Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Efficient dynamic mixed subgrid-scale model

Prahladh S. Iyer*

Mujeeb R. Malik

  • *Contact author: prahladh.s.iyer@ama-inc.com
  • Contact author: m.r.malik@nasa.gov

Phys. Rev. Fluids 9, L092601 – Published 3 September, 2024

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.9.L092601

Abstract

It is well known that the scale-similarity class of subgrid models have a high correlation with the actual subgrid stresses in a priori tests. However, these models are typically underdissipative and not robust enough to be practically useful for large-eddy simulation. On the other hand, the dynamic Smagorinsky model (DSM), which is a popular subgrid model, is sufficiently dissipative and robust, but has a lower correlation with actual subgrid stresses in a priori tests. There have been many successful attempts to combine the two models into a “mixed” subgrid model that have typically retained the favorable properties of both. However, most dynamic mixed models require two or more levels of test filtering beyond the (often implicit) grid filtered quantities that are solved, in contrast to a single test filtering operation for the dynamic Smagorinsky model. The additional cost involved in test filtering has likely hindered the widespread use of dynamic mixed models in production codes. We propose an efficient dynamic mixed model that is constrained to have the same subgrid dissipation as the DSM model, and only requires a single level of test filtering. Thus, the additional computational cost is negligible compared to the DSM model. A posteriori simulations of the turbulent channel flow reveal that the proposed mixed model is as robust as the DSM model, and more accurate on coarser grids. Notably, smooth-body turbulent separation is better captured by the new model when combined with a standard wall model.

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (35)

