1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
A self-adjusting flow dependent formulation for the classical Smagorinsky model coefficient
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.4804393
/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/5/10.1063/1.4804393
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/5/10.1063/1.4804393

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(a) Resolved and unresolved eddies in turbulent flow field. (b) Translational velocity and rotation rate components in , , and directions.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Dimensions of channel flow test case.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(a) The calculated mean streamwise velocity profile compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” and DNS. (b) The related absolute error field. (c) The model coefficient profiles.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(a) The calculated -component of Reynolds stress tensor compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” and DNS. (b) The related absolute error field.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(a, c, e) The calculated deviatoric diagonal Reynolds stresses compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” and DNS. (b, d, f) The related absolute error field.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(a)–(d) The calculated deviatoric Reynolds stresses for different grid resolutions.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

(a) The calculated mean streamwise velocity compared with DNS. (b) The related absolute error field. > 1.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

(a)–(c) The calculated deviatoric diagonal Reynolds stresses compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky model and DNS for the case of y > 1.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

(a) The calculated mean streamwise velocity compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” and DNS. (b) The related absolute error field.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

(a, c, e) The calculated deviatoric diagonal Reynolds stresses compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” and DNS. (b, d, f) The related absolute error field.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

(a) The calculated -component of the Reynolds stress tensor compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” and DNS. (b) The absolute error field.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

The calculated mean streamwise velocity (a), deviatoric diagonal Reynolds stresses (b, c, d), and the -component of Reynolds stresses compared with those of dynamic Smagorinsky model and DNS (e).

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

The calculated mean streamwise velocity and the deviatoric diagonal Reynolds stresses shown for different grid resolutions.

Image of FIG. 14.
FIG. 14.

Schematic of the duct geometry and the coordinate system is shown.

Image of FIG. 15.
FIG. 15.

The calculated mean streamwise velocity compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky model, “no model,” and DNS.

Image of FIG. 16.
FIG. 16.

The calculated rms values of the diagonal Reynolds stresses compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” LES of Madabhushi and Vanka, and DNS.

Image of FIG. 17.
FIG. 17.

(a) The calculated -component of Reynolds stress tensor compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model” and DNS. (b) The model coefficient profiles.

Image of FIG. 18.
FIG. 18.

Grid in the , -plane.

Image of FIG. 19.
FIG. 19.

The calculated mean streamwise velocity compared the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” LES data, DNS, and experiments. (a) / = 1.06, (b) / = 1.54.

Image of FIG. 20.
FIG. 20.

The calculated mean vertical velocity compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky, “no model,” LES data, DNS, and experiments. (a) / = 1.06, (b) / = 1.54.

Image of FIG. 21.
FIG. 21.

The calculated streamwise turbulent intensity compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky model, “no model,” LES data, DNS, and experiments. (a) / = 1.06, (b) / = 1.54.

Image of FIG. 22.
FIG. 22.

The calculated crosswise turbulent intensity compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky model, “no model,” LES data, DNS, and experiments. (a) / = 1.06, (b) / = 1.54.

Image of FIG. 23.
FIG. 23.

The calculated -component of the Reynolds stress tensor compared with the dynamic Smagorinsky model, “no model,” LES data, DNS, and experiments. (a) / = 1.06, (b) / = 1.54.

Image of FIG. 24.
FIG. 24.

Simplified human upper airway model. From M. Brouns et al. , J. Appl. Physiol.102, 1178–1184 (Year: 2007)10.1152/japplphysiol.01063.2006.

Image of FIG. 25.
FIG. 25.

Normalized two component ( and ) velocity magnitude corresponding to central sagittal plane: (a), (b), and (c) are one (d1), two (d2), and three (d3) tracheal diameter downstream of layrnx, respectively, shown in (d). The PIV experimental data was produced by Brouns et al. , J. Appl. Physiol.102, 1178–1184 (Year: 2007)10.1152/japplphysiol.01063.2006.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Resolution of the applied LES grids for the channel flow at .

Generic image for table
Table II.

Resolution of the applied LES grids for the channel flow at .

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/5/10.1063/1.4804393
2013-05-20
2014-04-20
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: A self-adjusting flow dependent formulation for the classical Smagorinsky model coefficient
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/25/5/10.1063/1.4804393
10.1063/1.4804393
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM