4.7 Article

Comparison of the lattice Boltzmann equation and discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme methods for direct numerical simulation of decaying turbulent flows

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW E
卷 94, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevE.94.043304

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51125024]
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) [CNS1513031, CBET-1235974, AGS-1139743]
  3. Directorate For Geosciences
  4. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences [1139743] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  5. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys
  6. Directorate For Engineering [1235974] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The main objective of this work is to perform a detailed comparison of the lattice Boltzmann equation (LBE) and the recently developed discrete unified gas-kinetic scheme (DUGKS) methods for direct numerical simulation (DNS) of the decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence and the Kida vortex flow in a periodic box. The flow fields and key statistical quantities computed by both methods are compared with those from the pseudospectral method at both low and moderate Reynolds numbers. The results show that the LBE is more accurate and efficient than the DUGKS, but the latter has a superior numerical stability, particularly for high Reynolds number flows. In addition, we conclude that the DUGKS can adequately resolve the flow when the minimum spatial resolution parameter k(max)eta > 3, where k(max) is the maximum resolved wave number and eta is the flow Kolmogorov length. This resolution requirement can be contrasted with the requirements of k(max)eta > 1 for the pseudospectral method and k(max)eta > 2 for the LBE. It should be emphasized that although more validations should be conducted before the DUGKS can be called a viable tool for DNS of turbulent flows, the present work contributes to the overall assessment of the DUGKS, and it provides a basis for further applications of DUGKS in studying the physics of turbulent flows.

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