Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-hbs24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-10T16:06:12.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Explicit filtering to obtain grid-spacing-independent and discretization-order-independent large-eddy simulation of compressible single-phase flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2012

Senthilkumaran Radhakrishnan
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA
Josette Bellan*
Affiliation:
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109, USA California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA
*
Email address for correspondence: josette.bellan@jpl.nasa.gov

Abstract

In large-eddy simulation (LES), it is often assumed that the filter width is equal to the grid spacing. Predictions from such LES are grid-spacing dependent since any subgrid-scale (SGS) model used in the LES equations is dependent on the resolved flow field which itself varies with grid spacing. Moreover, numerical errors affect the flow field, especially the smallest resolved scales. Thus, predictions using this approach are affected by both modelling and numerical choices. However, grid-spacing-independent LES predictions unaffected by numerical choices are necessary to validate LES models through comparison with a trusted template. First, such a template is created here through direct numerical simulation (DNS). Then, simulations are conducted using the conventional LES equations and also LES equations which are here reformulated so that the small-scale-producing nonlinear terms in these equations are explicitly filtered (EF) to remove scales smaller than a fixed filter width; this formulation is called EFLES. First, LES is conducted with four SGS models, then EFLES is performed with two of the SGS models used in LES; the results from all these simulations are compared to those from DNS and from the filtered DNS (FDNS). The conventional LES solution is both grid-spacing and spatial discretization-order dependent, thus showing that both of these numerical aspects affect the flow prediction. The solution from the EFLES equations is grid independent for a high-order spatial discretization on all meshes tested. However, low-order discretizations require a finer mesh to reach grid independence. With an eighth-order discretization, a filter-width to grid-spacing ratio of two is sufficient to reach grid independence, while a filter-width to grid-spacing ratio of four is needed to reach grid independence when a fourth- or a sixth-order discretization is employed. On a grid fine enough to be utilized in a DNS, the EFLES solution exhibits grid independence and does not converge to the DNS solution. The velocity-fluctuation spectra of EFLES follow those of FDNS independent of the grid spacing used, in concert with the original concept of LES. The reasons for the different predictions of conventional LES or EFLES according to the SGS model used, and the different characteristics of the EFLES predictions compared to those from conventional LES are analysed.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Bardina, J., Ferziger, J. & Reynolds, W. 1980 Improved subgrid scale models for large eddy simulation. AIAA Paper 801357.Google Scholar
2. Bose, S. T., Moin, P. & You, D. 2010 Grid-independent large-eddy simulation using explicit filtering. Phys. Fluids 22, 105103-111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Carati, D, Winckelmans, G. S. & Jeanmart, H. 2001 On the modelling of the subgrid-scale and filtered-scale stress tensors in large-eddy simulation. J. Fluid Mech. 442, 119138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Chow, F. K. & Moin, P. 2003 A further study of numerical errors in large-eddy simulations. J. Comput. Phys. 184, 366380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Clark, R., Ferziger, J. & Reynolds, W. 1979 Evaluation of subgrid-scale models using an accurately simulated turbulent flow. J. Fluid Mech. 91 (1), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Fox, R. O. 2003 Computational Models for Turbulent Reactive Flows. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Germano, M., Piomelli, U., Moin, P. & Cabot, W. 1991 A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model. Phys. Fluids A 3 (7), 17601765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Geurts, B. J. 1997 Inverse modelling for large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 9 (12), 35853587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Geurts, B. J. & Frohlich, J 2002 A framework for predicting accuracy limitations in large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 14 (6), L41L44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Ghosal, S. 1996 An analysis of numerical errors in large-eddy simulations of turbulence. J. Comput. Phys. 125, 187206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Gullbrand, J. & Chow, F. K. 2003 The effect of numerical errors and turbulence models in large-eddy simulations of channel flow, with and without explicit filtering. J. Fluid Mech. 495, 323341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Kennedy, C. & Carpenter, M. 1994 Several new numerical methods for compressible shear layer simulations. Appl. Numer. Maths 14, 397433.Google Scholar
13. Kennedy, C. A. & Gruber, A. 2008 Reducing aliasing formulations of the convective terms within the Navier–Stokes equations for a compressible fluid. J. Comput. Phys. 227, 16761700.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Israeli, M. & Orszag, S. A. 1981 Approximation of radiation boundary conditions. J. Comput. Phys. 41, 115135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Lesieur, M. 1997 Turbulence in Fluids. Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Lilly, D. 1992 A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid-scale closure method. Phys. Fluids A 4 (3), 633635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Liu, S., Meneveau, C. & Katz, J. 1994 On the properties of similarity subgrid-scale models as deduced from measurements in a turbulent jet. J. Fluid Mech. 275, 83119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Lund, T. S. 2003 The use of explicit filters in large eddy Simulation. Comput. Maths Applics. 46, 603616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Magnient, J-C., Sagaut, P. & Deville, M. 2001 A study of built-in filter for some eddy viscosity models in large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 13 (5), 14401449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Martin, M. P., Piomelli, U. & Candler, G. V. 2000 Subgrid-scale models for compressible Large-Eddy Simulation. J. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 13, 361376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Mathew, J., Lechner, R., Foysi, H., Sesterhenn, J. & Friedrich, R. 2003 An explicit filtering method for large eddy simulation of compressible flows. Phys. Fluids 15 (8), 22792289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Mattsson, K. & Nordstrom, J. 2004 Summation by parts operators for finite difference approximations of second derivatives. J. Comput. Phys. 199, 503540.Google Scholar
23. Meyers, J., Geurts, B. J. & Baelmans, M. 2003 Database analysis of errors in large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 15 (9), 27402755.Google Scholar
24. Meyers, J., Geurts, B. J. & Baelmans, M. 2005 Optimality of the dynamic procedure for large-eddy simulations. Phys. Fluids 17, 0451108-19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Meyers, J., Sagaut, P. & Geurts, B. J. 2006 Optimal model parameters for multi-objective Large-Eddy Simulations. Phys. Fluids 18, 095103-112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Okong’o, N. & Bellan, J. 2004 Consistent large eddy simulation of a temporal mixing layer laden with evapourating drops. Part 1. Direct numerical simulation, formulation and a priori analysis. J. Fluid Mech. 499, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Pantano, C. & Sarkar, S. 2002 A Study of Compressibility Effects in the High-Speed, Turbulent Shear Layer Using Direct Simulation. J. Fluid Mech. 451, 329371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Poinsot, T. & Lele, S. 1992 Boundary conditions for direct simulations of compressible viscous flows. J. Comput. Phys. 101, 104129.Google Scholar
29. Pope, S. B. 2000 Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Pope, S. B. 2004 Ten questions concerning the large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows. New J. Phys. 6, 3559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
31. Pope, S. B. 2010 Self-conditioned fields for large-eddy simulations of turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 652, 139169.Google Scholar
32. Pruett, C., Sochacki, J. & Adams, N. 2001 On Taylor-series expansions of residual stress. Phys. Fluids 13 (9), 25782589.Google Scholar
33. Sagaut, P & Deck, S. 2009 Large eddy simulation for aerodynamics: status and perspectives. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A367, 28492860.Google Scholar
34. Smagorinksy, J. 1963 General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. Part 1, basic experiments. Mon. Weath. Rev. 91, 99164.2.3.CO;2>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
35. Smagorinksy, J. 1993 Some historical remarks on the use of nonlinear viscosities. In Large Eddy Simulation of Complex Engineering and Geophysical Flows, Chap. 1 (ed. Galperin, B. & Orszag, S. ), pp. 336. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
36. Stolz, S. & Adams, N. A. 1999 An approximate deconvolution procedure for large-eddy simulation. Phys. Fluids 11 (7), 16991701.Google Scholar
37. Stolz, S., Adams, N. A. & Kleiser, L. 2001 An approximate deconvolution model for large-eddy simulation with application to incompressible wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 13 (4), 9971015.Google Scholar
38. Vanella, M., Piomelli, U. & Balaras, E. 2008 Effect of grid discontinuities on large-eddy simulation statistics and flow fields. J. Turbul. 9 (32), 123.Google Scholar
39. Vreman, B., Geurts, B. & Kuerten, H. 1996 Comparison of numerical schemes in large-eddy simulation of the temporal mixing layer. Intl J. Numer. Meth. Fluids 22, 297311.3.0.CO;2-X>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
40. Winckelmans, G. S., Wray, A. A, Vasilev, O. V. & Jeanmart, H. 2001 Explicit-filtering large-eddy simulation using the tensor-diffusivity model supplemented by a dynamic Smagorinsky term. Phys. Fluids 13 (5), 13851403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Yoshizawa, A. 1986 Statistical theory for compressible turbulent shear flows, with the application to subgrid modelling. Phys. Fluids 29 (7), 21522164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar