Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1 Introduction
One of the most impressive achievements of Large-Eddy Simulations (LES) is
the possibility of computing the large scale ow vortices which govern the large
scale transfers of mass and momentum. Since an important aspect the subgrid-
scale (SGS) models must represent is the kinetic energy exchange between the
resolved and unresolved scales, several authors have examined the inuence of
the coherent vortices on the so called \subgrid-scale dissipation" term ij Sij< ,
(e.g. Piomelli et. al 1] , O'Neil & Meneveau 2] ). In this context, a
complete account of the role played by the coherent vortices in the interscale
interactions in plane jets was recently given by da Silva & Metais 3] . Another
important issue that begins to receive increased attention is the inuence of the
SGS models on the coherent structures computed from large-eddy simulations
(e.g. Silvestrini 4] , Vreman et. al 5] , Horiuti 6] ).
The present work is focused in analyzing this problem through a-priori tests
of several SGS models. The starting point is the transport equation for (half the
square of) the resolved vorticity modulus,
@
1 < < + u< @ 1 < < = < < S < + @ 2 1 < <
i i j @xj 2 i i | i {zj ij} @xj @xj 2 i i
|@t 2{z } | {z } III | {z }
I II IV
@ < < 2 kp
; @xi @xi ; "ijk <i @x@ @x
@
(1)
| j j
{z } | j p {z }
V VI
which is valid local and
@uinstantaneously.
Here, the \<"s denote a spatially
< 1 < @u< j
ltered variable, Sij = 2 @xj + @xi is the grid-scale (GS) deformation tensor
i
2 The e ect of SGS models on the vortical structures from LES
and ij = (ui uj )< ; u<i u<j is the unknown subgrid-stress tensor which must
be modeled. The eect of the SGS models in the computed vortical structures
from LES appears through term VI (SGS vorticity dissipation). Several plane
jet DNS were carried out upon which a box or top hat lter was used to separate
the grid and subgrid-scales of motion (details of the simulation are given in da
Silva & Metais 3] ).
models will have a non negligible impact on the resolved vorticity of the ow.
Thankfully, as we shall see below all models work quite well.
Figure 2 gives some more insights into the nature of terms III, V and VI from
equation (1). The gure shows PDFs from these terms at the far eld of the
turbulent plane jet, for lter 2 = 25. The gure shows that the SGS vorticity
dissipation (term VI) can be either a sink (forward enstrophy cascade - TV I < 0)
or a source (backward enstrophy cascade - TV I > 0) of resolved vorticity, but the
forward cascade is dominates, in analogy with what happens with the resolved
kinetic energy equation.
A-priori tests were conducted using several SGS models in order to analyze
their ability to represent the SGS vorticity dissipation (term VI from equation
(1)). The models analyzed were the standard Smagorinsky (Smag), Structure
Function (SF), Selective Structure Function (SSF), Dynamic Smagorinsky (Ds-
mag) and the Gradient model (GM) (Lesieur & Metais 8] , Meneveau &
Katz 7] ).
ndings are in agreement with the results from Vreman et. al 5] for the
evolution of the vorticity maximum in LES of a mixing layer.
PDFs of the real and modeled term VI are shown in gure 4. An encouraging
result comes from the forward enstrophy cascade tail (TV I < 0) which shows
that all the terms compare very well with the real PDF of term VI. Another
interesting result is that all the models provide a backward enstrophy cascade
(TV I > 0). This is in contrast with the resolved kinetic energy equation in
which the eddy-viscosity models never provide any backward energy transfer.
The Smagorinsky and Structure Function models cause the smallest backward
enstrophy cascades. The Dynamic Smagorinsky model seems to have the best
agreement with the correct values of the backward enstrophy tail, whereas the
gradient model leads to an excessive backward enstrophy cascade. This agrees
also with its well know propensity to cause numerical problems.
A deeper analysis of the topological behavior of these models is presently un-
derway. Isosurfaces of vorticity and modeled term VI show that most of the SGS
vorticity dissipation occurs right at the core of the ow vortices (the correlation
coecient between the vorticity norm and term VI modeled by the Smagorin-
sky model is C(V ISmag ) ;0:5), whereas the backward enstrophy transfer
occurs next to the vortices. Surprisingly all the models give a reasonably good
agreement with the topological behavior of the real SGS vorticity dissipation.
References
1] U. Piomelli, Y. Yu, and R. Adrian. Subgrid-scale energy transfer and near-
wall turbulence structure. Physics of Fluids A, 8(1):215{224, 1996.
2] J. O'Neil, and C. Meneveau. Subgrid-scale stresses and their modeling in a
turbulent plane wake. J. Fluid Mech., 349:253{293, 1997.
3] C. B. da Silva, and O. Metais. On the inuence of coherent structures upon
interscale interactions in turbulent plane jets. Submitted to J. Fluid Mech.
(revised form), 2002.
4] J. Silvestrini. Simulation des grandes echelles des zones de melange! ap-
plication "a la propulsion solide des lanceurs spatiaux. PhD thesis, INPG,
Grenoble, 1996.
5] B. Vreman, B. Geurts, and H. Kuerten. Large eddy simulation of the turbu-
lent mixing layer. J. Fluid Mech, 339:357{390, 1997.
6] K. Horiuti. Assessment of subgrid-scale models in dissipative vortical struc-
tures. Advances in Turbulence VIII, CIMNE, 519{522, 2000.
7] C. Meneveau, and J. Katz. Scale invariance and turbulence models for large-
eddy simulation. Annual Review of Fluid Mech., 32:1{32, 2000.
8] M. Lesieur, and O. Metais. New trends in large-eddy simulations of turbu-
lence. Annual Review of Fluid Mech., 28:48{98, 1999.