REVIEW Lecture 24:: - Finite Volume On Complex Geometries

2.
29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics N

η
Spring 2015 – Lecture 25

NW
y n ne
iη
n ξ
nw iξ
e E
REVIEW Lecture 24:

n n n
P
w
W S se
• Finite Volume on Complex geometries sw

n SE
j S
– Computation of convective fluxes: x

i
• For mid-point rule: Fe    (v .n ) dS  f e Se  (  v .n )e Se  eme  e  e ( S ue  S ve )
x
e e
y
Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
Se
– Computation of diffusive fluxes: mid-point

point rule for complex geometries often used
   
• Either use shape function  (x, y), with mid-point rule: Fed  (k 
.n )e Se ke  Sex  Sey 
 x e y e 
• Or compute derivatives at CV centers first, then interpolate to cell faces. Option include either:
  
– Gauss Theorem:  dV dV   c Sc dV
x
  i
xi P
xi P CV
xi 4 c faces
E  P old
– Deferred-correction approach: Fed  ke Se
rE  rP
 ke Se  e 
  n  i 

– Comments on 3D old old 

where  e  is interpolated from  P  ,e.g.
    xi
 
4 c faces
c Scx dV i
2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 1

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics
Spring 2015 – Lecture 25
REVIEW Lecture 24, Cont’d:
• Turbulent Flows and their Numerical Modeling
η (Kolmogorov microscale)
– Properties of Turbulent Flows

L /  ~ O (Re3/4
L )
• Stirring and Mixing
Re L  UL 
• Energy Cascade and Scales Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.
• Turbulent Wavenumber Spectrum and Scales ( K ,  ) A  2/3 K 5/3

S S L1  1
K  1
– Numerical Methods for Turbulent Flows: Classification ε = turbulent energy dissipation
• Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS) for Turbulent Flows

• Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
– Mean and fluctuations
– Reynolds Stresses
– Turbulence closures: Eddy viscosity and diffusivity, Mixing-length Models, k-ε Models
– Reynolds-Stress Equation Models
• Large-Eddy Simulations (LES)
– Spatial filtering
– LES subgrid-scale stresses
2.29 • Examples Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 2

References and Reading Assignments
• Chapter 9 on “Turbulent Flows” of “J. H. Ferziger and M. Peric,
Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer, NY, 3rd
ed., 2002”
• Chapter 3 on “Turbulence and its Modelling” of H. Versteeg, W.
Malalasekra, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynamics:
The Finite Volume Method. Prentice Hall, Second Edition.
• Chapter 4 of “I. M. Cohen and P. K. Kundu. Fluid Mechanics.
Academic Press, Fourth Edition, 2008”
• Chapter 3 on “Turbulence Models” of T. Cebeci, J. P. Shao, F.
Kafyeke and E. Laurendeau, Computational Fluid Dynamics for
Engineers. Springer, 2005
• Durbin, Paul A., and Gorazd Medic. Fluid dynamics with a
computational perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS)
for Turbulent Flows
• Most accurate approach
– Solve NS with no averaging or approximation other than numerical
discretizations whose errors can be estimated/controlled
• Simplest conceptually, all is resolved:

– Size of domain must be at least a few times the distance L over which
fluctuations are correlated (L= largest eddy scale)
– Resolution must capture all kinetic energy dissipation, i.e. grid size must be
smaller than viscous scale, the Kolmogorov scale, 
– For homogenous isotropic turbulence, uniform grid is adequate, hence number
of grid points (DOFs) in each direction is (Tennekes and Lumley, 1976):
L /  ~ O(Re3/4
L ) Re L  UL 
– In 3D, total cost (if time-step scales as grid size, for stability and/or accuracy):
L  Re L 
~ O Re3/4 3/4 3
 O(Re3L ) 
• CPU and RAM limit the size of the problem:
6
– 10 Peta-Flops/s for 1 hour: Re L ~ 3.310 (extremely optimistic)
– Largest DNS ever performed up to 2013: 15360 x 1536 x 11520 mesh, Re L  5200
• https://www.alcf.anl.gov/articles/first-mira-runs-break-new-ground-turbulence-simulations
for Turbulent Flows: Numerics
• DNS likely gives more information that many engineers need
(closer to experimental data)
• But, it can be used for turbulence studies, e.g. coherent
structures dynamics and other fundamental research
– Allow to construct better RANS models or even correlation models
• Numerical Methods for DNS

DNS, Backward facing step
– All NS solvers we have seen are useful Le and Moin (2008)
© source unknown. All rights reserved. This content is
– Small time-steps required for bounded errors: excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more
information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/help/faq-fair-use/.
– Explicit methods are fine in simple geometries (stability
satisfied due to small time-step needed for accuracy)
– Implicit methods near boundaries or complex geometries
(large derivatives in viscous terms normal to the walls can
lead to numerical instabilities ⇒ treated implicitly)

for Turbulent Flows: Numerics, Cont’d
• Time-marching methods commonly used
– Explicit 2nd to 4th order accurate (Runge-Kutta, Adams-Bashforth,
Leapfrog): R-K’s often more accurate for same cost
• For same order of accuracy, R-K’s allow larger time-steps
– Crank-Nicolson often used for implicit schemes
• Must be conservative, including kinetic energy
• Spatial discretization schemes should have low dissipation
– Upwind schemes often too diffusive: error larger than molecular diffusion!
– High-order finite difference
– Spectral methods (use Fourier series to estimate derivatives)
• Mainly useful for simple (periodic) geometries (FFT)
• Use spectral elements instead (Patera, Karnadiakis, etc)
– (Hybridizable)-(Discontinuous)-Galerkin (FE Methods): Cockburn et al.
for Turbulent Flows: Numerics, Cont’d
• Challenges:
– Storage for states at intermediate time steps (⇒ R-K’s of low storage)
– Total discretization error and turbulence spectrum
• Total error: both order of discretization and values of derivatives (spectrum)
 Measure of total error: integrate over whole turbulent spectrum
– Difficult to measure accuracy due to (unstable) nature of turbulent flow
• Due to predictability limit of turbulence
• Hence, statistical properties of two solutions are often compared
– Simplest measure: turbulent spectrum
– Generating initial conditions: as much art as science

• Initial conditions remembered over significant “eddy-turnover” time
• Data assimilation, smoothing schemes to obtain ICs
– Generating boundary conditions
• Periodic for simple problems, Radiating/Sponge conditions for realistic cases
Example: Spatial Decay of Turbulence
Created by an Oscillating Boundary
Briggs et al (1996)
– Oscillating grid on top of
quiescent fluid creates
turbulence
– Decays in intensity away from © Springer. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative
grid by “turbulent diffusion”: Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.
Source: Ferziger, J. and M. Peric. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics.
stirring + mixing 3rd ed. Springer, 2001.
– Used spectral method,

periodic, 3rd order R-K
– DNS results agree with data
• Used to test turbulence
“closure” models
• Did not work well because
not derived for that “type” of © Springer. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative
turbulence
Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.
Source: Ferziger, J. and M. Peric. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics.
3rd ed. Springer, 2001.
Note: DNS have at times found out when laboratory set-up was not proper
Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)
• Many science and engineering applications focus on averages
• RANS models: based on ideas of Osborne Reynolds
– All “unsteadiness” regarded as part of turbulence and averaged out
– By averaging, nonlinear terms in NS eqns. lead to new product terms that
must be modeled
• Separation into mean and fluctuations  T0 T
– Moving time-average: u u  u ' ; 
( xi , t )  ( xi , t )   ( xi , t )
t T /2
l 0
T0 t T0 /2
where  ( xi , t )   ( xi , t )dt ; i.e.  ( xi , t ) 0
– Ensemble average: u
u'
u
l N u'
  ( xi , t )    ( x , t )
r u
i
N r 1 u
T t t
– Reynolds-averaging: either of the

(A) (B)
Graphs showing (A) the time average for a statistically steady flow and
(B) the ensemble average for an unsteady flow.
above two averages


• Variance, r.m.s. and higher-moments:
t T /2
l 0
  ( xi , t )     2 ( xi , t )dt ui  (ui  u) (   )  ui   ui  
2
T0 t T0 /2
rms    2
t T /2
l 0
  p ( xi , t )  
T0 t T0 /2
  p ( xi , t )dt with p 3, 4, etc
• Correlations:
– In time: R(t1,t2 ; x)  u '(x, t1 ) u '(x, t2 ) for a stationary process : R( ; x)  u '(x, t ) u '(x, t   )
– In space:
R( x1, x2 ; t )  u '( x1, t ) u '( x2 , t ) for a homogeneous process
 : R( ; t ) u '( x, t ) u '( x  , t )
1 2
• Turbulent kinetic energy: k
2
u '  v ' 2 w ' 2
– Note: some arbitrariness in the decomposition u 

u  u' ;  
  
and in the definition that “fluctuations = turbulence”
• Continuity and Momentum Equations, incompressible:
 ui
0
xi
 ui  (  ui u j ) p   ij
  +
t x j xi x j
– Applying either the ensemble or time-averages to these equations

leads to the RANS eqns.
– In both cases, averaging any linear term in conservation equation
gives the identical term, but for the average quantity
• Average the equations, inserting the decomposition: ui  ui  ui
– the time and space derivatives commute with the averaging operator
ui  ui

xi xi
ui  ui

t t

• Averaged continuity and momentum equations:
 ui
0
xi (incompressible,
 ui  (  ui u j   ui uj )  p   ij no body forces)
  +
t x j xi x j
  ui uj 
where  ij     
 xi 
 x j
  (   u j     uj )    
• For a scalar conservation equation     
t x j x j  x j 
– e.g. for   c pT  mean internal energy
– Terms that are products of fluctuations remain:
• Reynolds stresses:   ui uj
• Turbulent scalar flux:   ui  
– Equations are thus not closed (more unknown variables than equations)
• Closure requires specifying  ui uj and  ui   in terms of the mean quantities and/or
their derivatives (any Taylor series decomposition of mean quantities)
Reynolds Stresses:  ijRe    ui uj
• Total stress acting on mean flow:  ij   ij   ui uj   ij   ijRe

 u 2 u v  u w 
  ui uj   
 ij   

  and 
Re
   v 2 v w 
 x j xi   
 
w 2

– If turbulent fluctuations are isotropic:
• Off diagonal elements of 
Re
cancel
• Diagonal elements equal: u2  v2  w2
– Average of product of fluctuations not zero
u
• Consider mean shear flow: 0
y
u ( y)
• If parcel is going up (v’>0 ), it slows down
neighbors, hence u’<0 (opposite for v’<0)
u
• Hence: u v  0 for  0 (acts as turb. “diffus.”)
y
– Other meanings of Reynolds stress:
• Rate of mean momentum transfer by turb. fluctations © Academic Press. All rights reserved. This content is
excluded from our Creative Commons license. For more
• Average flux of j-momentum along i-direction information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.

Simplest Turbulence Closure Model
• Eddy Viscosity and Eddy Diffusivity Models
– Effect of turbulence is to increase stirring/mixing on the mean-fields,
hence increase effective viscosity or effective diffusivity
– Hence, “Eddy-viscosity” Model and “Eddy-diffusivity” Model
  ui uj  2 
 ijRe    ui uj  t      k  ij   ui  j  t
 x j
 x j xi  3
• Last term in Reynolds stress is required to ensure correct results for the sum
of normal stresses:
u 2 1

 iiRe    ui ui  t 2 i   k 3  0  2  u ' 2  v ' 2  w ' 2    u ' 2  v ' 2  w ' 2
xi 3 2

 2  k
• The use of scalar t , t  assumption of isotropic turbulence, which is often
inaccurate
• Since turbulent transports (momentum or scalars, e.g. internal energy) are due
to “average stirring” or “eddy mixing”, we expect similar values for t and t .
This is the so-called Reynolds analogy, i.e. Turbulent Prandtl number ~ 1:
t
t  1
2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics t PFJL Lecture 25, 14
Turbulence Closures: Mixing-Length Models
– Mixing length models attempt to vary unknown μt as a function of position
– Main parameters available: turbulent kinetic energy k [m2/s2] or velocity u*,
large eddy length scale L * 2
k  u  /2
=> Dimensional analysis:
t  C   u * L C dimensionless constant
– Observations and assumptions:
• Most k is contained in largest eddies of mixing-length L * ui  2ui
u f (ui , , 2, )
• Largest eddies interact most with mean flow x j x j
u u
 in  2D, mostly  xyRe 
  u v   u*  f ( cL
)
y y
u
– Hence, t   L2 . This is Prandtl’s “mixing length” model.
y
• Similar to mean-free path in thermodyn: distance before parcel “mixes” with others
u u 1
• For a plate flow, Prandtl assumed: L   y  u*   y   ln y  const.
y u* 
u u
– Mixing-length turbulent Reynolds stress:  xyRe 
  u v    L2
y y
2
– Mixing length model can also be used for scalars: t  L u 
  u   
 t x j  t y y
Mixing Length Models: What is L ( m )?
• In simple 2D flows, mixing-length models agree well with data

• In these flows, mixing length L proportional to physical size (D, etc)
• Here are some examples:
© The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our
Creative Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.
Source: Schlichting, H. Boundary Layer Theory. 7th ed. The McGraw-Hill Companies, 1979.
• But, in general turbulence, more than one space and time scale!
Turbulence Closures: k - ε Models
• Mixing-length = “zero-equation” Model
• One might find a PDE to compute  ijRe   ui uj and   ui   as a function
of k and other turbulent quantities
– Turbulence model requires at least a length scale and a velocity scale,
hence two PDEs?
• Kinetic energy equations (incompressible flows)
1 1 1   ui  u j 
– Define Total KE   ui    ui  , K   ui  and
2 2 2
 ij      2  eij
2 2 2  x j xi 
 
– Mean KE: Take mean mom. eqn., multiply by ui to obtain:

 K  (  K u j )   p u j
  +
 
 2 eij ui   ui uj ui  u
 2 eij eij   ui uj i
t x j x j x j x j
“Transport
Rate of Transport of K Transport of K Rate of decay of K
Advection of K by Rate of viscous
change + = + by mean viscous + by Reynolds - - due turbulence
of K pressure“ dissipation of K
of K stresses stresses production
( p work)

Turbulence Closures: k - ε Models, Cont’d
• Turbulent kinetic energy equation
– Obtain momentum eq. for the turbulent velocity ui (total eq. - mean eq.)
1   u  u 
– Define the fluctuating strain rate: eij   i  j 
2  x j xi 
1
– Multiply by ui (sum over i) and average to obtain the eqn. for k  ui ui
2
 1 
 
 
 k  (  k u j )   p ' u j
+
 
 
2  e
ij ui
  
2
ui
 u 
j . ui
 
  2  e . e   u u ui
ij ij i j
t x j x j x j x j
Rate of “Transport of Transport of k by Transport of k Rate of
Advection Rate of viscous
change + = k by turbulent + viscous stresses + by Reynolds - + production
of k dissipation of k
of k pressure” (diffusion of k) stresses of k
• This equation is similar than that of K, but with prime quantities

ui
• Last term is now opposite in sign: is the rate of shear production of k : Pk    ui uj
x j
• Next to last term = rate of viscous dissipation of k :   2 e . e (  2 e e p.u.m)
ij ij ij ij
• These two terms often of the same order (this is how Kolmogorov microscale is defined)
– e.g. consider steady state turbulence (steady k)
– If Boussinesq fluid, the 2 KE eqs. also contain buoyant loss/production terms

• Parameterizations for the standard k equation:
– For incompressible flows, the viscous transport term is:


 2  eij ui    k 
 
x j x j  x j 
– The other two turbulent energy transport terms are thus modeled using:
1  k t
 p ' uj  (   ui uj . ui)  t ( t   1)
2  k x j t

• This is analogous to an “eddy-diffusion of a scalar” model, recall:   ui  j  t
x j
• In some models, eddy-diffusions are tensors
– The production term: using again the eddy viscosity model for the Rey. Stresses
ui    ui  u j  2  u   ui  u j  ui
Pk    ui uj   t      k  ij  i  t   
x j   x j xi  3
 x j
 
 jx xi  x j
– All together, we have all “unknown” terms for the k equation parameterized,
as long as   2 eij . eij the rate of viscous dissipation of k is known:
 k  (  k u j )   t  k    k    ui  u j  ui
    +        t 
 x j xi  x j
t x j xk 
 t jx x j  x j   
• The standard k - ε model equations (Launder and Spalding, 1974)
– There are several choices for   2 eij . eij [ ]  m2 / s3  . The standard
popular one is based on the “equilibrium turbulent flows” hypothesis:
• In “equilibrium turbulent flows”, ε the rate of viscous dissipation of k is in
balance with Pk the rate of production of k (i.e. the energy cascade):
Pk    ui uj
ui
x j
 t
  u  u j  ui
 i  
 x j xi  x j

 O t  u*  / L2
2
   2 eij . eij   
• Recall the scalings: k   u*  / 2

2
t  C   u* L
• This gives the length scale and the turbulent viscosity scalings:
k 3/2 k2
L t  C  
 
– As a result, one can obtain an equation for ε (with a lot of assumptions):
  (   u j )   t     2
     C 1 Pk  C 2 
t x j x j  x
  j k k
k2
where t  C   and   , C 1 , C 2 are constants. The production and destruction terms

of ε are assumed proportional to those of k (the ratios ε / k is for dimensions)
• The standard k - ε model (RANS) equations are thus:
 k  (  k u j )   t  k    k 
    +    2 t eij . eij   
t x j x j   k x j  x j  x j 
k2
with t  C  

  (   u j )   t     2
     C 1 Pk  C 2 
t x j x j    x j  k k
Transport of k or ε Rate of Rate of viscous

Rate of change Advection
+ = by “eddy-diffusion” + production - dissipation of k
of k or ε of k or ε
stresses of k or ε or ε
  ui uj  2
• The Reynolds stresses are obtained from:  ijRe    ui uj  t 

    k  ij
 x j xi  3
• The most commonly used values for the constants are:
C   0.09, C 1  1.44, C 2  1.92,  k  1.0,    1.3
• Two new PDEs are relatively simple to implement (same form as NS)
– But, time-scales for k - ε are much shorter than for the mean flow
• Other k – ε models: Spalart-Allmaras ν – L; Wilcox or Menter k – ω; anisotropic k –ε’s;
etc.
• Numerics for standard k - ε models
– Since time-scales for k - ε are much shorter than for the mean flow,
their equations are treated separately
• Mean-flow NS outer iteration can be first performed using old k - ε
• Strongly non-linear equations for k - ε are then integrated (outer-iteration)
with smaller time-step and under-relaxation
– Smaller space scales requires finer-grids near walls for k – ε eqns
• Otherwise, too low resolution can lead to wiggles and negative k - ε
• If grids are the same, need to use schemes that reduce oscillations
• Boundary conditions for k - ε models

– Similar than for other scalar eqns., except at solid walls
• Inlet: k, ε given (from data or from literature)
• Outlet or symmetry axis: normal derivatives set to zero (or other OBCs)
• Free stream: k, ε given or zero-derivatives
• Solid walls: depends on Re
• Solid-walls boundary conditions for k - ε models
– No-slip BC would be standard:
• Hence, appropriate to set k = 0 at the wall 2
 2k   k 1/2 
• But, dissipation not zero at the wall → use :    2 or   2  
n wall   n 
– At high-Reynolds numbers: wall
• One can avoid the need to solve

20
u+
k – ε right at the wall by using an 15
u+ =
1 ln n++B
κ
analytical shape “wall function”: κ = 0.41
10 (von Karman's
• At high-Re, in logarithmic layer : const.)
u u 1
L   y  u*   y  u   ln y  const. 5
u+ = n+
u* 
Logarithmic region
y
• If dissipation balances3/2turbulence 2
0
1 2 5 10 20 50 100 n+
production, recall: L  k ; t  C   k Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

 
k 3/2  u 
* 3
and one can match:  wall    u 

2
• Combining, one obtains:
*
 
L y
without resolving the viscous sub-layer
• For more details, including low-Re cases, see references
• Example: Flow around an engine Valve (Lilek et al, 1991)
– k – ε model, 2D axi-symmetric
– Boundary-fitted, structured grid
– 2nd order CDS, 3-grids refinement
– BCs: wall functions at the walls
– Physics: separation at valve throat
– Comparisons with data not bad © Springer. All rights reserved. This content is excluded from our Creative
Commons license. For more information, see http://ocw.mit.edu/fairuse.
– Such CFD study can reduce number

of experiments/tests required
Please also see figures 9.13 and 9.14 from Figs 9.13 and 9.14 from Ferziger, J.,
and M. Peric. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. 3rd ed. Springer, 2001.

Reynolds-Stress Equation Models (RSMs)
• Underlying assumption of “Eddy viscosity/diffusivity” models
and of k - ε models is that of isotropic turbulence, which fails in
many flows
– Some have used anisotropic eddy-terms, but not common
• Instead, one can directly solve transport equations for the
Reynolds stresses themselves:  ui uj and   ui
– These are among the most complex RANS used today. Their equations
can be derived from NS
– For momentum, the six transport eqs., one for each Reynolds stress,
contain: diffusion, pressure-strain and dissipation/production terms
which are unknown
• In these “2nd order models”, assumptions are made on these terms and
resulting PDEs are solved, as well as an equation for ε
• Extra 6 + 1 = 7 PDEs to be solved increase cost. Mostly used for academic
research (assumptions on unknown terms still being compared to data)
Reynolds-Stress Equation Models (RSMs), Cont’d
• Equations for  ijRe    ui uj
 ijRe  ( ijRe u j )   ui  uj   Re  u j Re  ui

     ij
Re

   p       jm     ij    Cijm 
t x j  x x   im x x  x x 
 j i   m m  j  j 
Rate of Rate of tensor Rates of viscous and
Rate of change Advection Pressure-strain
production of dissipation of turbulent diffusions
of Reynolds + of Reynolds = redistribution of + + -
Reynolds Reynolds (dissipations) of
Stress Stress Reynolds stresses
stress stress Reynolds stress
where
• The dissipation (as ε but now a tensor) is :  ij  2 eik . ejk
• The 3rd order turbulence diffusions are: Cijm   ui uj . um  p ' ui  jk  p ' uj  ik
– Simplest and most common 3rd order closures:
2 4
• Isotropic dissipation:  ij    ij   eij . eij  ij → one ε PDE must be solved
3 3
• Several models for pressure-strain used (attempt to make it more isotropic),
see Launder et al)
• The 3rd order turbulence diffusions: usually modeled using an eddy-flux model,
but nonlinear models also used
• Active research
Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
• Turbulent Flows contain large range of time/space scales
• However, larger-scale motions u LES
often much more energetic

than small scale ones DNS LES
• Smaller scales often provide

t
(A) (B)
DNS
(A) The time dependence of a component of velocity at one point; (B) Representation of
less transport turbulent motion.
→ simulation that treats larger eddies more accurately than

smaller ones makes sense ⇒ LES:
• Instead of time-averaging, LES uses spatial filtering to separate large
and small eddies
• Models smaller eddies as a “universal behavior”
• 3D, time-dependent and expensive, but much less than DNS
• Preferred method at very high Re or very complex geometry
Large Eddy Simulation (LES), Cont’d
• Spatial Filtering of quantities
– The larger-scale (the ones to be resolved) are essentially a local spatial
average of the full field
– For example, the filtered velocity is: ui (x, t )   G(x, x; ) ui (x, t ) dV 
V
where G(x, x; ) is the filter kernel, a localization function of support/cutoff