  1. J. Smagorinsky, General circulation experiments with the primitive equations: I. The basic experiment, Mon. Weather Rev. 91, 99 (1963).
  2. M. Lesieur and O. Metais, New trends in large-eddy simulations of turbulence, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 28, 45 (1996).
  3. C. Meneveau and J. Katz, Scale-invariance and turbulence models for large-eddy simulation, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 1 (2000).
  4. R. D. Moser, S. W. Haering, and G. R. Yalla, Statistical properties of subgrid-scale turbulence models, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 53, 255 (2021).
  5. M. Germano, U. Piomelli, P. Moin, and W. H. Cabot, A dynamic subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model, Phys. Fluids 3, 1760 (1991).
  6. D. K. Lilly, A proposed modification of the Germano subgrid-scale closure method, Phys. Fluids 4, 633 (1992).
  7. J. Bardina, J. Ferziger, and W. Reynolds, Improved subgrid-scale models for large-eddy simulation, 13th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference (AIAA, Snowmass, CO, USA, 1980), doi:10.2514/6.1980-1357.
  8. S. Liu, C. Meneveau, and J. Katz, On the properties of similarity subgrid-scale models as deduced from measurements in a turbulent jet, J. Fluid Mech. 275, 83 (1994).
  9. C. Meneveau, T. S. Lund, and W. H. Cabot, A lagrangian dynamic subgrid-scale model of turbulence, J. Fluid Mech. 319, 353 (1996).
  10. R. A. Clark, J. H. Ferziger, and W. C. Reynolds, Evaluation of subgrid-scale models using an accurately simulated turbulent flow, J. Fluid Mech. 91, 1 (1979).
  11. B. Vreman, B. Geurts, and H. Kuerten, Large-eddy simulation of the turbulent mixing layer, J. Fluid Mech. 339, 357 (1997).
  12. Y. Zang, R. L. Street, and J. R. Koseff, A dynamic mixed subgrid-scale model and its application to turbulent recirculating flows, Phys. Fluids 5, 3186 (1993).
  13. B. Vreman, B. Geurts, and H. Kuerten, On the formulation of the dynamic mixed subgrid-scale model, Phys. Fluids 6, 4057 (1994).
  14. M. V. Salvetti and S. Banerjee, A priori tests of a new dynamic subgrid-scale model for finite-difference large-eddy simulations, Phys. Fluids 7, 2831 (1995).
  15. K. Horiuti, A new dynamic two-parameter mixed model for large-eddy simulation, Phys. Fluids 9, 3443 (1997).
  16. M. Germano, Averaging invariance of the turbulent equations and similar subgrid-scale modeling, CTR Manuscript 116 (1990).
  17. B. Vreman, B. Geurts, and H. Kuerten, Large-eddy simulation of the temporal mixing layer using the Clark model, Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 8, 309 (1996).
  18. H. Kobayashi and Y. Shimomura, Inapplicability of the dynamic Clark model to the large eddy simulation of incompressible turbulent channel flows, Phys. Fluids 15, L29 (2003).
  19. A. Vreman, Comment on “Inapplicability of the dynamic Clark model to the large eddy simulation of incompressible turbulent channel flows” [Phys. Fluids 15, L29 (2003)], Phys. Fluids 16, 490 (2004).
  20. N. Park and K. Mahesh, A velocity-estimation subgrid model constrained by subgrid scale dissipation, J. Comput. Phys. 227, 4190 (2008).
  21. Y. Shi, Z. Xiao, and S. Chen, Constrained subgrid-scale stress model for large eddy simulation, Phys. Fluids 20, 011701 (2008).
  22. K. Abe, An improved anisotropy-resolving subgrid-scale model with the aid of a scale-similarity modeling concept, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 39, 42 (2013).
  23. H. Qi, X. Li, R. Hu, and C. Yu, Quasi-dynamic subgrid-scale kinetic energy equation model for large-eddy simulation of compressible flows, J. Fluid Mech. 947, A22 (2022).
  24. A. Yoshizawa, Statistical theory for compressible turbulent shear flows, with the application to subgrid modeling, Phys. Fluids 29, 2152 (1986).
  25. G. A. Brès, F. E. Ham, J. W. Nichols, and S. K. Lele, Unstructured large-eddy simulations of supersonic jets, AIAA J. 55, 1164 (2017).
  26. G. I. Park, Wall-modeled large eddy simulation in an unstructured mesh environment, Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, 2014.
  27. M. Lee and R. D. Moser, Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to Reτ5200, J. Fluid Mech. 774, 395 (2015).
  28. S. Kawai and J. Larsson, Wall-modeling in large eddy simulation: Length scales, grid resolution, and accuracy, Phys. Fluids 24, 015105 (2012).
  29. P. S. Iyer and M. R. Malik, Wall-modeled LES of turbulent flow over a two dimensional Gaussian bump, ICCFD11-2022-0204, https://www.iccfd.org/iccfd11/assets/pdf/papers/ICCFD11_Paper-0204.pdf (2022).
  30. R. Agrawal, M. P. Whitmore, K. P. Griffin, S. T. Bose, and P. Moin, Non-Boussinesq subgrid-scale model with dynamic tensorial coefficients, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 074602 (2022).
  31. D. Zhou and H. J. Bae, Sensitivity analysis of wall-modeled large-eddy simulation for separated turbulent flow, J. Comput. Phys. 506, 112948 (2024).
  32. A. Uzun and M. R. Malik, High-fidelity simulation of turbulent flow past Gaussian bump, AIAA J. 60, 2130 (2022).
  33. M. P. Whitmore, K. P. Griffin, S. T. Bose, and P. Moin, Large-Eddy Simulation of a Gaussian Bump with Slip-Wall Boundary Conditions, Annual Research Briefs - 2021, Center for Turbulence Research (Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 2021).
  34. P. S. Iyer and M. R. Malik, Wall-modeled LES of the three-dimensional speed bump experiment, AIAA (2023), doi:10.2514/6.2023-0253.
  35. A. Uzun and M. R. Malik, A dynamic nonlinear subgrid-scale model for large-eddy simulation of complex turbulent flows, NASA Technical Report No. NASA-TM-20220013891 (2022).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation