4.6 Article

Turbulence spectra characteristics of high order schemes for direct and large eddy simulation

期刊

APPLIED NUMERICAL MATHEMATICS
卷 36, 期 4, 页码 447-474

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-9274(00)00019-2

关键词

turbulence spectra; essentially nonoscillatory schemes; compact schemes; high-order schemes; filters; direct numerical simulation; large eddy simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The comparative resolution of the high wavenumber portion of compressible turbulence energy spectrum by some high order numerical schemes is presented in this paper, included in this are the essentially nonoscillatory (ENO) schemes, the weighted essentially nonoscillatory schemes (WENO), and the compact differencing schemes. The governing equations are the Navier-Stokes equations and the objective is to identify the numerical scheme that best represents the physics of compressible turbulence. Mach numbers MI values of 0.1, 0.5 and 0.7 are studied. The compact differencing schemes need filters for numerical stability. It is found in this work that a parameter in the filter scheme provides some flexibility for controlling the physical turbulence energy transfer rate at high wavenumbers, vis-a-vis the numerical dissipation at those scales. Although the ENO schemes do not require filters for numerical stability, the present study shows that the addition of filters improves the energy transfer process at high wavenumbers. Without filtering, with relatively coarse grids, numerical turbulence caused by stencil adaptation persists. This limits the useful wavenumber resolution range of the ENO schemes. The WENO schemes do not require the stabilizing filters but the results tend to he slightly more dissipative. Finally, at low Mach numbers, the current compact differencing and filter scheme formulation gives better results but as the Mach number increases the relative suitability of the ENO method increases. (C) 2001 IMACS. Published by Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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