4.7 Article

Dynamic unified RANS-LES simulations of high Reynolds number separated flows

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4961254

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA's NRA research opportunities in aeronautics program [NNX12AJ71A]
  2. NASA [NNX12AJ71A, 43413] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The development of hybrid RANS-LES methods is seen to be a very promising approach to enable efficient simulations of high Reynolds number turbulent flows involving flow separation. To contribute to further advances, we present a new, theoretically well based, dynamic hybrid RANS-LES method, referred to as DLUM. It is applied to a high Reynolds number flow involving both attached and separated flow regimes: a periodic hill flow is simulated at a Reynolds number of 37 000. Its performance is compared to pure LES, pure RANS, other hybrid RANS-LES (given by DLUM modifications), and experimental observations. It is shown that the use of this computational method offers huge cost reductions (which scale with Re/200, Re refers to the Reynolds number) of very high Reynolds number flow simulations compared to LES, it is much more accurate than RANS, and more accurate than LES, which is not fully resolved. In particular, this conclusion does also apply to the comparison of DLUM and pure LES simulations on rather coarse grids, which are often simply required to deal with simulations of very high Reynolds number flows: the DLUM provides mean velocity fields which are hardly affected by the grid, whereas LES velocity fields reveal significant shortcomings. We identified the reason for the superior performance of our new dynamic hybrid RANS-LES method compared to LES: it is the model's ability to respond to a changing resolution with adequate turbulent viscosity changes by ensuring simultaneously a physically correct turbulence length scale specification under the presence of interacting RANS and LES modes. Published by AIP Publishing.

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