MTF270-Turbulence Modeling-Large Eddy Simulations PDF

Lars Davidson: MTF270 Turbulence Modelling
http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/doct/comp turb model 41

Large Eddy Simulations February 23, 2006
Time averaging and ltering
In CFD we time average our equations to get the equations
in steady form. This is called Reynolds time averaging:
=
1
2T
_
T
T
(t)dt, = +
(67)
(note that we use the notation . for time averaging). In
LES we lter (volume average) the equations. In 1D we
get:
(x, t) =
1
x
_
x+0.5x
x0.5x
(, t)d
=

+
no filter
one filter
2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
PSfrag replacements
u
,
u
x
Since in LES we do not average in time, the ltered vari-
ables are functions of space and time.
Large Eddy Simulations
The equations for the ltered variables have the same
form as Navier-Stokes, i.e.
u
i
t
+

x
j
( u
i
u
j
) =
1
p
x
i
+

2
u
i
x
j
x
j

ij
x
j
u
i
x
i
= 0
(68)
where the subgrid stresses are given by
ij
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
(69)
Contrary to Reynolds time averaging where u
i
= 0, we
have here
u
i
= 0
u
i
= u
i
Note that for the spectral cut-off lter u
i
= u
i
, see p. 46.
However, in nite volume methods, box lters are always
used. In this course we use box lters, if not otherwise
stated.
Differences between time-averaging (RANS) and space
ltering (LES)
In RANS, if a variable is time averaged twice (u), it is
the same as time averaging once (u). This is because u
is not dependent on time. From Eq. 67 we get
u =
1
2T
_
T
T
udt =
1
2T
u2T = u
This is obvious if the ow is steady, i.e. u/t = 0. If
the ow is unsteady, we must assume a separation in time
scales, i.e. T t, where t is the time scale for the mean
ow. In practice this requirement is rarely satised.
In LES, u = u (and since u = u + u
we get u
= 0).
PSfrag replacements
u , u
x
I
I + 1
I 1
x
x x
A
B
x
Lets lter u
I
once more (lter size x, see gure above).
For simplicity we do it in 1D. (Note that subscript I denotes
node number.)
u
I
=
1
x
_
x/2
x/2
u()d =
1
x
_
_
0
x/2
u()d +
_
x/2
0
u()d
_
=
=
1
x
_
x
2
u
A
+
x
2
u
B
_
.
The trapezoidal rule, which is second-order accurate, was
used to estimate the integrals. u at locations A and B (see
gure above) is estimated by linear interpolation, which
gives
u
I
=
1
2
__
1
4
u
I1
+
3
4
u
I
_
+
_
3
4
u
I
+
1
4
u
I+1
__
=
1
8
( u
I1
+ 6 u
I
+ u
I+1
) = u
I
(70)
Resolved & SGS scales
The basic idea in LES is to resolve (large) grid scales (GS),
and to model (small) subgrid-scales (SGS).
The limit (cut-off) between GS and SGS is supposed to
take place in the inertial subrange (II), see gure below. PSfrag replacements
u , u
x
I
I + 1
I 1
x
x
A
B
x
I
I
I
I
I
I
E()
cut-off
I: large, energy-containing scales
II: inertial subrange (Kolmogorov 5/3-range)
III: dissipation subrange
The box-lter and the cut-off lter
The ltering is formally dened as (1D)
u(x) =
_

G(r)u(x r)dr
_

G(r)dr = 1
(71)
It is often convenient to study the ltering process in the
spectral space using Fourier transforms dened as
u() =
1
2
_

0
u(r) exp(r)dr (72)
and its inverse
u(r) =
_

0
u() exp(r)d (73)
where denotes the wavenumber and =
1. Using the
convolution theorem (saying that the integrated product of
two functions is equal to the product of their Fourier trans-
forms) the ltering in Eq. 71 is conveniently written (as-
suming homogeneous turbulence)
u() =

u() =
1
2
_

0
u() exp()d
=
1
2
_

0
_

0
exp()G()u( )dd
=
1
2
_

0
_

0
exp() exp(( ))G()u( )dd
=
1
2
_

0
_

0
exp() exp()G()u()dd =

G() u()
(74)
The lter used in spectral space is the cut-off lter, which
lters out all scales with wavenumber larger than the cut-
off wavenumber
c
= /. This is dened as
G() =
_
1 if
c
0 otherwise
(75)
If we lter twice with the cut-off lter we get
u =

G

G u =

G u = u (76)
using Eqs. 74 and 75. Thus, contrary to the box-lter (see
Eq. 70), nothing happens when we lter twice in spectral
space.
We have mentioned the volume lter (box lter), which
lters out uctuations in space with scales smaller than .
It reads
G(r) =
_
1/ if r /2
0 otherwise
(77)
Note that the box lter is sharp in physical space but not
in wavenumber space; for the cut-off lter it is vice versa.
In nite volume methods box ltering is always used.
Furthermore implicit ltering is employed. This means
that the lering is the same as the discretization (=inte-
gration over the control volume which is equal to the lter
volume, see Eq. 79).
Subgrid model
We need a subgrid model to model the turbulent scales
which cannot be resolved by the grid and the discretization
scheme.
The simplest model is the Smagorinsky model (Smagorin-
sky, 1963):
ij

1
3
ij
kk
= 2
sgs
s
ij
sgs
= (C
S
)
2
_
2 s
ij
s
ij
(C
S
)
2
| s|
s
ij
=
1
2
_
u
i
x
j
+
u
j
x
i
_
(78)
and the lter-width is taken as the local grid size
= (V
IJK
)
1/3
(79)
Because the SGS turbulent uctuations near a wall go
to zero, so must SGS viscosity. A damping function f
is
added to ensure this
f
= 1 exp(y
+
/26) (80)
Disadvantage of Smagorinsky model: the constant C
S
is not constant, but it is ow-dependent. It is found to vary
in the range from C = 0.065 (Moin & Kim, 1982) to C =
0.25 (Jones & Wille, 1995).
Smagorinsky model vs. mixing-length model
The eddy viscosity according to the mixing length theory
reads in boundary-layer ow(Hinze, 1975; Schlichting, 1979)
t
=
2
U
y
.
Generalized to three dimensions, we have
t
=
2
__
U
i
x
j
+
U
j
x
i
_
U
i
x
j
_
1/2
=
2
(2S
ij
S
ij
)
1/2

2
|S|.
In the Smagorinsky model the SGS turbulent length scale
corresponds to = C
S
so that
sgs
= (C
S
)
2
| s|
which is the same as Eq. 78
Smagorinsky model derived from the k
5/3
law
Another way to derive Eq. 78 is as follows. The subgrid
model is supposed to model the turbulence with scales
II
,
where
II
is the inverse of the wave number
II
= 1/
II
in
the inertial subrange, see the gure below.
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
,
u x I
I
+
1
I
1 x x
A B
x
I
I
I
I
I
I
E
(
)
c
u
t
-
o
f
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
E()
Spectrum for k. I: Range for the large, energy containing
eddies. II: the inertial subrange for isotropic scales, inde-
pendent of the large scales () and the dissipative scales ().
III: Range for small, isotropic, dissipative scales.
In the inertial subrange the turbulence is at large Reynolds
number independent of the large scale as well as of the
small scales. This range is characterized by the dissipa-
tion and the wavenumber = 1/
II
. Thus we can write
the SGS viscosity as
sgs
=
a
(C
S
)
b
(81)
Dimensional analysis yields a = 1/3, b = 4/3 so that
sgs
= (C
S
)
4/3
1/3
. (82)
The scales in the inertial subrange are isotropic, and thus
they are in local equilibrium, i.e. in the k
sgs
equation we
have that production balances dissipation
2
sgs
s
ij
s
ij
= . (83)
Eq. 83 substituted into Eq. 82 gives
3
sgs
= (C
S
)
4
= (C
S
)
4
sgs
(2 s
ij
s
ij
)

sgs
= (C
S
)
2
| s|
| s| = (2 s
ij
s
ij
)
1/2
(84)
Derivation of the Smagorinsky constant
In the inertial subrange production and dissipation are, as
mentioned above, in balance, and using Eq. 84 in Eq. 83
gives
= (C
S
)
2
| s|
3
(85)
Lets compute | s|
2
in the Kolmogorov 5/3 range, where the
turbulence is isotropic and homogeneous. We can write
| s|
2
= 2 s
ij
s
ij
=
u
i
x
j
u
i
x
j
=
2
Q
i,i
r
j
r
j
r=0
(86)
where the rst line is valid because the turbulence is isotropic,
and the second line is due to that the turbulence is homo-
geneous (see derivation in Lecture Notes on RSM
www.tfd.chalmers.se/doct/comp turb model/). The
general two-point correlation Q
i,j
of u
i
and u
j
can be ex-
pressed by the energy spectrum tensor as (Hinze, 1975,
Chapter 3) (cf. Eq. 73)
Q
i,j
(r) =
_

0
E
i,j
() exp(
m
r
m
)d
1
d
2
d
3
(87)
Taking the trace and derivating twice gives
2
Q
i,i
r
j
r
j
=
_

0
2
E
i,i
() exp(
m
r
m
)d
1
d
2
d
3
(88)
Integrating over a spherical shell yields
2
Q
i,i
r
j
r
j
= 4
_

0
4
E
i,i
()
sin(r)
r
d (89)
The three-dimensional spectrum E() is dened as
E() = 2
2
E
i,i
() (90)
Using Eqs. 86, 89 & 90 and letting r 0 gives (note that
E() is equal to the square of the Fourier coefcient, i.e.
E() =

u
2
())
| s|
2
= 2
_

0
2

E()d
This is the ltered spectrum. Introduce the ltering func-
tion

G for the cut-off lter (Eq. 75) so that
| s|
2
= 2
_

0
2

G
2
()E()d
where Eq. 74 was used. Using Kolmogorov spectrumE() =
C
5/3
2/3
and a cut-off lter (see Eq. 75) we get
| s|
2
= 2
_

c
0
2
C
5/3
2/3
d =
3
2
4/3
C
2/3
4/3
(91)
Inserting this in Eq. 85 gives
= (C
S
)
2
_
3
2
C
_
3/2
2
and nally we get
C
S
=
1
_
2
3C
_
3/4
= 0.17 (92)
with the standard value on the Kolmogorov constant C =
1.5.
SGS kinetic energy
The SGS kinetic energy k
sgs
can be estimated from the Kol-
mogorov 5/3 law. The total turbulent kinetic energy is
obtained from the energy spectrum as
k =
_

0
E()d
Changing the lower integration limit to wavenumbers larger
than cut-off (i.e.
c
) gives the SGS kinetic energy
k
sgs
=
_

c
E()d
The Kolmogorov 5/3 law now gives
k
sgs
=
_

c
C
5/3
2/3
d
(Note that for these high wavenumbers, the Kolmogorov
spectrumought to be replaced by the Kolmogorov-Pau spec-
trum in which an exponential decaying function is added
for high wavenumbers (Hinze, 1975, Chapter 3)). Carrying
out the integration and replacing
c
with / we get
k
sgs
=
3
2
C
_
_
2/3
(93)
LES vs. RANS
LES can handle many ows which RANS (Reynolds Averaged
Navier Stokes) cannot; the reason is that in LES large, tur-
bulent scales are resolved. Examples are:
o Flows with large separation
o Bluff-body ows (e.g. ow around a car); the wake of-
ten includes large, unsteady, turbulent structures
o Transition
In RANS all turbulent scales are modelled inaccurate
In LES only small, isotropic turbulent scales are mod-
elled accurate
LES is very much more expensive than RANS.
The dynamic model
In this model of Germano et al. (1991) the constant C is not
arbitrarily chosen (or optimized), but it is computed.
If we apply two lters to Navier-Stokes [grid lter and
a second, coarser lter (test lter, denoted by

