinematic viscosity. All quan- _
tities in the above equations are made dimensionless using U09 dt \ ak dx J dx dr J dr
L and density p in the usual way.
(9)

Turbulence Models
In the present study, the Reynolds stresses are related to the
corresponding mean rates of strain through an isotropic eddy- dt dxj dx \ de dr J dr
viscosity v,,
(10)
(4a)
where
(4b) 1 1 v, 1 1 . v,

and
fdU\2 fdV
^-
{dxj + 2 hr-
\dr

is the rate of production of k, (C^, Cel, C£2, vk> ae) are constants
whose values are (0.09, 1.44, 1.92, 1.0, 1.3), and/^,/1? and/2 are
damping functions which are discussed below.
In the wall-function approach, the transport equations [Eqs.
-—AFTERBODY 5 -
(9) and (10)] are solved, with/,, =/j =/2 = 1, only in the fully
turbulent region beyond some distance from the wall. The nec-
essary boundary conditions, namely the velocity components
Fig. 1 Notation and solution domain. and turbulence parameters, at that distance are usually ob-
 JUNE 1988 COMPLEX FLOWS INCLUDING SEPARATION 643

tained from a separate analysis of the flow in the sublayer and layer to a fully turbulent wake, the damping functions need to
buffer region using the logarithmic law of the wall and the be restored gradually to unity through the very near wake.
associated equilibrium relations: While we recognize this subtlety, we note that the resolution of
the linear inner wake is not particularly critical in the cases
1 treated here, and, therefore, we simply assume that the flow
(11) becomes fully turbulent in the wake and sety^ =/, =/2 = 1.
As an alternative to the low-Reynolds-number turbulence
k= (12) models of the type described above, we consider a two-layer
model which combines the standard k-£ model with a simpler,
but more reliable one-equation model to resolve accurately the
(13) flow near a solid wall. In this approach, the flow domain is
divided into two regions as shown in Fig. 1. Region I includes
where UT = ^/T^/pC/o *s tne friction velocity, iw the wall shear the sublayer, the buffer layer, and a part of the fully turbulent
stress, y+ = RUTy, y the normal distance from the wall, q the
magnitude of the velocity, K = 0.418 the von Karman constant, layer. The one-equation model of Wolfshtein6 is employed in
and B = 5.45. The two-point wall-function approach adopted this region to account for the wall proximity effects, whereas
the standard k-?, model is used in region II. Unlike the low-
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

by the authors is somewhat different from the usual practice in

Reynolds-number models that require the solution of the trans-
two respects. First, following Patel,9 the effects of pressure
port equations of both k and £ all the way to the wall, the
gradients on the flow in the wall region are taken into account
one-equation model requires the solution of only the turbulent
by the use of a generalized form of the law of the wall,
kinetic energy equation in region I. The rate of energy dissipa-
tion in this region is specified by

Ur K\ |_A T (1 + ATj + ) 1/2 -f 1J (17)

- 1] + B + 3.7A (14) where the eddy-viscosity is obtained from

in which A^ = Vp/(RUl) is a pressure-gradient parameter and (18)

AT is a similar stress-gradient parameter which is assumed to be
0.5 Ap. Second, we ensure that the first two near-wall grid points where the length scales IM and /s contain the necessary damp-
lie within the fully turbulent layer and explicitly satisfy Eq. (14) ing effects in the near-wall region in terms of the turbulence
at both. An iterative solution of this equation then provides the Reynolds number Rv:
values of Ur and q, required to establish the boundary condi-
tions, without any analysis of the flow in the sublayer and the
buffer region. Further details of this two-point wall-function
method are given in Refs. 2 and 3. (19b)
While the wall-function method has been found to be quite
satisfactory for a range of attached two-dimensional and
axisymmetric flows, it is not suitable for separated flow and its Note that both /^ and /e become linear, and approach
extension to three-dimensional and unsteady flows requires ad- with increasing distance from the wall. In the present study,
ditional assumptions which are not substantiated by experi- is given by
ment or theory. For all such cases, therefore, it is necessary ->-3/4
to resolve the flow all the way to the wall. Patel et al.1 have ^n (20)
reviewed and evaluated several such near-wall, or low-
Reynolds-number, extensions of two-equation turbulence to ensure a smooth eddy-viscosity distribution at the junction
models within the context of steady, two dimensional of regions I and II. In addition, Ae = 2.Q is assigned so as to
boundary layers in pressure gradients. Most of these are based recover the proper asymptotic behavior
on the k-s model and differ from one another in the damping
functions/^,/! and/ 2 introduced in Eqs. (9) and (10). £ = (2vk/y2) (21)
In the present study, we have selected one of the more suc-
cessful of these models, namely that of Lam and Bremhorst,5 to in the sublayer. The third parameter, A^ = 1Q, is determined
examine its performance in the prediction of separation and from numerical tests to recover the additive constant, B = 5.45,
separated flows, and to compare it with a simpler alternative. in the logarithmic law in the case of a flat plate boundary layer.
The damping functions in this model are In view of the above procedures, these constants are somewhat
different from those reported in Wolfshtein6 and Launder.11 In
region II, beyond the near-wall layer, the standard k-s model is
^ (ISa) employed to calculate the velocity field as well as the eddy
viscosity. As noted earlier, the standard model represents a
(15b) special case in which the three damping functions are set equal
to unity.
(15c) It should be remarked here that the two turbulence Reynolds
number Rv and RT depend only on the local turbulence inten-
where Ry and RT are the turbulence Reynolds numbers sity. In particular, the wall shear stress rw is not involved. Both
Ry and RT vary relatively slowly along lines parallel to the wall
Ry = R^/ky, RT = Rk2/£ (16) (y = const), do not vanish at separation, and remain well-
defined in regions of flow reversal. Consequently, the damping
The constants in Eqs. (15) are somewhat different from those effects decay rapidly with distance from the wall regardless of
quoted by Lam and Bremhorst, the values used here being the magnitude of the wall shear stress. Because the damping
those recommended by Rodi et al.10 It is noted that two of the effect is confined to the near-wall region, the matching between
damping functions depend explicitly upon the normal distance the one-equation and the standard k-8 models in the two-layer
y from the wall. This is obviously not appropriate for describ- approach can be carried out along preselected grid lines, even
ing the gradual destruction of the sublayer in the near wake. In for complex flows involving separation. In the present applica-
order to model correctly the transition from a near-wall sub- tions, the match boundary is chosen along a grid line where the
 644 H. G. CHEN AND V. C. PATEL AIA A JOURNAL

——— Afterbody 5
——Afterbody 3

1 Z 3 4 5
Fig. 2 Tail geometry of the bodies. IbgyR
a) Velocity profiles

minimum Ry is of the order of 250, so that the damping effects

are negligible. This ensures a smooth eddy-viscosity distri-
bution across the match boundary. Several other match
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

boundaries were also tested, and the results were found to be

insensitive to their location, provided the minimum value of Ry
was greater than 200.

Coordinates and Numerical Grid

The governing equations are transformed into numerical co- 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 i.i 1.3
ordinates (£,?f) which are defined by the two Poisson equations X
b) Pressure distribution
Fig. 3 Grid dependence with two-layer model.
V2// =/2 (22)

where/1 and/2 are grid-control functions selected to obtain a solved analytically by the method of separation of variables.
desired distribution of grid points in the physical (x,r) space. In The boundary conditions required in this solution are ex-
the present calculations, these functions were determined by pressed as combinations of linear and exponential functions
the specified boundary node distributions. The numerical grid involving the unknown nodal values. Evaluation of the ana-
is generated by the solution of the inverted forms of Eq. (22), lytic solutions at the interior node then provides a 10-point
i.e., discretization formula of the form
1
(23)

where (26)
2 2 2
= r (x +r )/g
where
g22=
l2
=
= e~BkCsc = PAI(2 coshBk)
g =

In the numerical coordinates, the continuity equation

becomes

(!//)[(/> 1 U + b\V\ + (b\U + b\V\\ = 0 (24) Cp=h(l-PA)l(2AcothAh)

= k(l-PB)/(2BcothBk)
and the transport equations of momentum [Eqs. (6) and (7)]
and turbulence [Eqs. (9) and (10)] can be written in the form PA = 4Ah coshAh coshBk cothAh

(25)
2
. i [(Ah)2 coshjA2 + B2
where </> = U, V,k,&. The Jacobian J of the transformation, the Bh coihBk
associated geometric coefficients &j, the coefficients A^ and B^
and the source functions 5$ are all given in Ref. 3.

Numerical Techniques
The grid-generation equation [Eq. (23)] is solved by an expo-
nential finite-difference scheme. The four transport equations A=
(25) are solved by the finite-analytic scheme. In this latter ap-
proach, Eq. (25) is first linearized in each local element
(A£ = A?/ = 1) by evaluating the coefficients A^ and B$ at an the subscripts denote east-central (EC), northeast (NE), etc., T
interior node point P. The resulting linear equation is then the time step, and the superscript (n — 1) denotes the values at
 JUNE 1988 COMPLEX FLOWS INCLUDING SEPARATION 645

the previous time step. For large-cell Reynolds number Ah Grid dependence of the solutions with the two-layer model
and/or Bk, the series summation for PA can be avoided by the was examined by doubling the grid nodes in the radial direction
following asymptotic expressions: to 60 x 53". From Fig. 3 it is seen that the velocity profiles are
fairly insensitive, but the pressure distribution is in somewhat
Ak cothAh ^ Bh cothBk: better agreement with experiment after grid refinement. All
subsequent results were obtained with the coarser grid.
PA= 0,PS = l-(Bh cothBk)/(Ak cothAh) (27a) Figure 4 shows the calculated and measured velocity and
turbulent kinetic-energy profiles at three representative axial
Ak cothAh < Bh cothBk: stations. It is clear that all three approaches yield a nearly
PB = Q,pA = 1 -(Ak cothAh)/(Bh cothBk) (27b) identical mean-velocity field due, presumably, to the use of the
same turbulence model for the flow outside the near-wall re-
Equation (26) is employed to solve the transport equation, gion. The calculated turbulent kinetic energy, however, is
Eq. (25), assuming that the pressure field is known. The pres- somewhat more sensitive to the near-wall treatment. The rela-
sure is then updated by a two-step, global pressure-solution tive insensitivity of the pressure distribution, shown in Fig. 5,
procedure, similar to the SIMPLER algorithm of Patankar,12 is to be expected because of the insensitivity of the mean-
which ensures the satisfaction of the equation of continuity.24 velocity field. The small differences that are observed are re-
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

As noted earlier, details of the numerical method are given in lated to the different distributions of the normal stress vv
Ref. 3. implied by the different near-wall treatments, as was discussed
in detail in Ref. 2.
III. Results and Discussion Figure 6 shows the calculated and measured friction
velocities Ur. In order to understand these results, it is impor-
Calculations have been performed for several different tant to note the different ways in which the wall shear stress,
axisymmetrie bodies for which detailed experimental data are and therefore, Ur, was determined. In the calculations with the
available. Here, however, we shall present the results for only low-Reynolds-number and two-layer models, U^ was deter-
two cases, namely afterbody 5 and afterbody 3 tested by Huang mined directly from the velocity gradient at the wall. On the
et al.7'8 to illustrate the performance of the different near-wall other hand, in the wall-function method, it is determined by
treatments. The two bodies have the same parallel middle body ensuring that Eq. (14) is satisfied at two grid points placed in
and a streamlined forebody, as shown in Fig. 1, but the model the fully turbulent layer. In the experiments, which employed
with afterbody 3 has a longer total length. Figure 2 shows the Clauser plots and Preston tubes, the validity of the usual loga-
two afterbodies. It is seen that both contain points of inflection rithmic law of the wall, without pressure gradient corrections,
and quite dramatic changes in surface curvature. These induce Eq. (11), is assumed. While the differences in UT shown in Fig.
strong favorable and adverse pressure gradients over the stern 6 appear to be large and somewhat surprising, they can best be
and in the region of the propeller hub. In the case of afterbody understood by examining the near-wall velocity distributions
3, the pressure gradients are such as to lead to a small separa- without reference to the wall shear stress. This is accomplished
tion bubble around the inflection point. Together, the two by plotting the experimental and calculated velocity profiles in
cases enable us to evaluate the general performance of the the format of the Clauser plot (U vs log y). These are shown in
different near-wall treatments with the same turbulence model Fig. 7. Also included are some lines determined from Eq. (11),
in flows involving large longitudinal and transverse curvatures, with Ur as a parameter. Conformity of a calculated or experi-
strong pressure gradients associated with these curvatures, and mental profile with these parametric lines in some portion of
a separation bubble. the near-wall region indicates the validity of the logarithmic
law. Figure 7 thus provides detailed insights into the results.
We again note that all three calculations give essentially the
Attached Turbulent Flow: Afterbody 5 same velocity distribution beyond some distance from the wall.
The calculations with the low-Reynolds-number and the
two-layer models for afterbody 5 were performed at the exper-
imental Reynolds number of R = 9.3 x 106. Sixty axial stations
were used in the domain 0.6 < x < 13.20, where x is measured x=0.8308 x=0.8308
along the axis of the body from the nose. In the radial direc-
tion, 27 points were used between the body surface r — rs and
the external boundary r = r0 = 3.48 (see Fig. 1). The match
boundary for the two-layer model was located along the grid
line q = 12, and the first grid node (rj = 2) was located in the
sublayer at y+ ~ 0.2. In the calculations using the two-point
wall-function approach, a 60 x 18 grid, obtained simply by x=0.9093 x=0.9093
deleting the innermost nine radial grid lines of the previous
case, was employed. In this case, the first grid line was located
at y+ values ranging from 60 to 100. For simplicity, standard
flat-plate boundary-layer profiles were specified at the up-
stream station x = 0.6 for all calculations. The calculations
using the two-layer and wall-function approaches were started
with an initial condition of zero pressure everywhere, the initial x-0.9874 x-0.9874
conditions for velocity and turbulence quantities being ob-
tained by a parabolic marching technique, similar to that de-
scribed in Ref. 3. In the two-layer calculations, satisfactory
convergence was obtained in less than 300 time steps, and the
complete calculation with 300 steps took about 30 min of CPU
time on a Prime 9950 minicomputer. For the low-Reynolds- 0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 o.o ao 4.0 6.0
number approach, calculations were started with the final two- Uor-V k no'3
layer solutions to accelerate the convergence and save
computing time. Fully converged solutions were obtained in Fig. 4 Velocity and turbulent energy profiles, afterbody 5. Symbols,
about 100 iterations, which took an additional 10 min of CPU Experiment (7): ———, two-layer model; ———, low Re model;
time. . , wall functions.
 646 H. C. CHEN AND V. G. PATEL AIAA JOURNAL

The calculations with wall functions appear to be in agreement the velocity gradients at the wall are also quite close except that
with the data even in the very thick boundary layer over the the two-layer model yields values closer to those determined
propeller hub (x = 0.9874). However, the fact that these calcu- from wall functions in the region of adverse pressure gradients
lations also provide the best agreement with the "experimen- (0.83 < x < 0.94). The velocity distributions predicted with
tal" Ur in Fig. 6 is not particularly surprising because both the both near-wall treatments show a strong influence of pressure
calculations and experiments use the same empirical informa- gradient in the wall region, and an eventual breakdown of the
tion. Indeed, a closer examination of the measured velocity law of the wall. For example, the shape of the profile at
profiles at the two downstream stations reveals that they are x =0.8308 indicates an influence of the favorable pressure
not sufficiently detailed in the wall region to provide unmistak- gradient that existed upstream, that at x = 0.9093 shows the
able evidence in support of the wall-function method. If the effects of the adverse pressure gradient, while that at
velocity profiles calculated with the two near-wall models were x = 0.9874 shows no logarithmic layer at all.
to be analyzed on the basis of the Clauser plots, it is clear that Finally, the results of the two-layer model are plotted in the
they would also yield values of C7T in substantial agreement conventional inner-layer coordinates in Fig. 8, with f/T deter-
with the "experimental" ones. mined from the velocity gradient at the wall as the normalizing
It should be noted here that in the present wall-function parameter. This format provides a confirmation of the ability
method, Eq. (14) was employed only in regions of adverse of this near-wall turbulence model to reproduce the well-
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

pressure gradients, and it is, at best, a local equilibrium ap- documented universality of the near wall velocity distribution
proximation, i.e., it does not take account of any history in small pressure gradients. When the results of the low-
effects. Its use in favorable pressure gradients is rather restric- Reynolds-number model are plotted in a similar format, there
tive, because, for even moderate pressure gradients, the re- is considerable scatter, indicating that it is not entirely consis-
quired correction becomes unrealistieally large (giving negative tent with experimental evidence. Figure 8 shows that the
argument of the logarithmic term) at y + values which are too velocity profiles predicted with the two-layer model deviate
small to be justified in a wall-function approach. In other gradually from the logarithmic line, upward in adverse pres-
words, we conclude that the use of wall functions in flows with sure gradients, and downward in favorable pressure gradients,
moderate to strong favorable pressure gradients is question- consistent with the type of equilibrium analysis which leads to
able. It is also of interest to note here that replacement of Eq. Eq. (14). Figure 8 also shows the breakdown of the logarithmic
(14) by Eq. (11) in the wall-function method in general leads to- region beyond x = 0.963 and, eventually, the destruction of the
higher wall shear stresses in adverse pressure gradients and buffer layer and sublayer in the neighborhood of the tail of the
poorer overall agreement with experiments. This further body. The calculations in the near wake are qualitatively simi-
justifies the need for a pressure-gradient correction in the wall lar to those for the flat plate discussed in Ref. 2 with regard to
layer, and in fact the need to abandon the wall-function ap-
proach altogether for complex flows.
Figure 7 shows that the calculations with the low-Reynolds-
number model and the two-layer approach are in agreement
everywhere except in the buffer layer between the sublayer and
x-0.8308
the fully turbulent region. The shear stresses calculated from

0 I 2 34 5 B 7
log yR

- Two-Layer Model
- - - - - Low—Re Model x=0.9093
Wall-Function
o Experiment

Fig. 5 Pressure distribution, afterbody 5.

