4.7 Article

On the eddy-resolving capability of high-order discontinuous Galerkin approaches to implicit LES / under-resolved DNS of Euler turbulence

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL PHYSICS
卷 330, 期 -, 页码 615-623

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.10.056

关键词

Implicit LES; Under-resolved DNS; Dispersion-diffusion analysis; High-order discontinuous Galerkin; Inviscid Taylor-Green vortex; Euler turbulence

资金

  1. Brazilian Science without Borders scheme
  2. LFC-UK Centre - Airbus/EADS
  3. EPSRC [EP/1037946, EP/L000407]
  4. Royal Academy of Engineering Research Chair [10145/86]
  5. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/L000407/1, EP/I037946/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. EPSRC [EP/L000407/1, EP/I037946/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We present estimates of spectral resolution power for under-resolved turbulent Euler flows obtained with high-order discontinuous Galerkin (DG) methods. The '1% rule' based on linear dispersion-diffusion analysis introduced by Moura et al. (2015) [10] is here adapted for 3D energy spectra and validated through the inviscid Taylor-Green vortex problem. The 1% rule estimates the wavenumber beyond which numerical diffusion induces an artificial dissipation range on measured energy spectra. As the original rule relies on standard up winding, different Riemann solvers are tested. Very good agreement is found for solvers which treat the different physical waves in a consistent manner. Relatively good agreement is still found for simpler solvers. The latter however displayed spurious features attributed to the inconsistent treatment of different physical waves. It is argued that, in the limit of vanishing viscosity, such features might have a significant impact on robustness and solution quality. The estimates proposed are regarded as useful guidelines for no-model DG-based simulations of free turbulence at very high Reynolds numbers. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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