2011
DOI: 10.1007/s10494-011-9380-x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Turbulence Resolution Scale Dependence in Large-Eddy Simulations of a Jet Flame

Abstract: The explicit dependence of LES fields on the turbulence resolution scale implies that LES statistics usually vary with and exhibit different convergence behaviors for different types of statistics, flow variables and subgrid LES models. The present work compares the performance of two popular subgrid models-the dynamic Smagorinsky model and the Vreman model-based on the convergence of their LES statistics with respect to for a piloted methane-air (Sandia D) flame. The -dependence of the LES statistics is studi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The modeling constant in the localized dynamic Smagorinsky model used here decreases to zero in laminar regions making this model suitable also for low-turbulence regions investigated here. However, other choices like Vreman (Vreman, 2004) or static Sigma (Nicoud et al, 2011) models are possible and these models are expected to give improvements only close to walls or in transitional regions (Kemenov et al, 2012;Rieth et al, 2014;Vreman, 2004) (not relevant for this study). Furthermore, these models involve additional model constants (thus their tuning) and so they are not considered for this study.…”
Section: Governing Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The modeling constant in the localized dynamic Smagorinsky model used here decreases to zero in laminar regions making this model suitable also for low-turbulence regions investigated here. However, other choices like Vreman (Vreman, 2004) or static Sigma (Nicoud et al, 2011) models are possible and these models are expected to give improvements only close to walls or in transitional regions (Kemenov et al, 2012;Rieth et al, 2014;Vreman, 2004) (not relevant for this study). Furthermore, these models involve additional model constants (thus their tuning) and so they are not considered for this study.…”
Section: Governing Equationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Issues therefore arise because the filter is defined to be equal or close to the grid size. Because of this, in solving the velocity field, LES results exhibit a dependence both on the grid resolution and on the numerical methods (e.g., Pope 2004;Geurts 2006;Kemenov et al 2012). Avoiding these issues requires a clear gap between the filter width (and related mixing length in the SGS model) and the grid size (e.g.…”
Section: Large-eddy Simulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The computational grid for this study was based on the "M4" grid in the LES study of Flame D by Kemenov, et al [35]. This grid spanned a cylindrical region of 100D x 20D x 2, where D is the jet diameter.…”
Section: X2 Numerical Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This grid spanned a cylindrical region of 100D x 20D x 2, where D is the jet diameter. This grid was shown to be grid resolved using a similar discretion and solution procedure as used in this study [35]. This grid extended upstream of the nozzle exit plane 0.3D in the co-flow region and included approximately 2.7M grid points in a 216 x 156 x 80 arrangement.…”
Section: X2 Numerical Formulationmentioning
confidence: 99%