0 1 2 3 4 5
log yR

x=0.9874

D6-

——— Two-Layer Model

----- Low-Re Model
Wall-Function
o Preston Tube
• Clauser Plot 0 1 2 3 45 6 7
logyR
0.8 0.9 1.0
X
Fig. 7 Velocity profiles in Clauser charts, afterbody 5: o , Experi-
ment (7); ———, two-layer model; ———, low Re model; . . . . . . .
Fig. 6 Friction velocity, afterbody 5. wall functions; — . —, Eq. (11).
 JUNE 1988 COMPLEX FLOWS INCLUDING SEPARATION 647

the gradual erosion of the wall layer and the development to- Turbulent Flow with Separation: Afterbody 3
ward an asymptotic state. As noted earlier, afterbody 3 (shown in Fig. 2) was chosen to
From the results presented in Figs. 4-8, it would appear that test the performance of the near-wall models in.a flow involv-
the present two-point wall-function method with pressure-gra- ing separation. This case was favored over the ubiquitous two-
dient corrections as well as the proposed two-layer model ac- dimensional, backward- and forward-facing steps because it
count for pressure gradient effects somewhat better than the involves the prediction of the location of separation as well as
low-Reynolds-number model of Lam and Bremhorst. This ob- reattachment, and questions concerning two-dimensionality of
servation is similar to that made recently by Rodi and the data are not as critical. The calculations for afterbody 3
Scheiierer13 on the basis of solutions of the boundary-layer were carried out in a manner entirely similar to that for the
equations in adverse pressure gradients. previous case. In particular, the size of the solution domain, the
Further comparisons between the low-Reynolds-number number of grid points, and the initial and boundary conditions
model and the two-layer model are provided by the next exam- were all comparable. The results are presented in Figs. 9-12
ple, which involves a separation bubble. The wall-function ap- also in a similar format. We shall discuss only the most impor-
proach could not be used in this case at least without further tant features here.
approximations for reasons already discussed. Figure 9 shows that the pressure distribution is again insensi-
tive to the near-wall treatment over most of the body surface
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

and in the wake, and both models yield reasonably good agree-
ment with experiment. There exists a very small difference be-
tween the results of the two calculations at the tail of the body.
A similar difference is also seen in the previous case (Fig. 5).
= 0.7039
= 0.7723 For the purposes of the present paper, it suffices to note that
= 0.8131
-0.8418
this difference stems from the manner in which the source terms
= 0.8782 in the turbulence-model equations are treated in the numerical
= 0.9044
= 0.9466 cell surrounding the tail itself.
-0.9631
- 0.9796
Figure 10 reveals that the wall shear stresses, obtained from
= 0.9877 the velocity gradients at the wall with both models, differ con-
= 0.9959
— = Law of Wall siderably in the region of adverse pressure gradients, as was
also observed in the previous test case. In fact, the low-
Reynolds-number model of Lam and Bremhorst predicts no
separation, whereas the two-layer model accurately predicts
the locations of separation as well as reattachment that were
- 1 0 1 E 3 4 5 6 7
observed with flow visualizations in the experiment. The veloc-
ity profiles plotted in Fig. 11 in the usual format show practi-
Fig. 8 Velocity profiles in wall coordinates. cally no difference between the two solutions. However, from
the Clauser plots of Fig 12, it is clear that the two models give
very different velocity distributions in the sublayer and the
buffer layer. The low-Reynolds-number model predicts much
higher velocities in these regions. Although the experimental
evidence is not conclusive, Figs. 12c and 7c suggest that even
the two-layer model tends to overestimate the velocities in the
inner layer, indicating a reduction in the turbulence length
scale. Further tests are required to study the origin of this
behavior.

— Two—Layer Model
- Low-Re Model
Experiment

x=0.795 x=0.915

0.9
X

Fig. 9 Pressure distribution, afterbody 5.

S: Experimental separation x=0.954

R: Experimental reattachment

——— Two-Layer Model

—— Low-Re Model
o Experiment

0.0 0.4 0.8 12

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

Fig. 11 Axial velocity profiles, afterbody 3: o , Experiment (8);

Fig. 10 Friction velocity, afterbody 3. ———, two-layer model; ———, low Re model.
 648 H. C. CHEN AND V. C. PATEL AIAA JOURNAL

layer, than the low-Reynolds-number models reviewed in Ref.

x=0.915 1. The two-layer approach is quite insensitive to grid spacing
and the number of grid points in the inner layer, and to the
location of the match boundary between the one- and two-
equation models of the inner and outer layers. It is expected
that other model combinations-can- be incorporated in such a
two-layer scheme.
S- The present numerical scheme did not experience any special
difficulty with the low-Reynolds-number model of Lam and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bremhorst when it was incorporated after the two^layer solu-
logyR tion had converged. However, some earlier calculations, in
which the model was employed from the beginning of the solu-
tion procedure, had indicated a tendency for breakdown.
While this may be regarded as confirmation of the experience
of other investigators, who have reported the need for many
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

x=0.954
more grid points in the near-wall layer, grid sensitivity, and
slow convergence of the solutions, we have not yet investigated
the numerical details of that model thoroughly enough to
provide a rigorous explanation. However, it appears to us that
the two-layer model outperforms the low-Reynolds-number
model, both from a numerical as well as a physical viewpoint.
3 4 5 6 7 8 Acknowledgment
logyR
This research was supported by the Office of Naval Research
under the Accelerated Research Initiative (Special Focus) Pro-
gram in Ship Hydrodynamics, Contract N00014-83-K-0136.

References
'Patel, V. C., Rodi, W., and Scheuerer, G., "Turbulence Models for
Near-Wall and Low Reynolds Number Flows: A Review," AIAA
Journal, Vol. 23, 1985, pp. 1308-1319.
2
Patel, V. C. and Chen, H. C., "Turbulent Wake of a Flat Plate,"
AIAA Journal, Vol. 25, Aug. 1987, pp. 1078-1085.
3
Chen, H. C. and Patel, V. C., "Calculation of Trailing-Edge, Stern
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 and Wake Flows by a Time-Marching Solution of the Partially-
log yR Parabolic Equations," Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, Univer-
sity of Iowa, Iowa City, IIHR Rept. 285, 1985, revised 1987.
4
Patel, V. C and Chen, H. C., "Flow Over Tail and in Wake of
Fig. 12 Velocity profiles in Clauser charts, afterbody 3: o , Axisymmetric Bodies: Review of the State of the Art," Journal of Ship
Experiment (8); — . —, Eq. (11); ———, two-layer model; ———, low Research, Vol. 30, Sept. 1986,pp. 201-214.
5
Re model. Lam, C. K. G. and Bremhorst, K. A., "Modified Form of the k-£
Model for Predicting Wall Turbulence," Transactions of the ASM E,
Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 103, Sept. 1981, pp. 456-460.
6
Wolfshtein, M., "The Velocity and Temperature Distribution in
One-Dimensional Flow with Turbulence Augmentation and Pressure
Concluding Remarks Gradient," International Journal of Heat & Mass Transfer, Vol.. 12,
A general numerical method for the solution of the fully March 1969, pp. 301-318.
7
Huang, T. T., Groves, N. C., and Belt, G., "Boundary-Layer Flow
elliptic, Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations has been on an Axisymmetric Body with an Inflected Stern," David W. Taylor
used together with the k-z model of turbulence to examine the Naval Ship Research and Development Center, Bethesda, MD, Rept.
performance of three different treatments of the flow very close 80-064, 1980.
8
to a solid wall. The test cases selected include many features Huang, T. T., Wang, H. T., Santelli, N., and Groves, N. C., "Pro-
which are present in practical flows, including strong pressure peller/Stern/Boundary-Layer Interaction on Axisymmetric Bodies:
gradients, surface curvatures, boundary layers and wakes, vis- Theory and Experiment," David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and
cpus-inviscid interaction, and separation. The results indicate Development Center, Bethesda, MD, Rept. 76-0113, 1976.
9
that a two-layer approach, which combines a simpler .one- Patel, V. C., "A United View of the Law of the Wall Using Mixing-
equation model for the near-wall flow with the two-equation, Length Theory," Aeronautical Quarterly, Vol. 24, Feb. 1973, pp. 55-
70.
k-s model for the flow beyond the wall layer, is quite successful IO
Rodi, W. Celik, I., Demuren, A. O., Scheurerer, G., Shirani, I.,
in economically resolving the most important features of such Leschziner, M. A.., and Rastogi, A. K., Proceedings of the 1980-81
flows. Its relative simplicity is attractive because additional AFOSR-HTTM-Stanford Conference on Complex Turbulent Flows,
modifications and generalizations for such factors as curvature, Vol. Ill, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1982, p. 1495.
11
suction, blowing, wall roughness, unsteadiness, and three-di- Launder, B. E., "Low-Reynolds-Number Turbulence Near
mensionality can be made. Accurate resolution of the flow in Walls," University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology,
the near-wall region through the solution of the continuity and Thermo-Fluids Division, Rept. TFD/86/4, 1986.
12
momentum equations, with a simple but realistic turbulence Patankar, S. V., Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flows,
model, is, we believe, an important first step in the solution of McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
13
Rodi, W. and Scheuerer, G., "Scrutinizing the k-z Turbulence
complex three-dimensional flows. The two-layer model has Model Under Adverse Pressure Gradient Conditions," Transactions of
been employed by Richmond and Patel14 in a detailed investi- the ASM E, Journal of Fluids Engineering, Vol. 108, June 1986, pp.
gation concerning the effects of pressure gradients and surface 174^179.
14
curvatures in two-dimensional turbulent flows. Richmond, M. C., and Patel, V.-C, "Pressure Gradient and Sur-
From a computational perspective, the two-layer model is face Curvature Effects in Turbulent Boundary Layers," AIAA Paper
easier to implement, with a relatively few grid points in the wall 87-1301, June 1987.
 This article has been cited by:

1. Corey E. Clifford, Mark L. Kimber. 2020. Assessment of RANS and LES turbulence models for natural convection in
a differentially heated square cavity. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications 78:10, 560-594. [Crossref]
2. Samira Rahnama, Parastoo Sadeghian, Peter Vilhelm Nielsen, Chen Zhang, Sasan Sadrizadeh, Alireza Afshari. 2020.
Cooling capacity of diffuse ceiling ventilation system and the impact of heat load and diffuse panel distribution. Building
and Environment 185, 107290. [Crossref]
3. Mohamed L. Elsayed, Mohamed A. Abdelatief, Saeed A. Ahmed, Mohamed S. Emeara, Wael M. Elwan. 2020. Thermal
design evaluation of ribbed/grooved tubes: An entropy and exergy approach. International Communications in Heat and
Mass Transfer 105048. [Crossref]
4. Konstantinos Bardis, Panagiotis Kyrtatos, Christos E. Frouzakis, Yuri M. Wright, George K. Giannakopoulos,
Konstantinos Boulouchos. 2020. Reduction of RANS/LES combustion sub-models for quasi-dimensional spark ignition
engine simulations and evaluation of the modelling assumptions with DNS. Combustion and Flame 220, 189-202.
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

[Crossref]
5. Sagar Saroha, Krishnendu Chakraborty, Sawan S. Sinha, Sunil Lakshmipathy. 2020. Evaluation of PANS Methodology
With Nonlinear Eddy Viscosity Closure: Flow Past a Heated Sphere. Journal of Fluids Engineering 142:9. . [Crossref]
6. Mina Ahadi, Donald J. Bergstrom, Kerry Anne Mazurek. 2020. Computational Fluid-Dynamics Modeling of the
Flow and Sediment Transport in Stormwater Retention Ponds: A Review. Journal of Environmental Engineering 146:9,
03120008. [Crossref]
7. Parastoo Sadeghian, Cong Wang, Christophe Duwig, Sasan Sadrizadeh. 2020. Impact of surgical lamp design on the
risk of surgical site infections in operating rooms with mixing and unidirectional airflow ventilation: A numerical study.
Journal of Building Engineering 31, 101423. [Crossref]
8. Sharareh Mahmodinia, Mitra Javan. 2020. Mixing process in opposing flow junction with different angles and junction
radii. Acta Geophysica 68:3, 795-809. [Crossref]
9. Momchil Terziev, Tahsin Tezdogan, Atilla Incecik. 2020. Application of eddy-viscosity turbulence models to problems
in ship hydrodynamics. Ships and Offshore Structures 15:5, 511-534. [Crossref]
10. Krishnendu Chakraborty, Sagar Saroha, Sawan S. Sinha. 2020. An OpenFOAM-Based Extension of Low-Re k–ε Model
to the Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes Methodology for Simulating Separated Flows With Heat Transfer. Journal of
Fluids Engineering 142:4. . [Crossref]
11. Corey E. Clifford, Mark L. Kimber. 2020. Assessment of RANS-Based Turbulence Models for Buoyancy-Influenced
Forced Convection on a Heated Vertical Surface. Journal of Verification, Validation and Uncertainty Quantification 5:1. .
[Crossref]
12. Zihan PAN, Lei YE, Shulou QIAN, Qiang SUN, Cheng WANG, Taohong YE, Weidong XIA. 2020. Comparison of
Reynolds average Navier–Stokes turbulence models in numerical simulations of the DC arc plasma torch. Plasma Science
and Technology 22:2, 025401. [Crossref]
13. Zhiqiang (John) Zhai. Select Turbulence Modeling Method 83-114. [Crossref]
14. Sujoy Kumar Saha, Hrishiraj Ranjan, Madhu Sruthi Emani, Anand Kumar Bharti. Numerical Simulation of Integral
Roughness, Laminar Flow in Tubes with Roughness and Reynolds Analogy for Heat and Momentum Transfer 99-121.
[Crossref]
15. Johann Friedrich Gülich. Numerical Flow Calculations 541-629. [Crossref]
16. Chetna Kamble, Sharath S. Girimaji, Hamn-Ching Chen. 2020. Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes Formulation of a
Two-Layer Turbulence Model. AIAA Journal 58:1, 174-183. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
17. Yuchen Dai, Antonio S. Kaiser, Yuanshen Lu, Alexander Y. Klimenko, Peixin Dong, Kamel Hooman. 2019. Addressing
the adverse cold air inflow effects for a short natural draft dry cooling tower through swirl generation. International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 145, 118738. [Crossref]
18. Francisco-Javier Granados-Ortiz, Joaquin Ortega-Casanova, Choi-Hong Lai. 2019. Two-step numerical simulation of
the heat transfer from a flat plate to a swirling jet flow from a rotating pipe. International Journal of Numerical Methods
for Heat & Fluid Flow 30:1, 143-175. [Crossref]
19. Sina Bahmani, Hamid Reza Nazif. 2019. Erosion of rectangular channel bend in two-phase natural gas particles turbulent
flow. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 41:11. . [Crossref]
20. Hamed Mirzaee, Roohollah Rafee, Goodarz Ahmadi. 2019. Inertial impaction of particles on a circular cylinder for a
wide range of Reynolds and P numbers: A comparative study. Journal of Aerosol Science 135, 86-102. [Crossref]
21. Xin Yang, János Szuhánszki, Yufei Tian, Derek Ingham, Lin Ma, Mohamed Pourkashanian. 2019. Understanding the
effects of oxyfuel combustion and furnace scale on biomass ash deposition. Fuel 247, 36-46. [Crossref]
 22. H. Saadat, M. M. Tavakol, M. Yaghoubi. 2019. Experimental and numerical study of forced convection heat transfer
from array of fins with various cross perforations. Thermophysics and Aeromechanics 26:4, 531-546. [Crossref]
23. Zakaria Mansouri, Toufik Boushaki. 2019. Investigation of large-scale structures of annular swirling jet in a non-
premixed burner using delayed detached eddy simulation. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 77, 217-231.
[Crossref]
24. Zachary T. Stratton, Tom I-P. Shih. 2019. Identifying Weaknesses in Eddy-Viscosity Models for Predicting Film Cooling
via Large-Eddy Simulations. Journal of Propulsion and Power 35:3, 583-594. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
25. Mohammad Javad Ezadi Yazdi, Ali Safavi Rad, Abdulamir Bak Khoshnevis. 2019. Features of the flow over a rotating
circular cylinder at different spin ratios and Reynolds numbers: Experimental and numerical study. The European Physical
Journal Plus 134:5. . [Crossref]
26. M. A. Aziz, A. M. Elsayed. 2019. Numerical investigation and optimization of airfoil flow control using passive air-jet.
Thermophysics and Aeromechanics 26:3, 361-374. [Crossref]
27. C. Gorlé, S. Zeoli, M. Emory, J. Larsson, G. Iaccarino. 2019. Epistemic uncertainty quantification for Reynolds-averaged
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

Navier-Stokes modeling of separated flows over streamlined surfaces. Physics of Fluids 31:3, 035101. [Crossref]
28. Samuel G.A. Wood, Nilanjan Chakraborty, Martin W. Smith, Mark J. Summers. 2019. A computational fluid dynamics
analysis of transient flow through a generic Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear respirator canister. Chemical
Engineering Research and Design 142, 13-24. [Crossref]
29. Francis Lacombe, Dominique Pelletier, Andre Garon. Compatible wall functions and adaptive remeshing for the k-
omega SST model . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
30. Jyeshtharaj B. Joshi, Arun K. Nayak, Nitin Minocha, Eshita Pal, Ankur Kumar, Mukesh Kumar, Avinash Moharana.
Design of passive safety systems for advanced reactors using CFD 387-485. [Crossref]
31. Leire Martín-Martín, Jon Gastelurrutia, Gorka S. Larraona, Raúl Antón, Luis del Portillo-Valdés, Iñigo Gil. 2019.
Optimization of thermal management systems for vertical elevation applications powered by lithium-ion batteries. Applied
Thermal Engineering 147, 155-166. [Crossref]
32. Menéndez Blanco Alberto, Fernández Oro Jesús Manuel, Meana-Fernández Andrés. 2019. Numerical methodology
for the CFD simulation of diaphragm volumetric pumps. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences 150, 322-336.
[Crossref]
33. John Mantzaras. 2019. Progress in non-intrusive laser-based measurements of gas-phase thermoscalars and supporting
modeling near catalytic interfaces. Progress in Energy and Combustion Science 70, 169-211. [Crossref]
34. Charbel Habchi, Fouad Azizi. 2018. Heat transfer and turbulent mixing characterization in screen-type static mixers.
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 134, 208-215. [Crossref]
35. Alessio Basso, F. A. Hamad, P. Ganesan. 2018. Effects of the geometrical configuration of air–water mixer on the size
and distribution of microbubbles in aeration systems. Asia-Pacific Journal of Chemical Engineering 13:6, e2259. [Crossref]
36. Sharareh Mahmodinia, Mitra Javan. 2018. Three-dimensional features in non-equal and opposing flow junctions. Acta
Mechanica 229:11, 4357-4374. [Crossref]
37. Wenpeng Hong, Xin Wang, Jianxiang Zheng. 2018. Numerical study on particle deposition in rough channels with
different structure parameters of rough elements. Advanced Powder Technology 29:11, 2895-2903. [Crossref]
38. Sayed Ahmed E. Sayed Ahmed, Emad Z. Ibrahim, Mostafa M. Ibrahim, Mohamed A. Essa, Mohamed A. Abdelatief,
Mohamed N. El-Sayed. 2018. Heat transfer performance evaluation in circular tubes via internal repeated ribs with
entropy and exergy analysis. Applied Thermal Engineering 144, 1056-1070. [Crossref]
39. Çağrı Aydın, Uğur Oral Ünal, Utku Cem Karabulut, Kadir Sarıöz. 2018. Practical computational procedures for
predicting steering and braking forces of escort tugs. Ocean Engineering 166, 159-171. [Crossref]
40. M.Z. Li, Y.P. He, Y.D. Liu, C. Huang. 2018. Effect of interaction of particles with different sizes on particle kinetics
in multi-sized slurry transport by pipeline. Powder Technology 338, 915-930. [Crossref]
41. G.J. Brereton, J. Yuan. 2018. Wall-roughness eddy viscosity for Reynolds-averaged closures. International Journal of Heat
and Fluid Flow 73, 74-81. [Crossref]
42. Guoping Xia, Gorazd Medic, Thomas J. Praisner. 2018. Hybrid RANS/LES Simulation of Corner Stall in a Linear
Compressor Cascade. Journal of Turbomachinery 140:8. . [Crossref]
43. Zakaria Mansouri, Toufik Boushaki. 2018. Experimental and numerical investigation of turbulent isothermal and reacting
flows in a non-premixed swirl burner. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 72, 200-213. [Crossref]
44. Zachary Stratton, Tom Shih. Identifying Weaknesses in Eddy-Viscosity Models for Predicting Film Cooling via Large-
Eddy Simulations . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 45. Chetna P. Kamble, Sharath Girimaji. Partially-Averaged Navier-Stokes Formulation of Two-Layer Turbulence Model .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
46. Mianguang Xu, Mihaiela Isac, Roderick I. L. Guthrie. 2018. A Numerical Simulation of Transport Phenomena During
the Horizontal Single Belt Casting Process Using an Inclined Feeding System. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions
B 49:3, 1003-1013. [Crossref]
47. Yidan Shang, Lin Tian, Yaming Fan, Jingliang Dong, Kiao Inthavong, Jiyuan Tu. 2018. Effect of morphology on
nanoparticle transport and deposition in human upper tracheobronchial airways. The Journal of Computational Multiphase
Flows 10:2, 83-96. [Crossref]
48. Thierry Lemenand, Charbel Habchi, Dominique Della Valle, Hassan Peerhossaini. 2018. Vorticity and convective heat
transfer downstream of a vortex generator. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 125, 342-349. [Crossref]
49. . Generation of Design Data - Finite Volume Analysis 307-397. [Crossref]
50. N. Göksü Soydan, Oğuz Şimşek, M. Sami Aköz. 2018. Köprü Ayağı Etrafındaki Türbülanslı Akımın Sayısal ve Deneysel
Analizi. Journal of Polytechnic . [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

51. Bor-Jang Tsai, Chung-Chyi Chou, Yeong-Pei Tsai, Ying Hung Chuang. 2018. Simulation of a 3D Turbulent Wavy
Channel based on the High-order WENO Scheme. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 307, 012018.
[Crossref]
52. Paul A. Durbin. Turbulence Closure Models for Computational Fluid Dynamics 1-22. [Crossref]
53. Mitra Javan, Sharareh Mahmodinia, Hamed Hasani. 2017. Development and validation of a Lagrangian method for 3D
turbulent flows with curvilinear free-surface. Environmental Fluid Mechanics 17:6, 1153-1170. [Crossref]
54. M.M. Tavakol, E. Ghahramani, O. Abouali, M. Yaghoubi, G. Ahmadi. 2017. Deposition fraction of ellipsoidal fibers in
a model of human nasal cavity for laminar and turbulent flows. Journal of Aerosol Science 113, 52-70. [Crossref]
55. K. Mazaheri, Kiarash Chaharlang Kiani, M. Karimi. 2017. Application of a modified algebraic heat-flux model and
second-moment-closure to high blowing-ratio film-cooling and corrugated heat-exchanger simulations. Applied Thermal
Engineering 124, 948-966. [Crossref]
56. A.H. Elbatran, Yasser M. Ahmed, Ahmed S. Shehata. 2017. Performance study of ducted nozzle Savonius water turbine,
comparison with conventional Savonius turbine. Energy 134, 566-584. [Crossref]
57. M. Tohidi Sardasht, R. Hosseini, E. Amani. 2017. An analysis of turbulence models for prediction of forced convection
of air stream impingement on rotating disks at different angles. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 118, 139-151.
[Crossref]
58. Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak, Dipankar Chatterjee. 2017. Convective heat transfer in slurry flow in a horizontal Y-shaped
branch pipe. Powder Technology 318, 46-61. [Crossref]
59. Jean-Louis Briaud, Mabel Chedid, Hamn-Ching Chen, Anna Shidlovskaya. 2017. Borehole Erosion Test. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 143:8, 04017037. [Crossref]
60. Weiguo Xu, Shuyan Wang, Guodong Liu, Qinghong Zhang, Muhammad Hassan, Huilin Lu. 2017. Experimental
and numerical investigation on heat transfer of Therminol heat transfer fluid in an internally four-head ribbed tube.
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 116, 32-44. [Crossref]
61. Hao Lu, Lin Lu. 2017. Investigation of particle deposition efficiency enhancement in turbulent duct air flow by surface
ribs with hybrid-size ribs. Indoor and Built Environment 26:5, 608-620. [Crossref]
62. Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak, Dipankar Chatterjee. 2017. Numerical investigation of convective heat transfer in pipeline flow
of multi-sized mono dispersed fly ash-water slurry. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 108, 1802-1818.
[Crossref]
63. Mohammad Zamani, Sadegh Seddighi, Hamid Reza Nazif. 2017. Erosion of natural gas elbows due to rotating particles
in turbulent gas-solid flow. Journal of Natural Gas Science and Engineering 40, 91-113. [Crossref]
64. M. Benz, T. Schulenberg. 2017. Statistical Modeling of Stratified Two-Phase Flow. Journal of Nuclear Engineering and
Radiation Science 3:2. . [Crossref]
65. S. Schmidt, M. Breuer. 2017. Source term based synthetic turbulence inflow generator for eddy-resolving predictions of
an airfoil flow including a laminar separation bubble. Computers & Fluids 146, 1-22. [Crossref]
66. Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak, Dipankar Chatterjee, Amar Nath Mullick. 2017. Numerical prediction of flow and heat transfer
characteristics of water-fly ash slurry in a 180° return pipe bend. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 113, 100-115.
[Crossref]
67. E. Goikoetxea, A. Rivas, X. Murgia, R. Antón. 2017. Mathematical modeling and numerical simulation of surfactant
delivery within a physical model of the neonatal trachea for different aerosol characteristics. Aerosol Science and Technology
51:2, 168-177. [Crossref]
 68. K. Mazaheri, K. Chaharlang Kiani, M. Karimi. 2017. A modified turbulent heat-flux model for predicting heat transfer
in separating-reattaching flows and film cooling applications. Applied Thermal Engineering 110, 1609-1623. [Crossref]
69. N. Göksu SOYDAN, Oğuz ŞİMŞEK, M. Sami AKÖZ. 2016. Eşik Mansabındaki Kritik Üstü Açık Kanal Akımının
Deneysel ve Sayısal Analizi. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 31:2, 33-46. [Crossref]
70. Richard Wendler, Williams R. Calderón-Muñoz, Richard LeBoeuf. 2016. Energy-based iteration scheme of the double-
multiple streamtube model in vertical-axis wind turbines. Acta Mechanica 227:11, 3295-3303. [Crossref]
71. Roozbeh Vadi, Kamran Sepanloo. 2016. Reassessment of the generic assumptions applied to the conventional analysis
of the reactivity insertion accident in the MTRs using a novel coupled code. Progress in Nuclear Energy 93, 96-115.
[Crossref]
72. R Dutta, J Nicolle, A-M Giroux, U Piomelli. 2016. Evaluation of turbulence models on roughened turbine blades. IOP
Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science 49, 062007. [Crossref]
73. Veysel GÜMÜŞ, Oğuz ŞİMŞEK. 2016. Eğimli Açık Kanal Akımının Farklı Türbülans Modelleri ile Sayısal Modellemesi.
Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 30:2, 41-54. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

74. Veysel GÜMÜŞ, M. Salih KIRKGÖZ. 2016. Dolusavak Akımının Farklı Türbülans Kapatma Modelleri ile Sayısal
Hesabı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 29:1, 71-81. [Crossref]
75. M. Ali İSPİR, M. Salih KIRKGÖZ, Veysel GÜMÜŞ. 2016. Yavaş Değişen Kritik-Altı Açık Kanal Akımının k-ɛ
Türbülans Kapatma Modelleri ile Sayısal Hesabı. Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik-Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi 29:1,
145-156. [Crossref]
76. David L. Bark, Atieh Yousefi, Marcio Forleo, Antoine Vaesken, Frederic Heim, Lakshmi P. Dasi. 2016. Reynolds shear
stress for textile prosthetic heart valves in relation to fabric design. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical
Materials 60, 280-287. [Crossref]
77. AminHossein Jahanbin, Enzo Zanchini. 2016. Effects of position and temperature-gradient direction on the performance
of a thin plane radiator. Applied Thermal Engineering 105, 467-473. [Crossref]
78. Leire Martín-Martín, Jon Gastelurrutia, Nerea Nieto, Juan Carlos Ramos, Alejandro Rivas, Iñigo Gil. 2016. Modeling
based on design of thermal management systems for vertical elevation applications powered by lithium-ion batteries.
Applied Thermal Engineering 102, 1081-1094. [Crossref]
79. Zakaria Mansouri, Mokhtar Aouissi, Toufik Boushaki. 2016. Numerical computations of premixed propane flame in a
swirl-stabilized burner: Effects of hydrogen enrichment, swirl number and equivalence ratio on flame characteristics.
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 41:22, 9664-9678. [Crossref]
80. Peter A. Kozak, David Vallverdú, Dietmar Rempfer. 2016. Modeling Vertical-Axis Wind-Turbine Performance: Blade-
Element Method Versus Finite Volume Approach. Journal of Propulsion and Power 32:3, 592-601. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
81. Chia-Rong Chen, Hamn-Ching Chen. 2016. Simulation of vortex-induced motions of a deep draft semi-submersible
in current. Ocean Engineering 118, 107-116. [Crossref]
82. Fei Li, Junjie Liu, Jianlin Ren, Xiaodong Cao, Yifang Zhu. 2016. Numerical investigation of airborne contaminant
transport under different vortex structures in the aircraft cabin. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 96,
287-295. [Crossref]
83. Roozbeh Vadi, Kamran Sepanloo. 2016. An improved porous media model for nuclear reactor analysis. Nuclear Science
and Techniques 27:1. . [Crossref]
84. Weiguo Xu, Shuyan Wang, Qinghong Zhang, Qiang Wang, Huilin Lu, Heping Tan. 2016. Experimental and numerical
studies of heat transfer and friction factor of therminol liquid phase heat transfer fluid in a ribbed tube. Applied Thermal
Engineering 95, 165-177. [Crossref]
85. Xin Yang, Derek Ingham, Lin Ma, Alan Williams, Mohamed Pourkashanian. 2016. Predicting ash deposition behaviour
for co-combustion of palm kernel with coal based on CFD modelling of particle impaction and sticking. Fuel 165, 41-49.
[Crossref]
86. Amir Keshmiri, Karim Osman, Sofiane Benhamadouche, Nima Shokri. 2016. Assessment of advanced RANS models
against large eddy simulation and experimental data in the investigation of ribbed passages with passive heat transfer.
Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals 69:2, 96-110. [Crossref]
87. A. Friis, B.B.B. Jensen. The Hygienic Design of Closed Equipment 251-264. [Crossref]
88. Roozbeh Vadi, Kamran Sepanloo. 2016. Investigation of a LOCA in a typical MTR by a novel best-estimate code.
Progress in Nuclear Energy 86, 141-161. [Crossref]
89. M. Y. Abdollahzadeh Jamalabadi, M. Oveisi. 2016. Numerical Simulation of Interaction of a Current with a Circular
Cylinder near a Rigid Bed. Journal of Applied Mathematics and Physics 04:02, 398-411. [Crossref]
 90. S. Schmidt, M. Breuer. 2015. Extended Synthetic Turbulence Inflow Generator within a Hybrid LES–URANS
Methodology for the Prediction of Non–Equilibrium Wall–Bounded Flows. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 95:4,
669-707. [Crossref]
91. Hao Lu, Lin Lu. 2015. A numerical study of particle deposition in ribbed duct flow with different rib shapes. Building
and Environment 94, 43-53. [Crossref]
92. Hao Lu, Lin Lu. 2015. Effects of rib spacing and height on particle deposition in ribbed duct air flows. Building and
Environment 92, 317-327. [Crossref]
93. Zahir U. Ahmed, Yasir M. Al-Abdeli, Miccal T. Matthews. 2015. The effect of inflow conditions on the development
of non-swirling versus swirling impinging turbulent jets. Computers & Fluids 118, 255-273. [Crossref]
94. Ievgen V. Mochalin, Artem A. Khalatov. 2015. Centrifugal instability and turbulence development in Taylor–Couette
flow with forced radial throughflow of high intensity. Physics of Fluids 27:9, 094102. [Crossref]
95. A. Alonzo-García, C. del C. Gutiérrez-Torres, J. A. Jiménez Bernal, H. R. Mollinedo-Ponce de León, S. A. Martinez-
Delgadillo, J. G. Barbosa-Saldaña. 2015. RANS simulations of the U and V grooves effect in the subcritical flow over
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

four rotated circular cylinders. Journal of Hydrodynamics 27:4, 569-578. [Crossref]

96. Hong Q. Yang, Jeffrey West. CFD Extraction of Heat Transfer Coefficient in Cryogenic Propellant Tanks . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
97. Hwan-Kee Cho, Jong-Bum Kim, Byung-Heum Song. 2015. A Study on Determination for Location of Localizer
Antenna under Area Restrictive Conditions at Domestic P-Airport. Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and
Aeronautics 23:2, 7-14. [Crossref]
98. Seok-Ki Choi, Dong-Eun Kim, Sung-Ho Ko, Tae-Ho Lee. 2015. Large eddy simulation of thermal striping in the
upper plenum of the PGSFR. Journal of Nuclear Science and Technology 52:6, 878-886. [Crossref]
99. Fabienne Mercier, S. Bonelli, F. Golay, F. Anselmet, P. Philippe, R. Borghi. 2015. Numerical modelling of concentrated
leak erosion during Hole Erosion Tests. Acta Geotechnica 10:3, 319-332. [Crossref]
100. Mianguang Xu, Miaoyong Zhu, Guodong Wang. 2015. Numerical Simulation of the Fluid Flow, Heat Transfer, and
Solidification in a Twin-Roll Strip Continuous Casting Machine. Metallurgical and Materials Transactions B 46:3,
1510-1519. [Crossref]
101. Nikhin Mascarenhas, Hyoungsoon Lee, Issam Mudawar. 2015. Experimental and computational investigation of
interfacial shear along a wavy two-phase interface. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 85, 265-280. [Crossref]
102. W. Zhang, Y.J. Ge, C.S. Cai. 2015. Application of Snapshot POD Analysis in Extracting Flow Structures around Bridge
Decks. Advances in Structural Engineering 18:6, 803-815. [Crossref]
103. Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak, Satish Kumar Gupta, Dipankar Chatterjee, Amar Nath Mullick. 2015. Numerical Analysis of
Convective Transport of Fly Ash-Water Slurry through a Horizontal Pipe. The Journal of Computational Multiphase
Flows 7:2, 79-96. [Crossref]
104. Y. Shekari, M. Javan, A. Eghbalzadeh. 2015. Effect of turbulence models on the submerged hydraulic jump simulation.
Journal of Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics 56:3, 454-463. [Crossref]
105. . Design Validations 223-316. [Crossref]
106. Deepchand Singh Negi, Arvind Pattamatta. 2015. Profile shape optimization in multi-jet impingement cooling of
dimpled topologies for local heat transfer enhancement. Heat and Mass Transfer 51:4, 451-464. [Crossref]
107. Jovani L. Favero, Luiz Fernando L.R. Silva, Paulo L.C. Lage. 2015. Modeling and simulation of mixing in water-in-
oil emulsion flow through a valve-like element using a population balance model. Computers & Chemical Engineering
75, 155-170. [Crossref]
108. Andrea Alaimo, Antonio Esposito, Antonio Messineo, Calogero Orlando, Davide Tumino. 2015. 3D CFD Analysis of
a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine. Energies 8:4, 3013-3033. [Crossref]
109. Hao Lu, Lin Lu. 2015. Numerical investigation on particle deposition enhancement in duct air flow by ribbed wall.
Building and Environment 85, 61-72. [Crossref]
110. S. Schmidt, M. Breuer. Hybrid LES–URANS Methodology for Wall–Bounded Flows 197-203. [Crossref]
111. Chunbao Liu, Changsuo Liu, Wenxing Ma. 2015. Rans, detached Eddy simulation and large Eddy simulation of internal
Torque converters flows: A comparative study. Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics 9:1, 114-125.
[Crossref]
112. Hosein Foroutan, Savas Yavuzkurt. 2015. Numerical Simulations of the Near-Field Region of Film Cooling Jets Under
High Free Stream Turbulence: Application of RANS and Hybrid URANS/Large Eddy Simulation Models. Journal of
Heat Transfer 137:1. . [Crossref]
 113. S.K. Choi, J.W. Han, D. Kim, T.H. Lee. 2014. LARGE EDDY SIMULATION OF THERMAL STRIPING IN THE
UPPER PLENUM OF FAST REACTOR. Journal of computational fluids engineering 19:4, 29-36. [Crossref]
114. Nerea Nieto, Luis Díaz, Jon Gastelurrutia, Francisco Blanco, Juan Carlos Ramos, Alejandro Rivas. 2014. Novel thermal
management system design methodology for power lithium-ion battery. Journal of Power Sources 272, 291-302. [Crossref]
115. Michael Breuer, Stephan Schmidt. 2014. Hybrid LES-RANS Modeling of Complex Turbulent Flows. PAMM 14:1,
647-650. [Crossref]
116. Xueying Li, Jing Ren, Hongde Jiang. 2014. Film Cooling Modeling of Turbine Blades Using Algebraic Anisotropic
Turbulence Models. Journal of Turbomachinery 136:11. . [Crossref]
117. Yones Shekari, Mitra Javan, Afshin Eghbalzadeh. 2014. Three-dimensional Numerical Study of Submerged Hydraulic
Jumps. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 39:10, 6969-6981. [Crossref]
118. Arend Dubbelboer, Jo Janssen, Hans Hoogland, Ashvin Mudaliar, Shashank Maindarkar, Edwin Zondervan, Jan
Meuldijk. 2014. Population balances combined with Computational Fluid Dynamics: A modeling approach for dispersive
mixing in a high pressure homogenizer. Chemical Engineering Science 117, 376-388. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

119. L. El Moutaouakil, Z. Zrikem, A. Abdelbaki. 2014. Performance of various RANS eddy-viscosity models for turbulent
natural convection in tall vertical cavities. Heat and Mass Transfer 50:8, 1103-1113. [Crossref]
120. Peter A. Kozak, Dietmar Rempfer. Modeling Vertical-Axis Wind Turbine Performance: Blade Element Method vs.
Finite Volume Approach . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
121. Charbel Habchi, Jean-Luc Harion. 2014. Residence time distribution and heat transfer in circular pipe fitted with
longitudinal rectangular wings. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 74, 13-24. [Crossref]
122. Havatzelet Shmueli, G. Ziskind, Ruth Letan. Effect of Wavelength and Amplitude on Heat Transfer over a Wavy Wall .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
123. S. Schmidt, M. Breuer. 2014. Hybrid LES–URANS methodology for the prediction of non-equilibrium wall-bounded
internal and external flows. Computers & Fluids 96, 226-252. [Crossref]
124. Nikhin Mascarenhas, Issam Mudawar. 2014. Statistical analysis of measured and computed thickness and interfacial
temperature of free-falling turbulent liquid films. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 73, 716-730. [Crossref]
125. F. Mercier, F. Golay, S. Bonelli, F. Anselmet, R. Borghi, P. Philippe. 2014. 2D axisymmetrical numerical modelling of
the erosion of a cohesive soil by a submerged turbulent impinging jet. European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids 45,
36-50. [Crossref]
126. Asier Bengoechea, Raúl Antón, Gorka S. Larraona, Alejandro Rivas, Juan Carlos Ramos, Yunesky Masip. 2014. PIV
measurements and a CFD benchmark study of a screen under fan-induced swirl conditions. International Journal of Heat
and Fluid Flow 46, 43-60. [Crossref]
127. Huai-Zhi Han, Bing-Xi Li, Feng-Chen Li, Yu-Rong He. 2014. RST model for turbulent flow and heat transfer
mechanism in an outward convex corrugated tube. Computers & Fluids 91, 107-129. [Crossref]
128. Hamid Reza Nazif, Hassan Basirat Tabrizi, Farhad A. Farhadpour. 2014. Comparative analysis of the boundary transfer
method with other near-wall treatments based on the – turbulence model. European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids
44, 22-31. [Crossref]
129. Ashraf Uz Zaman, Donald John Bergstrom. 2014. Implementation of Two-Fluid Model for Dilute Gas-Solid Flow in
Pipes With Rough Walls. Journal of Fluids Engineering 136:3. . [Crossref]
130. Johann Friedrich Gülich. Numerical Flow Calculations 499-574. [Crossref]
131. Elizaldo D. dos Santos, Liércio A. Isoldi, Adriane P. Petry, Francis H. R. França. 2014. A numerical study of combined
convective and radiative heat transfer in non-reactive turbulent channel flows with several optical thicknesses: a
comparison between LES and RANS. Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 36:1, 207-219.
[Crossref]
132. Hamid Reza Nazif, Hassan Basirat Tabrizi. 2014. Applying a non-equilibrium wall function in k – ε turbulent modelling
of hydrodynamic circulating flow. Applied Mathematical Modelling 38:2, 588-598. [Crossref]
133. C. Teodosiu, F. Kuznik, R. Teodosiu. 2014. CFD modeling of buoyancy driven cavities with internal heat source—
Application to heated rooms. Energy and Buildings 68, 403-411. [Crossref]
134. Miroslav Soos, Daniele L. Marchisio, Jan Sefcik. 2013. Assessment of gel formation in colloidal dispersions during
mixing in turbulent jets. AIChE Journal 59:12, 4567-4581. [Crossref]
135. Nikhin Mascarenhas, Issam Mudawar. 2013. Study of the influence of interfacial waves on heat transfer in turbulent
falling films. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 67, 1106-1121. [Crossref]
136. Z.T. Ai, C.M. Mak. 2013. CFD simulation of flow and dispersion around an isolated building: Effect of inhomogeneous
ABL and near-wall treatment. Atmospheric Environment 77, 568-578. [Crossref]
 137. Cyril Courtessole, Jacqueline Etay. 2013. Flows and mass transfers in two superimposed liquid layers in an induction
furnace. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 65, 893-906. [Crossref]
138. Matthew Staymates, Jerold Bottiger, Deborah Schepers, Jessica Staymates. 2013. A Streamlined, High-Volume Particle
Impactor for Trace Chemical Analysis. Aerosol Science and Technology 47:9, 945-954. [Crossref]
139. Jorge D. Abad, Christian E. Frias, Gustavo C. Buscaglia, Marcelo H. Garcia. 2013. Modulation of the flow structure by
progressive bedforms in the Kinoshita meandering channel. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32, n/a-n/a. [Crossref]
140. Wei Liu, Jizhou Wen, Chao-Hsin Lin, Junjie Liu, Zhengwei Long, Qingyan Chen. 2013. Evaluation of various categories
of turbulence models for predicting air distribution in an airliner cabin. Building and Environment 65, 118-131. [Crossref]
141. Dmitry A. Lysenko, Ivar S. Ertesvåg, Kjell E. Rian. 2013. Modeling of turbulent separated flows using OpenFOAM.
Computers & Fluids 80, 408-422. [Crossref]
142. John Mantzaras. 2013. New Directions in Advanced Modeling and in Situ Measurements Near Reacting Surfaces. Flow,
Turbulence and Combustion 90:4, 681-707. [Crossref]
143. Lin Tian, Goodarz Ahmadi. 2013. Fiber transport and deposition in human upper tracheobronchial airways. Journal
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

of Aerosol Science 60, 1-20. [Crossref]

