4.7 Article

A unified understanding of scale-resolving simulations and near-wall modelling of turbulent flows using optimal finite-element projections

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 955, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2022.1030

关键词

turbulence modelling; turbulence simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main objective of this work is to develop a unified framework to assess and improve coarse-grained models of turbulence. Using a turbulent channel flow as an example, this study evaluates optimality in different limits and develops accuracy metrics for scale-resolving methods. Furthermore, a universal scaling relationship for slip velocity in wall-modeled LES is characterized, and improved slip-wall models are proposed based on insights from a priori tests.
The main objective of this work is to develop a unified framework that can be used as a lens to quantitatively assess and augment a wide range of coarse-grained models of turbulence, namely large eddy simulations (LES), hybrid Reynolds-averaged/LES methods and wall-modelled (WM)LES. Taking a turbulent channel flow as an example, optimality is assessed in the wall-resolved limit, the hybrid RANS-LES limit and the WMLES limit, via projections at different resolutions suitable for these approaches. These optimal a priori estimates are shown to have similar characteristics to existing a posteriori solutions reported in the literature. Consistent accuracy metrics are developed for scale-resolving methods using the optimal solution as a reference, and evaluations are performed. We further characterise the slip velocity in WMLES in terms of the near-wall under-resolution and develop a universal scaling relationship. Insights from the a priori tests are used to augment existing slip-based wall models. Various a posteriori tests reveal superior performance over the dynamic slip wall model. Guidance for the development of improved slip-wall models is provided, including a target for the dynamic procedure.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据