4.4 Article

A Mesh Adaptation Strategy to Predict Pressure Losses in LES of Swirled Flows

期刊

FLOW TURBULENCE AND COMBUSTION
卷 99, 期 1, 页码 93-118

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10494-017-9808-z

关键词

LES; Swirl injector; Pressure losses; Adaptive mesh refinement

资金

  1. European Research Council under the European Union's Seventh Framework Program (FP) / ERC Grant [ERC-AdG 319067-INTECOCIS]
  2. SAFRAN HELICOPTER ENGINES

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Large-Eddy Simulation (LES) has become a potent tool to investigate instabilities in swirl flows even for complex, industrial geometries. However, the accurate prediction of pressure losses on these complex flows remains difficult. The paper identifies localised near-wall resolution issues as an important factor to improve accuracy and proposes a solution with an adaptive mesh h-refinement strategy relying on the tetrahedral fully automatic MMG3D library of Dapogny et al. (J. Comput. Phys. 262, 358-378, 2014) using a novel sensor based on the dissipation of kinetic energy. Using a joint experimental and numerical LES study, the methodology is first validated on a simple diaphragm flow before to be applied on a swirler with two counter-rotating passages. The results demonstrate that the new sensor and adaptation approach can effectively produce the desired local mesh refinement to match the target losses, measured experimentally. Results shows that the accuracy of pressure losses prediction is mainly controlled by the mesh quality and density in the swirler passages. The refinement also improves the computed velocity and turbulence profiles at the swirler outlet, compared to PIV results. The significant improvement of results confirms that the sensor is able to identify the relevant physics of turbulent flows that is essential for the overall accuracy of LES. Finally, in the appendix, an additional comparison of the sensor fields on tetrahedral and hexahedral meshes demonstrates that the methodology is broadly applicable to all mesh types.

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

4.4
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