. )] where
= 2 we get
u
i
t
+

x
j
_
u
i
u
j
_
=
1
p
x
i
+

2
u
i
x
j
x
j
T
ij
x
j
(94)
where the subgrid stresses on the test level now are given
by
T
ij
=

u
i
u
j

u
i
u
j
(95)
If we apply the second lter to the grid-ltered equations
(Eq. 68) we obtain
u
i
t
+

x
j
_
u
i
u
j
_
=
1
p
x
i
+

2
u
i
x
j
x
j
ij
x
j

x
j
_

u
i
u
j

u
i
u
j
_
(96)
Identication of Eqs. 94 and 96 gives

u
i
u
j

u
i
u
j
+

ij
= T
ij
(97)
The dynamic Leonard stresses are now dened as
L
ij

u
i
u
j

u
i
u
j
= T
ij

ij
(98)
PSfrag replacements
u , u
x
I
I + 1
I 1
x
x
A
B
x
I
II
III
E()
cut-off
I
I
I
I
I
I
E()
cut-off, grid lter test lter
c
= /
= /
In the energy spectrum, the test lter is located at lower

wave number than the grid lter, see the gure above.
The test lter
The test lter is twice the size of the grid lter, i.e.

= 2.
E
W
P
PSfrag replacements
u , u
x
I
I + 1
I 1
x
x
A
B
x
I
II
III
E()
cut-off
I
II
III
E()
cut-off, grid lter
test lter
c
= /
= /
x x
grid lter
test lter
The test-ltered variables are computed by integration
over the test lter. For example, in the 1D example above
u is computed as (

x = 2x)
u =
1
2x
_
E
W
udx =
1
2x
__
P
W
udx +
_
E
P
udx
_
=
1
2x
( u
w
x + u
e
x) =
1
2
_
u
W
+ u
P
2
+
u
P
+ u
E
2
_
=
1
4
( u
W
+ 2 u
P
+ u
E
)
(99)
For 3D, ltering at the test level is carried out in the
same way by integrating over the test cell assuming linear
variation of the variables (Zang et al., 1993), i.e. (see gure
below)
u
I,J,K
=
1
8
( u
I1/2,J1/2,K1/2
+ u
I+1/2,J1/2,K1/2
+ u
I1/2,J+1/2,K1/2
+ u
I+1/2,J+1/2,K1/2
+ u
I1/2,J1/2,K+1/2
+ u
I+1/2,J1/2,K+1/2
+ u
I1/2,J+1/2,K+1/2
+ u
I+1/2,J+1/2,K+1/2
)
(100)
o
o
o
o
o
o
PSfrag replacements
u , u
x
I
I + 1
I 1
x
x
A
B
x
I
II
III
E()
cut-off
I
II
III
E()
cut-off, grid lter
test lter
c
= /
= /
x
x
grid lter
test lter
I, J 1, K
I, J + 1, K
I, J, K
I 1, J, K
I + 1, J, K
x
y
z
Stresses on grid, test and intermediate level
The stresses on the grid level, test level and intermediate
level (dynamic Leonard stresses) have the form
ij
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
stresses with <
T
ij
=

u
i
u
j

u
i
u
j
stresses with <
L
ij
= T
ij

ij
stresses with < <
Thus the dynamic Leonard stresses represent the con-

tribution to the stresses with scales in the range between
and

.
Assume now that the same functional form for the sub-
grid stresses that is used at the grid level (
ij
) also can be
used at the test lter level (T
ij
). If we use the Smagorinsky
model we get
ij

1
3
ij
kk
= 2C
2
| s| s
ij
(101)
T
ij

1
3
ij
T
kk
= 2C
2
|
s |
s
ij
(102)
where
s
ij
=
1
2
_
u
i
x
j
+

u
j
x
i
_
, |
s | =
_
2
s
ij
s
ij
_
1/2
Applying the test lter to Eq. 101 (assuming that C varies
slowly), substituting this equation and Eq. 102 into Eq. 98
gives
L
ij

1
3
ij
L
kk
= 2C
_
2
|
s |
s
ij

2

| s| s
ij
_
(103)
Note that the constant C really is a function of both space
and time, i.e. C = C(x
i
, t).
Equation 103 is a tensor equation, and we have ve ( s
ij
is symmetric and trace-less) equations for C. Lilly (1992)
suggested to satisfy Eq. 103 in a least-square sense, den-
ing the error Q as the difference between the left-hand side
and the right-hand side of Eq. 103 raised to the power of
two, i.e.
Q =
_
L
ij

1
3
ij
L
kk
+ 2CM
ij
_
2
M
ij
=
_
2
|
s |
s
ij

2

| s| s
ij
_
and requiring Q/C = 0, which gives
C =
L
ij
M
ij
2M
ij
M
ij
(104)
It turns out the the dynamic coefcient C uctuates wildly
both in space and time. This causes numerical problems,
and it has been found necessary to average C in homoge-
neous direction(s). Furthermore, C must be clipped to en-
sure that the total viscosity stays positive ( +
sgs
0).
In real 3D ows, there is no homogeneous direction. This
makes it very difcult (read: impossible) to use this model,
without introducing some arbitrary averaging and clipping.
Use of one-equation models solve these numerical prob-
lems (see p. 66).
Scale-similarity Models
In the models presented in the previous sections (the Smagorin-
sky and the dynamic models) the total SGS stress
ij
=
u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
was modelled with an eddy-viscosity hypothe-
sis. In scale-similarity models the total stress is split up
as
ij
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
= ( u
i
+ u
i
)( u
j
+ u
j
) u
i
u
j
= u
i
u
j
+ u
i
u
j
+ u
j
u
i
+ u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
= ( u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
) +
_
u
i
u
j
+ u
j
u
i
_
+ u
i
u
j
where the termin brackets is denoted the Leonard stresses,
the term in square brackets is denoted cross terms, and the
last term is denoted the Reynolds SGS stress. Thus
ij
= L
ij
+ C
ij
+ R
ij
L
ij
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
C
ij
= u
i
u
j
+ u
j
u
i
R
ij
= u
i
u
j
.
(105)
Note that the Leonard stresses L
ij
are computable, i.e. they
are exact and dont need to be modelled.
In scale-similarity models the main idea is that the tur-
bulent scales just below (smaller than) are similar to the
ones just above (hence the word scale-similar). Looking
at Eq. 105 it seems natural to assume that the cross term is
responsible for the interaction between resolved scales ( u
i
)
and modelled scales (u
i
), since C
ij
includes both scales.
The Bardina Model
In the Bardina model the Leonard stresses L
ij
are com-
puted explicitly, and the sum of the cross term C
ij
and
the Reynolds term is modelled as (Bardina et al., 1980;
Speziale, 1985)
C
M
ij
= c
r
( u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
) (106)
and R
ij
= 0 (superscript M denotes Modelled). It was found
that this model was not sufciently dissipative, and thus a
Smagorinsky model was added
C
M
ij
= c
r
( u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
)
R
M
ij
= 2C
S
2
| s| s
ij
(107)
Galilean invariance
Speziale (1985) found that the Leonard term L
ij
and the
cross term C
ij
are not Galilean invariant by themselves,
but only the sum L
ij
+ C
ij
is. As a consequence, if the
cross term is neglected, the Leonard stresses must not be
computed explicitly, because then the modelled momentum
equations do not satisfy Galilean invariance.
Below we repeat some of the details of the derivation
given in Speziale (1985). Galilean invariance means that
the equations do not change if the coordinate system is
moving with a constant speed V
k
. Lets denote the moving
coordinate system by , i.e.
x
k
= x
k
+ V
k
t, t
= t, u
k
= u
k
+ V
k
(108)
By differentiating a variable we get
x
k
=
x
j
x
k
j
+
t
x
k
=

x
t
=
x
k
t
k
+
t
= V
k
k
+

t
.
(109)
From Eq. 109 is it easy to show that the Navier-Stokes
(both with and without lter) is Galilean invariant (Speziale,
1985; Panton, 1984). Transforming the material derivative
from the (t, x
i
)-ccordinate system to the (t
, x
i
)-ccordinate
system gives
t
+ u
k
x
k
=

t
+ V
k
k
+ (u
k
V
k
)

x
k
=

t
+ u
k
,
as it should.
Now, lets look at the Leonard term and the cross term.
Since the ltering operation is Galilean invariant (Speziale,
1985), we have u
k
= u
k
+V
k
and consequently also u
k
= u
k
.
For the Leonard and the cross term we get (note that since
V
i
is constant V
i
=

V
i
=

V
i
)
L
ij
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
= ( u
i
+ V
i
)( u
j
+ V
j
) ( u
i
+ V
i
)( u
j
+ V
j
)
= u
i
u
j
+ u
i
V
j
+ u
j
V
i
u
i
u
j
u
i
V
j
V
i
u
j
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
+ V
j
( u
i
u
i
) + V
i
( u
j
u
j
)
= L
ij
V
j
u
i
V
i
u
j
C
ij
= u
i
u
j
+ u
j
u
i
= ( u
i
+ V
i
)u
j
+ ( u
j
+ V
j
)u
i
=
= u
i
u
j
+ u
j
V
i
+ u
j
u
i
+ u
i
V
j
= C
ij
+ u
j
V
i
+ u
i
V
j
(110)
From Eq. 110 we nd that the Leonard term and the cross
term are different in the two coordinate systems, and thus
the terms are not Galilean invariant. However, note that
the sum is, i.e.
L
ij
+ C
ij
= L
ij
+ C
ij
. (111)
The requirement for the Bardina model to be Galilean
invariant is that the constant must be one, c
r
= 1 (see
Eq. 107). This is shown by transforming both the exact
C
ij
(Eq. 105) and the modelled one, C
M
ij
(i.e. Eq. 106). The
exact form of C
ij
transforms as in Eq. 110. The Bardina
term transforms as
C
M
ij
= c
r
( u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
)
= c
r
_
( u
i
+ V
i
)( u
j
+ V
j
) ( u
i
+ V
i
)( u
j
+ V
j
)
_
= c
r
[ u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
( u
i
u
i
)V
j
( u
j
u
j
)V
i
]
= C
M
ij
+ c
r
_
u
i
V
j
+ u
j
V
i
.
(112)
As is seen, C
M
ij
= C
M
ij
, but here this does not matter, be-
cause provided c
r
= 1 the modelled stress C
M
ij
transforms
in the same way as the exact one C
ij
. Thus, as for the exact
stress C
ij
(see Eq. 111), we have C
M
ij
+L
ij
= C
M
ij
+L
ij
. Note
that in order to make the Bardina model Galilean invariant
the Leonard stress must be computed explicitly.
Redened terms in the Bardina Model
The stresses in the Bardina model can be redened to make
it Galilean invariant for any value c
r
. A modied Leonard
stress tensor L
m
ij
is dened as (Germano, 1986)
m
ij
=
ij
= C
m
ij
+ L
m
ij
+ R
m
ij
L
m
ij
= c
r
( u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
)
C
m
ij
= 0
R
m
ij
= R
ij
= u
i
u
j
(113)
Note that the modied Leonard stresses is the same as the
unmodied one plus the modelled cross term C
ij
in the
Bardina model with c
r
= 1 (right-hand side of Eq. 106), i.e.
L
m
ij
= L
ij
+ C
M
ij
In order to make the model sufciently dissipative a Smagorin-
sky model is added, and the total SGS stress
ij
is modelled
as
ij
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
2C| s| s
ij
(114)
Belowwe verify that the modied Leonard stress is Galilean
invariant.
1
c
r
L
m
ij
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
= ( u
i
+ V
i
)( u
j
+ V
j
) ( u
i
+ V
i
) ( u
j
+ V
j
)
= u
i
u
j
+ u
i
V
j
+ u
j
V
i
u
i
u
j
u
i
V
j
V
i
u
j
= u
i
u
j
u
i
u
j
=
1
c
r
L
m
ij
(115)
Numerical method
A numerical method based on an implicit, nite volume
method with collocated grid arrangement, central differ-
encing in space, and Crank-Nicolson ( = 0.5) in time is
briey described below. The discretized momentum equa-
tions read
u
n+1/2
i
= u
n
i
+ tH
_
u
n
, u
n+1/2
i
_
t
p
n+1/2
x
i
(1 )t
p
n
x
i
(116)
where H includes convective, viscous and SGS terms. In
SIMPLE notation this equation reads
a
P
u
n+1/2
i
=
nb
a
nb
u
n+1/2
+ S
U
t
p
n+1/2
x
i
V
where S
U
includes all source terms except the implicit pres-
sure. The face velocities u
n+1/2
f
= 0.5( u
n+1/2
j
+ u
n+1/2
j1
) do not
satisfy continuity. Create an intermediate velocity eld by
subtracting the implicit pressure gradient fromEq. 116, i.e.
u
i
= u
n
i
+ tH
_
u
n
, u
n+1/2
i
_
(1 )t
p
n
x
i
u
i
= u
n+1/2
i
+ t
p
n+1/2
x
i
(117)
Take the divergence of this equation and require that u
n+1/2
f,i
/x
i
=
0 so that
2
p
n+1
x
i
x
i
=
1
t
u
f,i
x
i
(118)
The Poisson equation for p
n+1
is solved with an efcient
multigrid method (Emvin, 1997). In the 3D MG we use
an plane-by-plane 2D MG. The face velocities are corrected
as
u
n+1
f,i
= u
f,i
t
p
n+1
x
i
(119)
Afewiterations (typically two) solving the momentumequa-
tions and the Poisson pressure equation are required each
time step to obtain convergence. More details can be found
Davidson & Peng (2003)
1. Solve the discretized ltered Navier-Stokes equation
for u, v and w.
2. Create an intermediate velocity eld u
i
from Eq. 117.
3. The Poisson equation (Eq. 118) is solved with an ef-
cient multigrid method (Emvin, 1997).
4. Compute the face velocities (which satisfy continu-
ity) from the pressure and the intermediate velocity from
Eq. 119
5. Step 1 to 4 is performed till convergence (normally
two or three iterations) is reached.
6. The turbulent viscosity is computed.
7. Next time step.
Since the Poisson solver is a nested MG solver, it is dif-
cult to parallelize with PVM. Hence, when we do large
simulations (> 20M cells) we use a traditional SIMPLE
method.
SIMPLE solver on Linux clusters
CALC-PVM: Pressure correction code (SIMPLE) code par-
allelized based on domain decomposition (Nilsson, 1997;
Nilsson & Davidson, 1998)
Central differencing, Crank-Nicolson
Speed-up on the IBM SP using MPI (Message Passing
Interface).
No. of proc. speed-up
1 1
8 8
32 32
Note that the speed-up is dened as elapsed time to reach
convergence at each time step. This is a ow where the par-
allelization is unusually efcient.
One-equation k
sgs
model
A one-equation model can be used to model the SGS tur-
bulent kinetic energy. The equation can be written on the
same form as the RANS k-equation, i.e.
k
sgs
t
+

x
j
( u
j
k
sgs
) =

x
j
_
( +
sgs
)
k
sgs
x
j
_
+ P
k
sgs
C
k
3/2
sgs
sgs
= c
k
k
1/2
sgs
, P
k
sgs
= 2
sgs
s
ij
s
ij
(120)
Note that the production term, P
k
sgs
, is equivalent to the
SGS dissipation in the equation for the resolved turbulent
kinetic energy (look at the ow of kinetic energy discussed
at the of Davidson & Billson (2006)).
From the Kolmogorov 5/3 law we can obtain an value
of the C
-coefcient. Using = C
k
3/2
sgs
/ in Eq. 93 gives
k
sgs
=
3
2
C
_
C
k
3/2
sgs
_
2/3
(121)
so that C
= (
3
2
C)
3/2
which with C = 1.5 gives C
= 0.93.
To derive a value on the c
k
-constant, we use the expres-
sion on
sgs
in Eq. 120 together with Eqs. 83 and 84
c
k
k
1/2
sgs
| s|
2
=
Replacing | s|
2
with Eq. 91 and k
sgs
with Eq. 93 gives
c
k
_
3
2
C
_
_
2/3
_
1/2
3
2
4/3
C
2/3
4/3
=
so that c
k
=
_
3
2
C
_
3/2
/ = 0.094 with C = 1.5.
A dynamic one-equation model
One of the drawbacks of the dynamic model of Germano
et al. (1991) (see p. 52) is the numerical instability associ-
ated with the negative values and large variation of the C
coefcient. Usually this problem is xed by averaging the
coefcient in some homogeneous ow direction. However,
in real applications, no such ow direction exists. Below a
dynamic one-equation model is presented. The main object
when developing this model was that it should be applica-
ble to real industrial ows. Furthermore, being a dynamic
model, it has the great advantage that the coefcients are
computed rather than being prescribed.
The equation for the subgrid kinetic energy reads (David-
son, 1997b,c) (see also Sohankar et al. (2000b,a))
k
sgs
t
+

x
j
( u
j
k
sgs
) = P
k
sgs
+

x
j
_
eff
k
sgs
x
j
_
C
k
3/2
sgs
P
k
sgs
=
a
ij
u
i,j
,
a
ij
= 2Ck
1
2
sgs
s
ij
(122)
with
eff
= + 2C
hom
k
1
2
sgs
. The C in the production term
P
k
sgs
is computed dynamically (cf. Eq. 104). To ensure nu-
merical stability, a a constant value (in space) of C (C
hom
) is
used in the diffusion term in Eq. 122 and in the momentum
equations. C
hom
is computed by requiring that C
hom
should
yield the same total production of k
sgs
as C, i.e.
2Ck
1
2
sgs
s
ij
s
ij
xyz
= 2C
hom
k
1
2
sgs
s
ij
s
ij
xyz
The dissipation term
k
sgs
is estimated as:
k
sgs
T
f
(u
i,j
, u
i,j
) = C
k
3/2
sgs
. (123)
Now we want to nd a dynamic equation for C
. The equa-
tions for k
sgs
and K read in symbolic form
T(k
sgs
) C
k
sgs
D
k
sgs
= P
k
sgs
C
k
3/2
sgs
T(K) C
K
D
K
= P
K
C
K
3/2
(124)
Since the turbulence on both the grid level and the test
level should be in local equilibrium (in the inertial 5/3
region), the left-hand side of the two equations in Eq. 124
should be close to zero. An even better approximation should
be to assume T(k
sgs
) = T(K), i.e.
P
k
sgs
k
sgs
3/2
= P
K
C
K
3/2
,
so that
C
n+1
=
_
P
K

P
k
sgs
+
1

C
n
k
3/2
sgs
_

K
3
2
. (125)
The idea is to put the local dynamic coefcients in the source
terms, i.e. in the production and the dissipation terms of
the k
sgs
equation (Eq. 122). In this way the dynamic coef-
cients C and C
dont need to be clipped or averaged in

any way. This is a big advantage compared to the standard
dynamic model of Germano (see discussion on p. 57).
A Mixed Model Based on a One-Eq. Model
Recently a new dynamic scale-similarity model was pre-
sented by Krajnovi c & Davidson (2002b). In this model a
dynamic one-equation SGS model is solved, and the scale-
similarity part is estimated in a similar way as in Eq. 114.
Applied LES
At the Department we used LES for applied ows such
as ow around a cube (Krajnovi c & Davidson, 2002a; Kra-
jnovi c, 2002), the ow and heat transfer in a square rotat-
ing duct Pallares & Davidson (2000, 2002), the ow around
a simplied bus (Krajnovi c & Davidson, 2003; Krajnovi c,
2002), a simplied car (Krajnovi c & Davidson, 2005a,b,c)
and the owaround an airfoil Dahlstr om&Davidson (2003);
Dahlstr om(2003). We have also done some work on buoyancy-
affected ows Peng & Davidson (2002, 2001); Peng (1998).

MTF270-Turbulence Modeling-Large Eddy Simulations PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

MTF270-Turbulence Modeling-Large Eddy Simulations PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Lars Davidson: MTF270 Turbulence Modelling

http://www.tfd.chalmers.se/doct/comp turb model 41

E() is equal to the square of the Fourier coefcient, i.e.

In the energy spectrum, the test lter is located at lower

Thus the dynamic Leonard stresses represent the con-

dont need to be clipped or averaged in

Вам также может понравиться