width Δ
• Example of Filters: Gaussian, box, top-hat and spectral-cutoff (Fourier) filters
• When NS, incompressible flows, constant density is averaged,

one obtains  ui
0
xi
 ui  (  ui u j ) p     ui  u j  
  +    
t x j xi x j   x j xi  
– Continuity is linear, thus filtering does not change its shape
– Simplifications occur if filter does not depend on positions: G(x, x; )  G(x  x; )
Large Eddy Simulation (LES), Cont’d
• LES sub-grid-scale stresses
– It is important to note that  ui u j   ui u j
– This quantity is hard to compute
– One introduces the sub-grid-scale Reynolds Stresses, which is the
difference between the two:
 ijSG     ui u j  ui u j 
• It represents the large scale momentum flux caused by the action of the small
or unresolved scales (SG is somewhat a misnomer)
– Example of models:
• Smagorinsky: it is an eddy viscosity model
1   ui uj 
 ijSG   kkSG  ij  t     2t eij

• Higher-order SGS models
3  x j xi 
• More advanced models: mixed models, dynamic models, deconvolution

models, etc.
– Mixed eqns, e.g. Partially-averaged Navier-Stokes (PANS): RANS → LES
Examples (see Durbin and Medic, 2009)
Figures removed due to copyright restrictions. Please see figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.22, 6.23, 6.26, and 6.27 in
Durbin, P. and G. Medic. Fluid Dynamics with a Computational Perspective. Vol. 10. Cambridge University
Press, 2007. [Preview with Google Books].




MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics

Spring 2015
For information about citing these materials or our Terms of Use, visit: http://ocw.mit.edu/terms.

REVIEW Lecture 24:: - Finite Volume On Complex Geometries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW Lecture 24:: - Finite Volume On Complex Geometries

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVIEW Lecture 24:: - Finite Volume On Complex Geometries

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics N

Spring 2015 – Lecture 25

REVIEW Lecture 24:

• Finite Volume on Complex geometries sw

– Computation of convective fluxes: x

– Computation of diffusive fluxes: mid-point

– Comments on 3D old old 

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 1

– Properties of Turbulent Flows

• Turbulent Wavenumber Spectrum and Scales ( K ,  ) A  2/3 K 5/3

• Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS) for Turbulent Flows

2.29 • Examples Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 2

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 3

• Simplest conceptually, all is resolved:

• Numerical Methods for DNS

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 5

– Generating initial conditions: as much art as science

stirring + mixing 3rd ed. Springer, 2001.

– Used spectral method,

– Reynolds-averaging: either of the

above two averages

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 9

– Note: some arbitrariness in the decomposition u 

– Applying either the ensemble or time-averages to these equations

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 11

• Total stress acting on mean flow:  ij   ij   ui uj   ij   ijRe

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 13

• In simple 2D flows, mixing-length models agree well with data

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 17

• This equation is similar than that of K, but with prime quantities

– If Boussinesq fluid, the 2 KE eqs. also contain buoyant loss/production terms

– For incompressible flows, the viscous transport term is:

• Recall the scalings: k   u*  / 2

Transport of k or ε Rate of Rate of viscous

• Boundary conditions for k - ε models

• One can avoid the need to solve

• At high-Re, in logarithmic layer : const.)

production, recall: L  k ; t  C   k Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

and one can match:  wall    u 

– Such CFD study can reduce number

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 24

 ijRe  ( ijRe u j )   ui  uj   Re  u j Re  ui

often much more energetic

• Smaller scales often provide

less transport turbulent motion.

Image by MIT OpenCourseWare.

→ simulation that treats larger eddies more accurately than

where G(x, x; ) is the filter kernel, a localization function of support/cutoff

• When NS, incompressible flows, constant density is averaged,

• More advanced models: mixed models, dynamic models, deconvolution

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 30

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 31

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 32

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics PFJL Lecture 25, 33

2.29 Numerical Fluid Mechanics

You might also like