144. Sandeep Bomminayuni, Thorsten Stoesser, Nils Reidar Boe Olsen. 2013. Evaluation of Low Reynolds Number
Turbulence Models for an Open-Channel Flow over a Rough Bed Using LES Data. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering
139:6, 664-668. [Crossref]
145. SEOK-KI CHOI, TAE-HO LEE, YEONG-IL KIM, DOHEE HAHN. 2013. NUMERICAL ANALYSIS OF
THERMAL STRATIFICATION IN THE UPPER PLENUM OF THE MONJU FAST REACTOR. Nuclear
Engineering and Technology 45:2, 191-202. [Crossref]
146. Tom I-P Shih, E-Jieh Teh. Reynolds-Averaged Simulations of Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions with Bleed .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
147. S.K. Choi, T.H. Lee. 2012. COMPUTATIONAL FLUID DYNAMICS ANALYSIS OF THERMAL
STRATIFICATION IN THE UPPER PLENUM OF THE MONJU FAST BREEDER REACTOR. Journal of
computational fluids engineering 17:4, 41-48. [Crossref]
148. Vishwanath Somashekar, Ying Liu, Rodney O. Fox, Michael G. Olsen. 2012. Turbulence measurements in a rectangular
mesoscale confined impinging jets reactor. Experiments in Fluids 53:6, 1929-1941. [Crossref]
149. Jie-min Zhan, Ben-cheng Wang, Ling-hui Yu, Yok-sheung Li, Ling Tang. 2012. Numerical Investigation of Flow
Patterns in Different Pump Intake Systems. Journal of Hydrodynamics 24:6, 873-882. [Crossref]
150. Shyam S. Das, Akshaya K. Sahu, G. Padmakumar, Arijit A. Ganguli. 2012. CFD analysis of thermal stratification and
sensitivity study of model parameters for k–ɛ model in a cylindrical hot plenum. Nuclear Engineering and Design 250,
417-435. [Crossref]
151. Manmatha K. Roul, Sukanta K. Dash. 2012. Single-Phase and Two-Phase Flow Through Thin and Thick Orifices in
Horizontal Pipes. Journal of Fluids Engineering 134:9. . [Crossref]
152. D. del Campo, R. Castilla, G. A. Raush, P. J. Gamez Montero, E. Codina. 2012. Numerical Analysis of External Gear
Pumps Including Cavitation. Journal of Fluids Engineering 134:8. . [Crossref]
153. Amir Keshmiri. 2012. Numerical sensitivity analysis of 3- and 2- dimensional rib-roughened channels. Heat and Mass
Transfer 48:7, 1257-1271. [Crossref]
154. S. Barboy, A. Rashkovan, G. Ziskind. 2012. Determination of hot spots on a heated wavy wall in channel flow.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55:13-14, 3576-3581. [Crossref]
155. Lin Tian, Goodarz Ahmadi. 2012. Transport and Deposition of Micro-and Nano-Particles in Human Tracheobronchial
Tree by an Asymmetric Multi-Level Bifurcation Model. The Journal of Computational Multiphase Flows 4:2, 159-182.
[Crossref]
156. Charbel Habchi, Serge Russeil, Daniel Bougeard, Jean-Luc Harion, Thierry Lemenand, Dominique Della Valle, Hassan
Peerhossaini. 2012. Enhancing heat transfer in vortex generator-type multifunctional heat exchangers. Applied Thermal
Engineering 38, 14-25. [Crossref]
157. Chao Li, Q.S. Li, Y.Q. Xiao, J.P. Ou. 2012. A revised empirical model and CFD simulations for 3D axisymmetric
steady-state flows of downbursts and impinging jets. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 102, 48-60.
[Crossref]
158. P. Bagdi, P. Bhardwaj, A. K. Sen. 2012. Analysis and Simulation of a Micro Hydrocyclone Device for Particle Liquid
Separation. Journal of Fluids Engineering 134:2. . [Crossref]
159. Xingkai Chi, Tom I-P Shih. Bulk Temperature, Heat-Transfer Coefficient, and Nusselt Number-Revisited . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
 160. Seok-Ki Choi, Seong-O Kim. 2012. Turbulence modeling of natural convection in enclosures: A review. Journal of
Mechanical Science and Technology 26:1, 283-297. [Crossref]
161. S.J. Karabelas, B.C. Koumroglou, C.D. Argyropoulos, N.C. Markatos. 2012. High Reynolds number turbulent flow past
a rotating cylinder. Applied Mathematical Modelling 36:1, 379-398. [Crossref]
162. A. Lamorlette, A. Collin, O. Sro-Guillaume. 2012. Characterization of heat transfer between phases inside a porous
medium as applied to vegetal set representations. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 55:4, 607-617.
[Crossref]
163. Micael Boulet, Bernard Marcos, Christine Moresoli, Michel Dostie. 2012. Sequential inverse method implemented into
CFD software for the estimation of a radiation boundary. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 51, 7-15. [Crossref]
164. Jianbo Jiang, Xinlei Wang. 2012. On the Numerical Study of Indoor Particle Dispersion and Spatial Distribution. Air,
Soil and Water Research 5, ASWR.S8113. [Crossref]
165. John Mantzaras. Evaluation of Models for Heterogeneous Catalysis 221-250. [Crossref]
166. Charbel Habchi, Thierry Lemenand, Dominique Della Valle, Leonardo Pacheco, Olivier Le Corre, Hassan Peerhossaini.
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

2011. Entropy production and field synergy principle in turbulent vortical flows. International Journal of Thermal Sciences
50:12, 2365-2376. [Crossref]
167. S Keum, H Park, A Babajimopoulos, D N Assanis, D Jung. 2011. Modelling of heat transfer in internal combustion
engines with variable density effect. International Journal of Engine Research 12:6, 513-526. [Crossref]
168. Liu Hongtao, Zhang Li. 2011. Prediction of particle deposition characteristic in 90° square bend: Square bend particle
deposition characteristic. Applied Thermal Engineering 31:16, 3402-3409. [Crossref]
169. Kevin Huang, Hamn-Ching Chen, Chia-Rong Chen. 2011. Numerical scheme for riser motion calculation during 3-D
VIV simulation. Journal of Fluids and Structures 27:7, 947-961. [Crossref]
170. S. Chacko, Y.M. Chung, S.K. Choi, H.Y. Nam, H.Y. Jeong. 2011. Large-eddy simulation of thermal striping in unsteady
non-isothermal triple jet. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54:19-20, 4400-4409. [Crossref]
171. Manmatha K. Roul, Sukanta K. Dash. 2011. Two-phase pressure drop caused by sudden flow area contraction/expansion
in small circular pipes. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 66:11, 1420-1446. [Crossref]
172. N. Alvandifar, M. Abkar, Z. Mansoori, M. Saffar Avval, G. Ahmadi. 2011. Turbulence modulation for gas – particle
flow in vertical tube and horizontal channel using four-way Eulerian–Lagrangian approach. International Journal of Heat
and Fluid Flow 32:4, 826-833. [Crossref]
173. R. B. Bond, Frederick G. Blottner. 2011. Derivation, implementation, and initial testing of a compressible wall-layer
model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 66:9, 1183-1206. [Crossref]
174. Ghanshyam Singh, Arvind Pattamatta, Hukam Mongia. Assessment of Turbulence Models for Heated Wall Jet Flow .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
175. Arvind Pattamatta, Ghanshyam Singh, Hukam Mongia. Assessment of Turbulence Models for Free and Confined
Impinging Jet Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
176. Luca Bruno, Davide Fransos. 2011. Probabilistic evaluation of the aerodynamic properties of a bridge deck. Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 99:6-7, 718-728. [Crossref]
177. Ke Sun, Lin Lu, Hai Jiang. 2011. Modelling of Particle Deposition and Rebound Behaviour on Ventilation Ducting Wall
Using an Improved Wall Model. Indoor and Built Environment 20:3, 300-312. [Crossref]
178. X L Tang, F J Wang, Y J Li, G H Cong, X Y Shi, Y L Wu, L Y Qi. 2011. Numerical investigations of vortex flows and
vortex suppression schemes in a large pumping-station sump. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part
C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science 225:6, 1459-1480. [Crossref]
179. Hassan Raiesi, Ugo Piomelli, Andrew Pollard. 2011. Evaluation of Turbulence Models Using Direct Numerical and
Large-Eddy Simulation Data. Journal of Fluids Engineering 133:2. . [Crossref]
180. Zhi Jian Fan, Jian Qiang Shen, Lin Tang, Qing Ming Fan. 2011. Optimization for Tooth Profile of Assembled Cathode
Based on Comsol. Advanced Materials Research 189-193, 3166-3169. [Crossref]
181. Anupam Dewan. Reynolds-Stress and Scalar Flux Transport Model 81-89. [Crossref]
182. Cun-liang Liu, Hui-ren Zhu, Jiang-tao Bai. 2011. New development of the turbulent Prandtl number models for the
computation of film cooling effectiveness. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54:4, 874-886. [Crossref]
183. Chien-Hua Chen, Paul D. Ronney. 2011. Three-dimensional effects in counterflow heat-recirculating combustors.
Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 33:2, 3285-3291. [Crossref]
184. F. Giorgio Serchi, J. Peakall, D. B. Ingham, A. D. Burns. 2011. A unifying computational fluid dynamics investigation
on the river-like to river-reversed secondary circulation in submarine channel bends. Journal of Geophysical Research
116:C6. . [Crossref]
 185. Najla El Gharbi, Rafik Absi, Ahmed Benzaoui, Rachid Bennacer. 2011. An improved near-wall treatment for turbulent
channel flows. International Journal of Computational Fluid Dynamics 25:1, 41-46. [Crossref]
186. Charbel Habchi, Thierry Lemenand, Dominique Della Valle, Hassan Peerhossaini. On the synergy field between velocity
vector and temperature gradient in turbulent vortical flows 353-360. [Crossref]
187. Charbel Habchi, Thierry Lemenand, Dominique Della Valle, Hassan Peerhossaini. 2010. Turbulent mixing and
residence time distribution in novel multifunctional heat exchangers–reactors. Chemical Engineering and Processing: Process
Intensification 49:10, 1066-1075. [Crossref]
188. Davide Fransos, Luca Bruno. 2010. Edge degree-of-sharpness and free-stream turbulence scale effects on the
aerodynamics of a bridge deck. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 98:10-11, 661-671. [Crossref]
189. Seok-Ki Choi, Ching-Long Lin. 2010. A Simple Finite-Volume Formulation of the Lattice Boltzmann Method for
Laminar and Turbulent Flows. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals 58:4, 242-261. [Crossref]
190. Amr Elbanhawy, Ali Turan. 2010. On Two-dimensional Predictions of Turbulent Cross-flow Induced Vibration: Forces
on a Cylinder and Wake Interaction. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 85:2, 199-224. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

191. L.M.C. Ferro, L.M.C. Gato, A.F.O. Falcão. 2010. Design and experimental validation of the inlet guide vane system of
a mini hydraulic bulb-turbine. Renewable Energy 35:9, 1920-1928. [Crossref]
192. . References 345-352. [Crossref]
193. Meng-Huang Lu, William W. Liou. 2010. A new second-order closure model for rough-wall turbulent flows using the
Brinkman equation. Computers & Fluids 39:4, 626-639. [Crossref]
194. Wenhua Jia, Chenbo Yin. Notice of Retraction: CFD simulation with fluent and experimental study on the characteristics
of spool valve orifice V1-590-V1-594. [Crossref]
195. R. Zanino, S. Giors, L. Savoldi Richard. 2010. CFD model of ITER CICC. Part VI: Heat and mass transfer between
cable region and central channel. Cryogenics 50:3, 158-166. [Crossref]
196. A. Rashkovan, J. Aharon, M. Katz, G. Ziskind. 2010. Optimization of rib-roughened annular gas-coolant channels.
Nuclear Engineering and Design 240:2, 344-351. [Crossref]
197. M. Breuer, O. Aybay, B. Jaffrézic. Application of an Anisotropy Resolving Algebraic Reynolds Stress Model within a
Hybrid LES-RANS Method 231-237. [Crossref]
198. Fabien Chorel, Alain Kondjoyan, Pierre-Sylvain Mirade. 2010. Toward Quantitative CFD Prediction of Contaminant
Particle Deposition against Surfaces in Large Forced-Ventilation Food Plants. Aerosol Science and Technology 44:1, 10-28.
[Crossref]
199. Charbel Habchi, Thierry Lemenand, Dominique Della Valle, Hassan Peerhossaini. 2010. Turbulence behavior of
artificially generated vorticity. Journal of Turbulence 11, N36. [Crossref]
200. Kannan Munisamy, Mohd. Zamri Yusoff, Soong Peng Soon, Pang Win Cheong. Skin friction calculation for PU/PIR
against steel duct using CFD 393-401. [Crossref]
201. M. Salih Kirkgoz, A. Alper Oner, M. Sami Akoz. 2009. Numerical modeling of interaction of a current with a circular
cylinder near a rigid bed. Advances in Engineering Software 40:11, 1191-1199. [Crossref]
202. Mehmet Salih Kirkgoz, Mevlut Sami Akoz, Ahmet Alper Oner. 2009. Numerical modeling of flow over a chute spillway.
Journal of Hydraulic Research 47:6, 790-797. [Crossref]
203. T. Belmrabet, M. Talice, G. Delussu, M. Mulas, S. Hanchi. 2009. Combustion Analysis Using Roe's Scheme and the
Spalart-Allmaras Model. AIAA Journal 47:11, 2726-2737. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
204. Eric Goncalves, Regiane Fortes Patella. 2009. Numerical simulation of cavitating flows with homogeneous models.
Computers & Fluids 38:9, 1682-1696. [Crossref]
205. Bong-Hyun Cho, Young-In Kim, Yoon-Yeong Bae. 2009. PREDICTION OF A HEAT TRANSFER TO CO 2
FLOWING IN AN UPWARD PATH AT A SUPERCRITICAL PRESSURE. Nuclear Engineering and Technology
41:7, 907-920. [Crossref]
206. G. A. Gerolymos, I. Vallet. 2009. Implicit meanflow-multigrid algorithms for Reynolds stress model computation of 3-D
anisotropy-driven and compressible flows. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 61:2, 185-219. [Crossref]
207. Jian Zhang, Fariborz Haghighat. 2009. Convective heat transfer prediction in large rectangular cross-sectional area Earth-
to-Air Heat Exchangers. Building and Environment 44:9, 1892-1898. [Crossref]
208. Madhanabharatam Balasubramanyam, David Lineberry, Chien Chen, Vladimir Bazarov. Numerical Studies on Frequency
Response to Mass Flow Rate Variations in a Hydromechanical Pulsator . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
209. E. Goncalves, R. Houdeville. 2009. Numerical simulations of a transport-aircraft configuration. International Journal of
Computational Fluid Dynamics 23:6, 449-459. [Crossref]
 210. M. Stripf, A. Schulz, H.-J. Bauer, S. Wittig. 2009. Extended Models for Transitional Rough Wall Boundary Layers
With Heat Transfer—Part I: Model Formulations. Journal of Turbomachinery 131:3. . [Crossref]
211. Junye Wang, Geoffrey H. Priestman. 2009. Flow simulation in a complex fluidics using three turbulence models and
unstructured grids. International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow 19:3/4, 484-500. [Crossref]
212. Juan P. Pontaza, Raghu G. Menon, Hamn-Ching Chen. 2009. Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulations of Flows
Past Smooth and Rough/Bare and Helically Straked Circular Cylinders Allowed to Undergo Two Degree-of-Freedom
Motions. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 131:2. . [Crossref]
213. Mireia Altimira, Alejandro Rivas, Gorka S. Larraona, Raul Anton, Juan Carlos Ramos. 2009. Characterization of fan
spray atomizers through numerical simulation. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 30:2, 339-355. [Crossref]
214. Francisco J. Trujillo, Tomasz Safinski, Adesoji A. Adesina. 2009. Solid–liquid mass transfer analysis in a multi-phase tank
reactor containing submerged coated inclined-plates: A computational fluid dynamics approach. Chemical Engineering
Science 64:6, 1143-1153. [Crossref]
215. Meng-Huang Lu, William W. Liou. 2009. New Two-Equation Closure for Rough-Wall Turbulent Flows Using the
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

Brinkman Equation. AIAA Journal 47:2, 386-398. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
216. Kenny Hu, Kyle Chi, Tom Shih, Harold Schock. Heat Transfer Enhancement in Thermoelectric-Power Generation .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
217. Ryan Bond, Frederick Blottner. Implementation and Testing of a Compressible Wall-Layer Model on a Flat Plate .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
218. Meng-Huang Lu, William W. Liou. Numerical Study of Roughness Effects on a NACA 0012 Airfoil Using a New
Second-Order Closure of the Rough Wall Layer Modeling . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
219. D. Rundström, B. Moshfegh. 2009. Large-eddy simulation of an impinging jet in a cross-flow on a heated wall-mounted
cube. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 52:3-4, 921-931. [Crossref]
220. Ying Liu, Michael G. Olsen, Rodney O. Fox. 2009. Turbulence in a microscale planar confined impinging-jets reactor.
Lab on a Chip 9:8, 1110. [Crossref]
221. William W. Liou, Meng-Huang Lu. 2009. Rough-wall layer modeling using the Brinkman equation. Journal of
Turbulence 10, N16. [Crossref]
222. Cun-Liang Liu, Hui-Ren Zhu, Jiang-Tao Bai. 2008. Effect of turbulent Prandtl number on the computation of film-
cooling effectiveness. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 51:25-26, 6208-6218. [Crossref]
223. D. Rundström, B. Moshfegh. 2008. Investigation of Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of an Impinging Jet in a Cross-
Flow for Cooling of a Heated Cube. Journal of Heat Transfer 130:12. . [Crossref]
224. B. Jaffrézic, M. Breuer. 2008. Application of an Explicit Algebraic Reynolds Stress Model within a Hybrid LES–RANS
Method. Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 81:3, 415-448. [Crossref]
225. 2008. 2007 Ralph B. Peck Award Lecture. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134:10, 1424-1424.
[Crossref]
226. Jean-Louis Briaud. 2008. Case Histories in Soil and Rock Erosion: Woodrow Wilson Bridge, Brazos River Meander,
Normandy Cliffs, and New Orleans Levees. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134:10, 1425-1447.
[Crossref]
227. Christian Lindenberg, Jochen Schöll, Lars Vicum, Marco Mazzotti, Jörg Brozio. 2008. Experimental characterization
and multi-scale modeling of mixing in static mixers. Chemical Engineering Science 63:16, 4135-4149. [Crossref]
228. Seok-Ki Choi, Seong-O Kim. 2008. Computation of a turbulent Rayleigh–Benard convection with the elliptic-blending
second-moment closure. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 35:7, 817-821. [Crossref]
229. Balasubramanyam Madhanabharatam, Vladimir Bazarov, Chien Chen. Numerical Design Investigation of Hydro-
mechanical Pulsator for Liquid Rocket Injector Research . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
230. Piyush Thakre, Vigor Yang. 2008. Chemical Erosion of Carbon-Carbon/Graphite Nozzles in Solid-Propellant Rocket
Motors. Journal of Propulsion and Power 24:4, 822-833. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
231. Meng-Huang Lu, William Liou. Numerical Study of Roughness Effects on a NACA0012 Airfoil Using a New Two-
Equation Closure of the Rough Wall Layer Modeling . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
232. Meng-Huang Lu, William Liou. A Second-Order Closure for the New Rough Wall Layer Modeling Using the Brinkman
Equation in Turbulent Boundary Layers . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
233. Gorka S. Larraona, Alejandro Rivas, Juan Carlos Ramos. 2008. Computational Modeling and Simulation of a Single-
Jet Water Meter. Journal of Fluids Engineering 130:5. . [Crossref]
234. J.-L. Briaud, H.-C. Chen, A. V. Govindasamy, R. Storesund. 2008. Levee Erosion by Overtopping in New Orleans
during the Katrina Hurricane. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 134:5, 618-632. [Crossref]
 235. E. Esmaeilzadeh, A. Alamgholilou, H. Mirzaie. 2008. Numerical Investigation on Heat Transfer Enhancement of
Traverse Ribs in 3D Turbulent Duct Flow. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences 1:4, 286-303. [Crossref]
236. Bai-Cang Liu, Jun Ma, She-Hua Huang, Da-Hong Chen, Wen-Xue Chen. 2008. Two-Dimensional Numerical
Simulation of Primary Settling Tanks by Hybrid Finite Analytic Method. Journal of Environmental Engineering 134:4,
273-282. [Crossref]
237. C. Y.H. Chao, M. P. Wan, G. N. Sze To. 2008. Transport and Removal of Expiratory Droplets in Hospital Ward
Environment. Aerosol Science and Technology 42:5, 377-394. [Crossref]
238. Meng-Huang Lu, William Liou. A New Rough Wall Layer Modeling Using the Brinkman Equation in Turbulent
Boundary Layers . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
239. Ayyoub Mehdizadeh Momen, Bahar Firoozabadi, S.A. Sherif. Simulation of a Density Current Turbulent Flow
Employing Different RANS Models-A Comparative Study . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
240. D. Chang, S. Tavoularis. 2008. Simulations of turbulence, heat transfer and mixing across narrow gaps between rod-
bundle subchannels. Nuclear Engineering and Design 238:1, 109-123. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

241. Seok-Ki Choi, Seong-O Kim. 2007. Evaluation of Turbulence Models for Thermal Striping in a Triple Jet. Journal of
Pressure Vessel Technology 129:4, 583-592. [Crossref]
242. Meng-Huang Lu, William W. Liou. 2007. Assessment of Two Low-Reynolds-Number k-e Models in Turbulent
Boundary Layers with Surface Roughness. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 44:6, 1307-1316. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF
Plus]
243. D.N. Ryu, D.H. Choi, V.C. Patel. 2007. Analysis of turbulent flow in channels roughened by two-dimensional ribs and
three-dimensional blocks. Part I: Resistance. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 28:5, 1098-1111. [Crossref]
244. B. Aupoix. 2007. A General Strategy to Extend Turbulence Models to Rough Surfaces: Application to Smith’s k-L
Model. Journal of Fluids Engineering 129:10, 1245-1254. [Crossref]
245. Mika Piirto, Aku Karvinen, Hannu Ahlstedt, Pentti Saarenrinne, Reijo Karvinen. 2007. PIV Measurements in Square
Backward-Facing Step. Journal of Fluids Engineering 129:8, 984-990. [Crossref]
246. Jun Gao, Fu-Sheng Gao, Jia-Ning Zhao, Jing Liu. 2007. Calculation of Natural Ventilation in Large Enclosures. Indoor
and Built Environment 16:4, 292-301. [Crossref]
247. Y. Liu, P. G. Tucker. 2007. Contrasting zonal LES and non-linear zonal URANS models when predicting a complex
electronics system flow. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 71:1, 1-24. [Crossref]
248. Jack E. Davis, Billy L. Edge, Hamn-Ching Chen. 2007. Investigation of unrestrained cylinders rolling in steady uniform
flows. Ocean Engineering 34:10, 1431-1448. [Crossref]
249. Ramesh Chandra Behera, Pradip Dutta, K. Srinivasan. 2007. Numerical Study of Interrupted Impinging Jets for Cooling
of Electronics. IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies 30:2, 275-284. [Crossref]
250. Herbert Martin Hofmann, Rafael Kaiser, Matthias Kind, Holger Martin. 2007. Calculations of Steady and Pulsating
Impinging Jets—An Assessment of 13 Widely used Turbulence Models. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals
51:6, 565-583. [Crossref]
251. Lin Tian, Goodarz Ahmadi. 2007. Particle deposition in turbulent duct flows—comparisons of different model
predictions. Journal of Aerosol Science 38:4, 377-397. [Crossref]
252. Emmanuel Lorin, Amine Ben Haj Ali, Azzeddine Soulaimani. 2007. A positivity preserving finite element–finite volume
solver for the Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 196:17-20,
2097-2116. [Crossref]
253. D. Chang, S. Tavoularis. 2007. Numerical simulation of turbulent flow in a 37-rod bundle. Nuclear Engineering and
Design 237:6, 575-590. [Crossref]
254. Ryan Bond, Frederick Blottner. A Compressible Wall-Layer Approach Compatible with Various Turbulence Models .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
255. Meng-Huang Lu, William W. Liou. Assessment of Two Low-Reynolds-Number k-e Models in Turbulent Boundary
Layers with Surface Roughness . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
256. Piyush Thakre, Vigor Yang. Graphite Nozzle Material Erosion in Solid-Propellant Rocket Motors . [Citation] [PDF]
[PDF Plus]
257. K. N. Volkov. 2007. Application of a two-layer model of turbulence in calculation of a boundary layer with a pressure
gradient. Journal of Engineering Physics and Thermophysics 80:1, 97-106. [Crossref]
258. Seok-Ki Choi, Seong-O Kim. 2006. Computation of a turbulent natural convection in a rectangular cavity with the
elliptic-blending second-moment closure. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 33:10, 1217-1224.
[Crossref]
 259. Ying Liu, Hua Feng, Michael G. Olsen, Rodney O. Fox, James C. Hill. 2006. Turbulent mixing in a confined rectangular
wake. Chemical Engineering Science 61:21, 6946-6962. [Crossref]
260. M. de’ Michieli Vitturi, F. Beux. 2006. A discrete gradient-based approach for aerodynamic shape optimisation in
turbulent viscous flow. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 43:1, 68-80. [Crossref]
261. R. Zanino, S. Giors, R. Mondino. 2006. CFD modeling of ITER cable-in-conduit superconductors. Fusion Engineering
and Design 81:23-24, 2605-2610. [Crossref]
262. Kannan Sundaravadivelu, Qide Zhang. Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Air Flow in Hard Disk Drives 1-2. [Crossref]
263. Seok-Ki Choi, Seong-O Kim. 2006. The Role of Turbulence Models for Predicting a Thermal Stratification. Journal
of Pressure Vessel Technology 128:4, 656-662. [Crossref]
264. John Mantzaras. 2006. Understanding and modeling of thermofluidic processes in catalytic combustion. Catalysis Today
117:4, 394-406. [Crossref]
265. N.J. Smale, J. Moureh, G. Cortella. 2006. A review of numerical models of airflow in refrigerated food applications.
International Journal of Refrigeration 29:6, 911-930. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

266. D. Chang, S. Tavoularis. 2006. Convective Heat Transfer in Turbulent Flow Near a Gap. Journal of Heat Transfer 128:7,
701-708. [Crossref]
267. M. R. Mokhtarzadeh-Dehghan, N. Piradeepan. 2006. Numerical prediction of a turbulent curved wake and comparison
with experimental data. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 51:1, 49-76. [Crossref]
268. Ying Liu, R. O. Fox. 2006. CFD predictions for chemical processing in a confined impinging-jets reactor. AIChE Journal
52:2, 731-744. [Crossref]
269. M. Garbero, M. Vanni, U. Fritsching. 2006. Gas/surface heat transfer in spray deposition processes. International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow 27:1, 105-122. [Crossref]
270. Jun Gao, Jia-ning Zhao, Fu-sheng Gao. 2006. Displacement of Natural Ventilation in an Enclosure With a Convective/
Radiative Heat Source and Nonadiabatic Envelopes. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 128:1, 83-89. [Crossref]
271. Frédéric Billy, Mihai Arghir, Gérard Pineau. 2006. Navier–Stokes Analysis of a Regular Two-Dimensional Roughness
Pattern Under Turbulent Flow Regime. Journal of Tribology 128:1, 122-130. [Crossref]
272. K. Dhinsa, C. Bailey, K. Pericleous. 2005. Investigation into the performance of turbulence models for fluid flow and
heat transfer phenomena in electronic applications. IEEE Transactions on Components and Packaging Technologies 28:4,
686-699. [Crossref]
273. J. P. Pontaza, H. C. Chen, J. N. Reddy. 2005. A local-analytic-based discretization procedure for the numerical solution
of incompressible flows. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 49:6, 657-699. [Crossref]
274. Hua Feng, Michael G. Olsen, Ying Liu, Rodney O. Fox, James C. Hill. 2005. Investigation of turbulent mixing in a
confined planar-jet reactor. AIChE Journal 51:10, 2649-2664. [Crossref]
275. L. A. Villasmil, H. C. Chen, D. W. Childs. 2005. Evaluation of Near-Wall Turbulence Models for Deliberately
Roughened Liquid Annular Seals. AIAA Journal 43:10, 2137-2146. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
276. J.-L. Briaud, H.-C. Chen, Y. Li, P. Nurtjahyo, J. Wang. 2005. SRICOS-EFA Method for Contraction Scour in Fine-
Grained Soils. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 131:10, 1283-1294. [Crossref]
277. Nassim Safer, Monika Woloszyn, Jean Jacques Roux. 2005. Three-dimensional simulation with a CFD tool of the airflow
phenomena in single floor double-skin facade equipped with a venetian blind. Solar Energy 79:2, 193-203. [Crossref]
278. Stephane Galera, Ludovic Hallo, Guillaume Puigt, Bijan Mohammadi. Wall Laws for Heat Transfer Predictions in
Thermal Turbulent Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
279. Jai Sachdev, Clinton Groth, James Gottlieb. Parallel AMR Scheme for Turbulent Multi-Phase Rocket Motor Core
Flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
280. Kunho Kim, Ana I. Sirviente, Robert F. Beck. 2005. The complementary RANS equations for the simulation of viscous
flows. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 48:2, 199-229. [Crossref]
281. Petter Andreas Berthelsen, Tor Ytrehus. 2005. Calculations of stratified wavy two-phase flow in pipes. International
Journal of Multiphase Flow 31:5, 571-592. [Crossref]
282. Ramin K. Rahmani, Theo G. Keith, Anahita Ayasoufi. 2005. Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation and
Performance Study of an Industrial Helical Static Mixer. Journal of Fluids Engineering 127:3, 467-483. [Crossref]
283. Bart Merci, Masood P.E. Mesbah, James W. Baughn. 2005. Experimental and numerical study of turbulent heat transfer
on a cylindrical pedestal. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 26:2, 233-243. [Crossref]
284. H. Tang, L.C. Wrobel, I.E. Barton. 2005. Two-phase flow patterns in turbulent flow through a dose diffusion pipe.
Nuclear Engineering and Design 235:9, 1001-1014. [Crossref]
 285. Peter Rodgers, Vale´rie Eveloy, M. S. J. Hashmi. 2005. An Investigation Into the Potential of Low-Reynolds Number
Eddy Viscosity Turbulent Flow Models to Predict Electronic Component Operational Temperature. Journal of Electronic
Packaging 127:1, 67-75. [Crossref]
286. B.B.B. Jensen, A. Friis, Th. Bénézech, P. Legentilhomme, C. Lelièvre. 2005. Local Wall Shear Stress Variations Predicted
by Computational Fluid Dynamics for Hygienic Design. Food and Bioproducts Processing 83:1, 53-60. [Crossref]
287. J. Moureh, D. Flick. 2005. Airflow characteristics within a slot-ventilated enclosure. International Journal of Heat and
Fluid Flow 26:1, 12-24. [Crossref]
288. A. Karvinen, H. Ahlstedt. Comparison of Turbulence Models in Case of Jet in Crossflow Using Commercial CFD Code
399-408. [Crossref]
289. Christoph Appel, John Mantzaras, Rolf Schaeren, Rolf Bombach, Andreas Inauen. 2005. Turbulent catalytically
stabilized combustion of hydrogen/air mixtures in entry channel flows. Combustion and Flame 140:1-2, 70-92. [Crossref]
290. P.S. Glockner, G.F. Naterer. 2005. Near-wall velocity profile with adaptive shape functions for turbulent forced
convection. International Communications in Heat and Mass Transfer 32:1-2, 72-79. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

291. Larry A. Villasmil, Dara W. Childs, Hamn-Ching Chen. 2005. Understanding Friction Factor Behavior in Liquid
Annular Seals With Deliberately Roughened Surfaces. Journal of Tribology 127:1, 213-222. [Crossref]
292. D. Chang, S. Tavoularis. 2005. Unsteady Numerical Simulations of Turbulence and Coherent Structures in Axial Flow
Near a Narrow Gap. Journal of Fluids Engineering 127:3, 458. [Crossref]
293. A. Friis, B.B.B. Jensen. Improving the hygienic design of closed equipment 191-211. [Crossref]
294. Eric Goncalves, Robert Houdeville. 2004. Turbulence model and numerical scheme assessment for buffet computations.
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 46:11, 1127-1152. [Crossref]
295. Ying Liu, V. Raman, R.O. Fox, A.D. Harvey. 2004. Scale up of gas-phase chlorination reactors using CFD. Chemical
Engineering Science 59:22-23, 5167-5176. [Crossref]
296. J.-L. Briaud, H.-C. Chen, Y. Li, P. Nurtjahyo. 2004. SRICOS-EFA Method for Complex Piers in Fine-Grained Soils.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 130:11, 1180-1191. [Crossref]
297. Seok-Ki Choi, Eui-Kwang Kim, Myung-Hwan Wi, Seong-O Kim. 2004. Computation of a turbulent natural convection
in a rectangular cavity with the low-reynolds-number differential stress and flux model. KSME International Journal
18:10, 1782-1798. [Crossref]
298. Z.X. Yuan, Albert C.J. Luo, X. Yan. 2004. Airflow pressure and shear forces on a rotating, deformed disk in an open
shroud. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation 9:5, 481-497. [Crossref]
299. S Mondal, A Datta, A Sarkar. 2004. Influence of side wall expansion angle and swirl generator on flow pattern in a model
combustor calculated with k–ε model. International Journal of Thermal Sciences 43:9, 901-914. [Crossref]
300. M A Zaher. 2004. Using aerodynamic methods for the testing of hydraulic machines. Proceedings of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, Part E: Journal of Process Mechanical Engineering 218:3, 161-168. [Crossref]
301. R. Yu, M. F. Lightstone. 2004. Numerical investigation of turbulent heat transfer and fluid flow in a nuclear fuel plate
assembly. Nuclear Energy 43:4, 221-228. [Crossref]
302. Sridhar Thyageswaran. 2004. Numerical modeling of pulse combustor tail pipe heat transfer. International Journal of
Heat and Mass Transfer 47:12-13, 2637-2651. [Crossref]
303. Hugo D. Pasinato, Kyle D. Squires, Ramendra P. Roy. 2004. Assessment of Reynolds-Averaged Turbulence Models
for Prediction of the Flow and Heat Transfer in an Inlet Vane-Endwall Passage. Journal of Fluids Engineering 126:3,
305-315. [Crossref]
304. P.G. Tucker, L. Davidson. 2004. Zonal k–l based large eddy simulations. Computers & Fluids 33:2, 267-287. [Crossref]
305. Seok-Ki Choi, Eui-Kwang Kim, Seong-O Kim. 2004. COMPUTATION OF TURBULENT NATURAL
CONVECTION IN A RECTANGULAR CAVITY WITH THE k –ϵ– – f MODEL. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part
B: Fundamentals 45:2, 159-179. [Crossref]
306. X. Chi, Bin Zhu, Tom Shih, H. Addy, Yung Choo. CFD Analysis of the Aerodynamics of a Business-Jet Airfoil with
Leading-Edge Ice Accretion . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
307. Xubin Gu, H.-W. Wu, S. Shen, Tom Shih. Numerical Simulation of Flow and Heat Transfer in a Duct with Square
Ribs and Bleed Holes . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
308. Johann Friedrich Gülich. Numerische Strömungsberechnungen 419-487. [Crossref]
309. M. Rafique, P. Chen, M. P. Duduković. 2004. COMPUTATIONAL MODELING OF GAS-LIQUID FLOW IN
BUBBLE COLUMNS. Reviews in Chemical Engineering 20:3-4. . [Crossref]
310. S. D. Kim, E. Loth, J. C. Dutton. 2003. Simulations of Mesoflap Control for Ramp-Generated Oblique Shock/
Boundary-Layer Interactions. Journal of Aircraft 40:6, 1152-1160. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 311. Shehua Huang, Chung-Hwan Chun. 2003. A numerical study of turbulent flow and conjugate heat transfer in concentric
annuli with moving inner rod. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 46:19, 3707-3716. [Crossref]
312. P.G. Tucker. 2003. Differential equation-based wall distance computation for DES and RANS. Journal of Computational
Physics 190:1, 229-248. [Crossref]
313. George Constantinescu, Matthieu Chapelet, Kyle Squires. 2003. Turbulence Modeling Applied to Flow over a Sphere.
AIAA Journal 41:9, 1733-1742. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
314. H. Vahedi Tafreshi, B. Pourdeyhimi. 2003. Simulating the Flow Dynamics in Hydroentangling Nozzles: Effect of Cone
Angle and Nozzle Aspect Ratio. Textile Research Journal 73:8, 700-704. [Crossref]
315. Larry Villasmil, Dara Childs, Hamn-Ching Chen. Understanding Friction Factor Behavior in Liquid Annular Seals with
Deliberately Roughened Surfaces . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
316. Jean Moureh, Denis Flick. 2003. Wall air–jet characteristics and airflow patterns within a slot ventilated enclosure.
International Journal of Thermal Sciences 42:7, 703-711. [Crossref]
317. G. Gre´goire, M. Favre-Marinet, F. Julien Saint Amand. 2003. Modeling of Turbulent Fluid Flow Over a Rough Wall
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

With or Without Suction. Journal of Fluids Engineering 125:4, 636-642. [Crossref]

318. Larry Villasmil, Hamn-Ching Chen, Dara Childs. Evaluation of Near-Wall Turbulence Models for Liquid Annular Seals
with Roughened Walls . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
319. Z.X. Yuan, N. Saniei, X.T. Yan. 2003. Turbulent heat transfer on the stationary disk in a rotor–stator system.
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 46:12, 2207-2218. [Crossref]
320. Catalin Teodosiu, Raluca Hohota, Gilles Rusaouën, Monika Woloszyn. 2003. Numerical prediction of indoor air
humidity and its effect on indoor environment. Building and Environment 38:5, 655-664. [Crossref]
321. L. Bruno, S. Khris. 2003. The validity of 2D numerical simulations of vortical structures around a bridge deck.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling 37:7-8, 795-828. [Crossref]
322. H. Vahedi Tafreshi, B. Pourdeyhimi, R. Holmes, D. Shiffler. 2003. Simulating and Characterizing Water Flows Inside
Hydroentangling Orifices. Textile Research Journal 73:3, 256-262. [Crossref]
323. Lars Davidson, Davor Cokljat, Jochen Fröhlich, Michael A. Leschziner, Chris Mellen, Wolfgang Rodi. References
235-240. [Crossref]
324. A. Ooi, G. Iaccarino, P.A. Durbin, M. Behnia. 2002. Reynolds averaged simulation of flow and heat transfer in ribbed
ducts. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 23:6, 750-757. [Crossref]
325. Christophe Held, Alain Dervieux. 2002. One-shot airfoil optimisation without adjoint. Computers & Fluids 31:8,
1015-1049. [Crossref]
326. A. M. Raimundo, L. A. Oliveira, A. R. Figueiredo. 2002. Numerical simulation and experimental validation of heat
transfer within rotating flows for three-dimensional non-axisymmetric, turbulent conditions. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Fluids 40:6, 821-840. [Crossref]
327. Sang Dug Kim, Eric Loth, J. Craig Dutton. SIMULATIONS OF MESOFLAP FLOW CONTROL FOR RAMP
OBLIQUE SHOCK/BOUNDARY LAYER INTERACTIONS . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
328. Lionel Mathelin, Franc¸oise Bataille, Andre´ Lallemand. 2002. The Effect of Uniform Blowing on the Flow Past a
Circular Cylinder. Journal of Fluids Engineering 124:2, 452-464. [Crossref]
329. Gong Hee Lee, Je Hyun Baek. 2002. A numerical study of the similarity of fully developed turbulent flows in orthogonally
rotating square ducts and stationary curved square ducts. International Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid
Flow 12:3, 241-257. [Crossref]
330. O.G. Akinlade, D.J. Bergstrom. THE PREDICTION OF TURBULENT DUCT FLOW WITH SURFACE
ROUGHNESS USING k − ε MODELS 197-205. [Crossref]
331. Christoph Appel, John Mantzaras, Rolf Schaeren, Rolf Bombach, Beat Kaeppeli, Andreas Inauen. 2002. An experimental
and numerical investigation of turbulent catalytically stabilized channel flow combustion of hydrogen/air mixtures over
platinum. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 29:1, 1031-1038. [Crossref]
332. Erik A. Toorman. Modelling of turbulent flow with suspended cohesive sediment 155-169. [Crossref]
333. . 3 Turbulent flow processes 57-83. [Crossref]
334. Lionel Mathelin, Françoise Bataille, André Lallemand. 2001. Blowing models for cooling surfaces. International Journal
of Thermal Sciences 40:11, 969-980. [Crossref]
335. Andrew Eaton, Mark Ewing, Kirk Bailey. Modeling the gas dynamics environment in a subscale solid rocket test motor .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
336. R. P. Roy, G. Xu, J. Feng. 2001. A Study of Convective Heat Transfer in a Model Rotor–Stator Disk Cavity. Journal
of Turbomachinery 123:3, 621-632. [Crossref]
 337. E. Goncalves, R. Houdeville. Numerical simulation of shock oscillations over airfoil using a wall law approach . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
338. K. HERMANSON, S. PARNEIX, J. WOLFERSDORF, K. SEMMLER. 2001. Prediction of pressure loss and heat
transfer in internal cooling passages. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 934:1, 448-455. [Crossref]
339. Hui Gao, Liejin Guo. 2001. Numerical investigation of developing turbulent flow in a helical square duct with large
curvature. Journal of Thermal Science 10:1, 1-6. [Crossref]
340. P. A. Durbin, G. Medic, J.-M. Seo, J. K. Eaton, S. Song. 2001. Rough Wall Modification of Two-Layer k−ε. Journal
of Fluids Engineering 123:1, 16-21. [Crossref]
341. M. Buffat, J. Yan, L. Duchamp de Lageneste, T. Rung, O. Guerriau, F. Thiele. Investigation of the Flow Characteristics
Occurring in Flame Stabilization Processes 145-160. [Crossref]
342. ALFRED MOSER, ALOIS SCHÄULIN, LARS DAVIDSON, VINCENZO CORRADO, VIKTOR DORER,
MARKUS KOSCHENZ. DESIGN WITH MODELING TECHNIQUES 1025-p3. [Crossref]
343. R.K. Shah, M.R. Heikal, B. Thonon, P. Tochon. Progress in the numerical analysis of compact heat exchanger surfaces
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

363-I. [Crossref]
344. Shenq-Yuh Jaw, Robert R. Hwang. 2000. A two-scale low-Reynolds number turbulence model. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Fluids 33:5, 695-710. [Crossref]
345. K. G. Ranga Raju, G. L. Asawa, H. K. Mishra. 2000. Flow-Establishment Length in Rectangular Channels and Ducts.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 126:7, 533-539. [Crossref]
346. John Mantzaras, Christoph Appel, Peter Benz, Urs Dogwiler. 2000. Numerical modelling of turbulent catalytically
stabilized channel flow combustion. Catalysis Today 59:1-2, 3-17. [Crossref]
347. P.J. FOSTER, J.M. MACINNES, F. SCHUBNELL. 2000. Isothermal Modelling of a Combustion System With Swirl:
a Computational Study. Combustion Science and Technology 155:1, 51-74. [Crossref]
348. Hamn-Ching Chen, Yong-Jun Jang, Je-Chin Han. 2000. Computation of heat transfer in rotating two-pass square
channels by a second-moment closure model. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 43:9, 1603-1616. [Crossref]
349. G. S. Constantinescu, V. C. Patel. 2000. Role of Turbulence Model in Prediction of Pump-Bay Vortices. Journal of
Hydraulic Engineering 126:5, 387-391. [Crossref]
350. Hamn-Ching Chen, Yong-Jun Jang, Je-Chin Han. 2000. Near-Wall Second-Moment Closure for Rotating Multiple-
Pass Cooling Channels. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer 14:2, 201-209. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
351. S. R. N. De Zilwa, L. Khezzar, J. H. Whitelaw. 2000. Flows through plane sudden-expansions. International Journal
for Numerical Methods in Fluids 32:3, 313-329. [Crossref]
352. . Solid Propellant Chemistry, Combustion, and Motor Interior Ballistics . [Abstract] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
353. . Combustion Dynamics of Homogenous Solid Propellants in a Rocket Motor with Acoustic Excitations 885-906.
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
354. Sanjiv K. Sinha, Fredrick Marelius. 2000. Analysis of flow past submerged vanes. Journal of Hydraulic Research 38:1,
65-71. [Crossref]
355. W.D. Hisch, K.C. Chang. 2000. Calculation of Swirling Recirculating Turbulent Flow Using a Two-Layer Approach.
International Journal of Turbo and Jet Engines 17:1. . [Crossref]
356. Maria J. Zufall, Weiping Dai, Cliff I. Davidson, Vicken Etyemezian. 1999. Dry deposition of particles to wave surfaces:
I. Mathematical modeling. Atmospheric Environment 33:26, 4273-4281. [Crossref]
357. Hamn-Ching Chen, Sing-Kwan Lee. 1999. RANS/Laplace Calculations of Nonlinear Waves Induced by Surface-Piercing
Bodies. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 125:11, 1231-1242. [Crossref]
358. V. P. Rajendran, S. G. Constantinescu, V. C. Patel. 1999. Experimental Validation of Numerical Model of Flow in Pump-
Intake Bays. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 125:11, 1119-1125. [Crossref]
359. Robert R. Hwang, Y.C. Chow, Y.F. Peng. 1999. Numerical study of turbulent flow over two-dimensional surface-
mounted ribs in a channel. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 31:4, 767-785. [Crossref]
360. D. Sofialidis, P. Prinos. 1999. Turbulent flow in open channels with smooth and rough flood plains. Journal of Hydraulic
Research 37:5, 615-640. [Crossref]
361. Hamn-Ching Chen, Tuanjie Liu. 1999. Turbulent Flow Induced by Full-Scale Ship in Harbor. Journal of Engineering
Mechanics 125:7, 827-835. [Crossref]
362. B. Bonhoff, S. Parneix, J. Leusch, B.V. Johnson, J. Schabacker, A. Bölcs. 1999. Experimental and numerical study of
developed flow and heat transfer in coolant channels with 45 degree ribs. International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow
20:3, 311-319. [Crossref]
 363. Sing-Kwan Lee, Kwok Fai Cheung. 1999. Laminar and Turbulent Bottom Boundary Layer Induced by Nonlinear Water
Waves. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 125:6, 631-644. [Crossref]
364. John Bergström, Rikard Gebart. 1999. Estimation of numerical accuracy for the flow field in a draft tube. International
Journal of Numerical Methods for Heat & Fluid Flow 9:4, 472-487. [Crossref]
365. Robert R. Hwang, Y. C. Chow, T. P. Chiang. 1999. Numerical Predictions of Turbulent Flow over a Surface-Mounted
Rib. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 125:5, 497-503. [Crossref]
366. P. Teigen, V. P. Przulj, B. A. Younis. 1999. A CFD Investigation Into the Effects of Current Incidence on the
Hydrodynamic Loading on a Deepwater TLP. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 121:2, 109-115.
[Crossref]
367. Jean-Louis Briaud, Francis C. K. Ting, H. C. Chen, Rao Gudavalli, Suresh Perugu, Gengsheng Wei. 1999. SRICOS:
Prediction of Scour Rate in Cohesive Soils at Bridge Piers. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
125:4, 237-246. [Crossref]
368. Cheng-Ann Tan, Sanjiv K. Sinha, Robert Ettema. 1999. Ice-Cover Influence on Near-Field Mixing in Dune-Bed
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

Channel: Numerical Simulation. Journal of Cold Regions Engineering 13:1, 1-20. [Crossref]
369. W. D. Hsieh, K. C. Chang. 1999. Two-Layer Approach Combining Reynolds Stress and Low-Reynolds-Number k-e
Models. AIAA Journal 37:2, 283-287. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
370. Jean Piquet. Principles of Turbulent Flow Modeling 23-141. [Crossref]
371. Jean Piquet. Complex Effects in Turbulent Flows 471-727. [Crossref]
372. S.-E. Kim, D. Choudhury, B. Patel. Computations of Complex Turbulent Flows Using the Commercial Code Fluent
259-276. [Crossref]
373. R. Schiele, F. Kaufmann, A. Schulz, S. Wittig. Calculating Turbulent and Transitional Boundary-Layers with Two-
Layer Models of Turbulence 543-554. [Crossref]
374. T. Utnes, T.S. Meling. 1999. Treatment of turbulent wall boundary conditions using linear-logarithmic elements.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 169:1-2, 123-134. [Crossref]
375. B.S. Choi, C.A.J. Fletcher. 1998. Turbulent particle dispersion in an electrostatic precipitator. Applied Mathematical
Modelling 22:12, 1009-1021. [Crossref]
376. Shenq-Yuh Jaw, Alpha Y. Wang. 1998. Parallel Computation of Turbulent Flows Using Equation Decomposition
Scheme. Journal of Mechanics 14:3, 137-144. [Crossref]
377. V. C. Patel. 1998. Perspective: Flow at High Reynolds Number and Over Rough Surfaces—Achilles Heel of CFD.
Journal of Fluids Engineering 120:3, 434-444. [Crossref]
378. Chii-Jau Tang, Jyh-Hwa Chang. 1998. Flow Separation during Solitary Wave Passing over Submerged Obstacle. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 124:7, 742-749. [Crossref]
379. Fotis Sotiropoulos, Yiannis Ventikos. 1998. Flow Through a Curved Duct Using Nonlinear Two-Equation Turbulence
Models. AIAA Journal 36:7, 1256-1262. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
380. Madhu Sreedhar, Fred Stern. 1998. Prediction of Solid/Free-Surface Juncture Boundary Layer and Wake of a Surface-
Piercing Flat Plate at Low Froude Number. Journal of Fluids Engineering 120:2, 354-362. [Crossref]
381. S. Y. Jaw, C. J. Chen. 1998. Present Status of Second-Order Closure Turbulence Models. I: Overview. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 124:5, 485-501. [Crossref]
382. S. Y. Jaw, C. J. Chen. 1998. Present Status of Second Order Closure Turbulence Models. II. Applications. Journal of
Engineering Mechanics 124:5, 502-512. [Crossref]
383. Jerome Francescatto, Alain Dervieux. 1998. A semi-coarsening strategy for unstructured multigrid based on
agglomeration. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 26:8, 927-957. [Crossref]
384. Robert R. Hwang, Sheng-Yuh Jaw. 1998. Numerical Prediction of Turbulent Wakes Behind a Square Cylinder. Journal
of Mechanics 14:1, 23-29. [Crossref]
385. T. Jongen, G. Mompean, T. B. Gatski. 1998. Predicting S-Duct Flow Using a Composite Algebraic Stress Model. AIAA
Journal 36:3, 327-335. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
386. G. S. Constantinescu, V. C. Patel. 1998. Numerical Model for Simulation of Pump-Intake Flow and Vortices. Journal
of Hydraulic Engineering 124:2, 123-134. [Crossref]
387. Hyun Goo Kim, Choung Mook Lee. 1998. Pollutant dispersion over two-dimensional hilly terrain. KSME International
Journal 12:1, 96-111. [Crossref]
388. Rich Korpus, Bryan Hubbarc, Paul Jones, Chel Stromgren, James Bennett. Hydrodynamic Design of Integrated
Propulsor/Stern Concepts by Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Techniques 663-669. [Crossref]
 389. Sanjiv K. Sinha, Fotis Sotiropoulos, A. Jacob Odgaard. 1998. Three-Dimensional Numerical Model for Flow through
Natural Rivers. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 124:1, 13-24. [Crossref]
390. T. Sarkar, P.G. Sayer, S.M. Fraser. 1997. Flow simulation past axisymmetric bodies using four different turbulence
models. Applied Mathematical Modelling 21:12, 783-792. [Crossref]
391. H. W. Coleman, F. Stern. 1997. Uncertainties and CFD Code Validation. Journal of Fluids Engineering 119:4, 795-803.
[Crossref]
392. C. S. Oh, D. H. Choi. 1997. AN IMPROVED NAVIER-STOKES PROCEDURE FOR ANALYSIS OF TWO-
DIMENSIONAL AEROFOILS IN LAMINAR AND TURBULENT FLOWS. International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Fluids 25:2, 167-182. [Crossref]
393. Robert Ranzenbach, Jewel Barlow, Ricardo Diaz, Robert Ranzenbach, Jewel Barlow, Ricardo Diaz. Multi-element airfoil
in ground effect - An experimental and computational study . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
394. T. Jongen, Y.P. Marx. 1997. Design of an unconditionally stable, positive scheme for the K-ϵ and two-layer turbulence
models. Computers & Fluids 26:5, 469-487. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

395. R. A. Korpus, J. M. Falzarano. 1997. Prediction of Viscous Ship Roll Damping by Unsteady Navier-Stokes Techniques.
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering 119:2, 108-113. [Crossref]
396. D. Lakehal, W. Rodi. 1997. Calculation of the flow past a surface-mounted cube with two-layer turbulence models.
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 67-68, 65-78. [Crossref]
397. Peter Emvin, Lars Davidson. 1997. A LOCAL MESH REFINEMENT ALGORITHM APPLIED TO
TURBULENT FLOW. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 24:5, 519-530. [Crossref]
398. Hyun Goo Kim, Choung Mook Lee, H.C. Lim, N.H. Kyong. 1997. An experimental and numerical study on the flow
over two-dimensional hills. Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics 66:1, 17-33. [Crossref]
399. V.C. Patel, F. Sotiropoulos. 1997. Longitudinal curvature effects in turbulent boundary layers. Progress in Aerospace
Sciences 33:1-2, 1-70. [Crossref]
400. E.G. Tulapurkara. 1997. Turbulence models for the computation of flow past airplanes. Progress in Aerospace Sciences
33:1-2, 71-165. [Crossref]
401. Jiang Luo, Budugur Lakshminarayana. 1997. Prediction of Strongly Curved Turbulent Duct Flows with Reynolds Stress
Model. AIAA Journal 35:1, 91-98. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
402. Jorge M. M. Barata. 1996. Fountain flows produced by multiple impinging jets in a crossflow. AIAA Journal 34:12,
2523-2530. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
403. K. Heyerichs, A. Pollard. 1996. Heat transfer in separated and impinging turbulent flows. International Journal of Heat
and Mass Transfer 39:12, 2385-2400. [Crossref]
404. B. Pardue, S. Han, Don Bai, Charles Schafer. Chemically reacting flow in converging and diverging combustion
chambers . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
405. Robert Ranzenbach, Jewel Barlow. Two dimensional elliptic bluff body in ground effect - Wind tunnel and road
conditions . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
406. C. Chuang, C. Chieng. 1996. Supersonic base-flow computation using higher-order closure turbulence models. Journal
of Spacecraft and Rockets 33:3, 374-380. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
407. Hamn-Ching Chen, Sing-Kwan Lee. 1996. Interactive RANS/Laplace Method for Nonlinear Free Surface Flows. Journal
of Engineering Mechanics 122:2, 153-162. [Crossref]
408. Taeyoung Han, V. Sumantran, Clark Harris, Ted Kuzmanov, Mark Huebler, Thomas Zak. Flow-Field Simulations of
Three Simplified Vehicle Shapes and Comparisons with Experimental Measurements . [Crossref]
409. Mats Ramnefors, Rikard Bensryd, Elna Holmberg, Sven Perzon. Accuracy of Drag Predictions on Cars Using CFD -
Effect of Grid Refinement and Turbulence Models . [Crossref]
410. Robert Ranzenbach, Jewel Barlow. Cambered Airfoil in Ground Effect - An Experimental and Computational Study .
[Crossref]
411. Che-Chun Chuang, Ching-Chang Chieng. Supersonic base flow computation using higher order closure turbulence
models . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
412. Y. Ventikos, F. Sotiropoulos, V. C. Patel. Modelling Complex Draft-Tube Flows using Near-Wall Turbulence Closures
140-149. [Crossref]
413. D. Giebert, H.-J. Bauer, S. Wittig. A comparative study of two low-Reynolds number κ-ε turbulence models for
recirculating flows with and without heat transfer 665-674. [Crossref]
414. L.S. Jansson, L. Davidson. Numerical Study of Effusion Cooling in a Double-Row Discrete-Hole Configuration Using
a Low-Re Reynolds Stress Transport Model 731-740. [Crossref]
 415. Hamn-Ching Chen. 1995. Assessment of a Reynolds Stress Closure Model for Appendage-Hull Junction Flows. Journal
of Fluids Engineering 117:4, 557-563. [Crossref]
416. Hamn-Ching Chen. 1995. Submarine Flows Studied by Second-Moment Closure. Journal of Engineering Mechanics
121:10, 1136-1146. [Crossref]
417. Robert R. Hwang, Y. F. Peng. 1995. Computation of backward-facing step flows by a second-order Reynolds stress
closure model. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 21:3, 223-235. [Crossref]
418. D. H. Choi, E. H. Lee. 1995. Prediction of separation bubbles using improved transition criterion with two-equation
turbulence model. AIAA Journal 33:8, 1512-1514. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
419. T Roh, V Yang. A comprehensive analysis of combustion instabilities of homogeneous propellants in a rocket motor .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
420. Peter Johansson, Lars Davidson. 1995. MODIFIED COLLOCATED SIMPLEC ALGORITHM APPLIED
TO BUOYANCY-AFFECTED TURBULENT FLOW USING A MULTIGRID SOLUTION PROCEDURE.
Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals 28:1, 39-57. [Crossref]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

421. Robert Ranzenbach, Jewel Barlow. Cambered airfoil in ground effect - Wind tunnel and road conditions . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
422. Jiang Luo, Budugur Lakshminarayana. Prediction of strongly curved turbulent duct flows with Reynolds stress model .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
423. V. C. Patel, J. Y. Yoon. 1995. Application of Turbulence Models to Separated Flow Over Rough Surfaces. Journal of
Fluids Engineering 117:2, 234-241. [Crossref]
424. Lars Davidson. 1995. Reynolds stress transport modelling of shock-induced separated flow. Computers & Fluids 24:3,
253-268. [Crossref]
425. Lars Davidson. 1995. Prediction of the Flow Around an Airfoil Using a Reynolds Stress Transport Model. Journal of
Fluids Engineering 117:1, 50-57. [Crossref]
426. Eran Arad, Micha Wolfshtein. Two-Scale Double-Layer Model in Wall Bounded Turbulent Flow 7-20. [Crossref]
427. F.M. Wang, B.C. Khoo, Y.T. Chew, K.S. Yeo. 1994. Triple-region structure for turbulent flow in a square duct: A finite
element approach. Finite Elements in Analysis and Design 18:1-3, 183-202. [Crossref]
428. Robert Ranzenbach, Jewel B. Barlow. Two-Dimensional Airfoil in Ground Effect, An Experimental and Computational
Study . [Crossref]
429. Shenq-Yuh Jaw, Robert R. Hwang. 1994. Prediction of turbulent wall shear flows directly from wall. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 19:10, 869-888. [Crossref]
430. Per �ke Lindberg. 1994. Near-wall turbulence models for 3D boundary layers. Applied Scientific Research 53:1-2,
139-162. [Crossref]
431. W.J. Kim, V.C. Patel. 1994. Influence of streamwise curvature on longitudinal vortices imbedded in turbulent boundary
layers. Computers & Fluids 23:5, 647-673. [Crossref]
432. B. Arman, T. J. Rabas. 1994. TWO-LAYER-MODEL PREDICTIONS OF HEAT TRANSFER INSIDE
ENHANCED TUBES. Numerical Heat Transfer, Part A: Applications 25:6, 721-741. [Crossref]
433. Robert R. Hwang, Yih‐Ferng Peng. 1994. Effect of near‐wall approach methods on the predictions of complex flows
with flow separation and secondary reversed flow. Journal of the Chinese Institute of Engineers 17:3, 421-428. [Crossref]
434. I.Shih Tseng, Vigor Yang. 1994. Combustion of a double-base homogeneous propellant in a rocket motor. Combustion
and Flame 96:4, 325-342. [Crossref]
435. A. W. C. Leung, L. C. Squire. 1994. A comparison of several eddy viscosity turbulence models in two and three
dimensional boundary layer flows. The Aeronautical Journal 98:973, 73-82. [Crossref]
436. F.M. Wang, Y.T. Chew, B.C. Khoo, K.S. Yeo. 1994. Computation of turbulent flow in a square duct: aspects of the
secondary flow and its origin. Computers & Fluids 23:1, 157-176. [Crossref]
437. John Argyris, Heinz Friz, Bernhard Huurdeman, Armin Laxander. 1993. Turbulent fluid flow and its incorporation into
combustion processes. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering 110:1-2, 1-16. [Crossref]
438. M. Semih Olcmen, Roger L. Simpson. 1993. Evaluation of algebraic eddy-viscosity models in three-dimensional
turbulent boundary-layer flows. AIAA Journal 31:9, 1545-1554. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
439. Stanley F. Birch. One Equation Models Revisited . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
440. T. I-P. Shih, E. Steinthorsson, W. J. Chyu. 1993. Implicit Treatment of Diffusion Terms in Lower-Upper Algorithms.
AIAA Journal 31:4, 788-791. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
 441. YEU-PIN YEH, F. CHEUNG, KENNETH KUO, THOMAS LITZINGER. Numerical study of an axisymmetric
turbulent jet-impingement flow . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
442. J. Cordes, W. Rodi, N. H. Cho. Calculation of Separated Flows with a Two-Layer Turbulence Model 27-36. [Crossref]
443. Hamn-Ching Chen. Calculations of Submarine Flows by a Multiblock Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Method
711-720. [Crossref]
444. Bijan Mohammadi. 1992. Complex turbulent compressible flow computation using a two-layer approach. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids 15:7, 747-771. [Crossref]
445. DONALD ROBERTS, SCOTT IMLAY. Comparison of turbulence models for powered-lift flow fields . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
446. William J. Devenport, Roger L. Simpson. 1992. Flow past a wing-body junction - Experimental evaluation of turbulence
models. AIAA Journal 30:4, 873-881. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
447. Marshall C. Richmond, Virendra C. Patel. 1991. Convex and concave surface curvature effects in wall-bounded turbulent
flows. AIAA Journal 29:6, 895-902. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
Downloaded by INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY - KANPUR on December 15, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.9948

448. C. H. Sohn, D. H. Choi, M. K. Chung. 1991. Calculation of plane-of-symmetry boundary layers with a modified k-
epsilon model. AIAA Journal 29:3, 395-400. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
449. A. Karadag, Z. Li, G. W. Howe, T. I-P. Shih, M. S. Raju, H. L. Nguyen, E. A. Willis, J. J. McFadden. Calculations of
Spray and Spray Combustion in a Stratified Charge Wankel Engine . [Crossref]
450. H.C Chen, V.C Patel, S Ju. 1990. Solutions of Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations for three-dimensional
incompressible flows. Journal of Computational Physics 88:2, 305-336. [Crossref]
451. Z. Li, E. Steinthorsson, T. I-P. Shih, H. L. Nguyen. Modelling and Simulation of Wankel Engine Flow Fields . [Crossref]
452. MarK J. Jennings, Thomas Morel. An Improved Near Wall Heat Transfer Model for Multidimensional Engine Flow
Calculations . [Crossref]
453. MORRIS RUBESIN. Turbulence modeling for aerodynamic flows . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
454. Jörg Franke. Introduction to the Prediction of Wind Loads on Buildings by Computational Wind Engineering (CWE)
67-103. [Crossref]
455. U. K. Zhapbasbayev, G. I. Ramazanova, K. B. Rakhmetova. Numerical calculation of industrial problems 169-184.
[Crossref]
456. . References 421-433. [Crossref]
457. . Numerical flow calculations 429-494. [Crossref]
458. Michael Breuer, Orhan Aybay, Benoît Jaffrézic, Michel Visonneau, Ganbo Deng, Emmanuel Guilmineau, Oussama
Chikhaoui. Hybrid LES–RANS-Coupling for Complex Flows with Separation 201-229. [Crossref]
459. P. Rodgers, V. Eveloy. Application of low-Reynolds number turbulent flow models to the prediction of electronic
component heat transfer 495-503. [Crossref]