CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

LES, DNS and RANS

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Like Tree5Likes
  • 1 Post By cdegroot
  • 4 Post By FMDenaro

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   December 14, 2005, 09:40
Default LES, DNS and RANS
  #1
Sas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Would anyone please explain the basic discrete difference among the above three. What I understant is, in LES the smaller scale (smaller than the grid) are modeled using some turbulence model like Smagorinsky model or dynamic model, DMM etc and NS equations are directly solved on the grid level. In DNS, these models are not used and the NS equations are directly solved with any turbulence closure. To resolve the smallest eddy, one needs a fine mesh. What about RANS ??? What is the meaning of time average NS equations..? Any type of comments will be appreicated. Sas.......
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 14, 2005, 10:41
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #2
Guillaume
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
All your description is good concerning DNS or LES.

For RANS, there is no time averaging (this is a common misunderstanding). The average is done - virtually - on a large number of the same experiment. Hence, as turbulence is chaotic, all the experiments are slightly different and RANS captures the mean. You are thus able to capture - if grid size is fine enough - some structures, for instance Von-Karman street eddies.

Now your question will be: what is the difference with LES in this case? As mentioned above, the structures you capture are a mean of the ones occuring in the corresponding set of experiments. You have only representative space and time scales of the mean representative turbulent structures. With LES (ideally a perfect code), you get an exact turbulent structure solved on the grid given the EXACT initial and boundary conditions imposed in the code, something you can never achieve for applied simulations as it is inconsistent with the chaotic nature of turbulence. The solution is to carry out several LES simulations for a range of initial and boundary conditions (essentially changing the turbulence phase) and doing the mean. Something which is much easier (conceptually) done by URANS (Unsteady RANS).

There is no use making all the efforts one can see to implement LES code for applied CFD (Fluent, Star-CD...), excepted for marketing as LES is really sexy today. I am really persuaded that the priority should be the reliability of the RANS solvers which are currently sold.

LES remains a very good laboratory tool for model developments as the isotropic scales may be decoupled from the coherent ones. But this is another story.
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 15, 2005, 02:50
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #3
Sas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thanx Guillaume! But, what I do not understand is that " To discuss RANS,what kind of experiments you are talking about? Are you talking about the numerical experiments? In case of numerical experiments, if the initial conditions are same, the the results will be same, no matter how many time you repeat the numerical experiments. Would you please clarify about RANS more discretely.. Thanks in advance... Sas..
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 15, 2005, 11:01
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #4
Guillaume
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Of course!

The discussion for RANS is purely statistics of real experiments. The averaging is done with statistics in mind.

For benchmarking, the rigorous way should be carrying thousands of real experiment and doing the mean. In practice, people do that in a single stationary experiment as, because of ergodicity, the averaging becomes time averaging if the experiment is time-independent.

Is this time-independent benchmarking sufficient to make full URANS reliable is another question but it does not damage the intrinsic concept of the method.
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 16, 2005, 01:45
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #5
Sas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
thank a lot ! But how does RANS differ than LES ? What is discrete difference? Like DNS does not use subgrid model as are used in LES? What about RANS?? Regards, Sas
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 16, 2005, 08:03
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #6
Lionel Larchevêque
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi,

From a discrete point of view, the essential difference between LES and (U)RANS is that RANS turbulent viscosity does not tend toward zero as cell size tends towards zero (or more reasonnably towards Kolmogorov length scale), contrary to the LES turbulent viscosity (assuming of course that RANS and LES models are based on Boussinesq hypothesis, which is often true).

Hope this helps,

Lionel
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 16, 2005, 08:20
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #7
Sas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi ! Thanks for response. But , in LES does eddy viscosity ever become zero? or tend to become zero. I think if the fluid is more turbulent, the eddy viscosity will be larger and vice versa in less turbulent flow, am I right??

Also would you please explain the difference between the method in which both (LES and RANS) are computed? Thank again, regards, Sas
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 16, 2005, 10:29
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #8
Guillaume
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I assume that you want to know the difference from a technical point of view.

RANS is averaging, thus the turbulent fluctuation (Reynolds tensor) is modelled for all the scales at one node.

LES is spatial filtering, thus only the turbulent fluctuation (Leonard tensor) below the filter size is modelled. All the scales larger than this size are considered as `perfectly' (or directly in the sense of DNS) solved. This is the reason why Lionel has said that the smaller the grid size the lower the eddy viscosity. In the limit case your filter is below the Kolmogorov scale (the smaller eddies existing in the turbulent field), you have nothing more to model. All the scales are resolved. You are doing DNS.

Usually, people claim that the scheme order should be larger for LES than RANS. If one has to consider that LES is DNS of a fraction of the turbulent scales (the largest ones), it may be consistent.
  Reply With Quote

Old   December 16, 2005, 11:45
Default Re: LES, DNS and RANS
  #9
Sas
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Thank you very much Guillaume and Lionel !! I got the point !! Sas.
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2012, 16:39
Default
  #10
New Member
 
Ivailo Rusev
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 5
et1ap2 is on a distinguished road
Hi,
I understood the main difference between LES and DNS, but I found something which in my opinion seems strange.
On the attached image there is a paragraph from "Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics", 3rd Edition, J.H. Ferziger, M. Meric, p. 277. On scheme of Fig. 9.3 large-scale eddies are solved with LES, but why small-scale eddies seem to be solved with DNS. Should they be solved with some subgrid-scale models instead of DNS?
Here I should say that I am quite new with CFD...

Thank you in advanced.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg LES.jpg (73.5 KB, 118 views)
et1ap2 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 11, 2012, 21:05
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Chris DeGroot
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 387
Rep Power: 6
cdegroot is on a distinguished road
Bringing up a very old thread but I will answer anyways. What that figure is trying to demonstrate is that the very small-scale details of the flow can only be resolved by DNS since these would be considered as "sub-grid" in your LES simulations. I think your confusion is that they are not saying that you solve the small-scale eddies with DNS and feed that in to your LES model, rather they are modelled by your sub-grid-scale model.

Last edited by cdegroot; May 11, 2012 at 21:05. Reason: Typo
cdegroot is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 12, 2012, 03:49
Default
  #12
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
I suggest also to see the sketch of DNS, LES, RANS spectra in the Sagaut book, it is useful ...
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Old   May 15, 2012, 21:10
Default
  #13
New Member
 
Ivailo Rusev
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 5
et1ap2 is on a distinguished road
Thank you for your replies.

So large-scale eddies are solved directly with NS equations in both LES and DNS cases. Small-scale eddies are firstly modelled with some subgrid model then solved with NS equations in LES. In DNS these ones (small-scale eddies) are solved directly with NS equations without modelling. Am I right? So where does the benefit of the computational effort in LES come from? How is this optimization achieved with subgrid modelling? In both LES and DNS the grid size is smaller than the smallest eddies, isn`t it?

I am trying to make the methods of LES and DNS clear to me so excuse me if my questions sound a bit silly
et1ap2 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 15, 2012, 21:31
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
Chris DeGroot
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Canada
Posts: 387
Rep Power: 6
cdegroot is on a distinguished road
You are close, however, the small scale turbulence is not *solved* at all in LES but its effects on the large scale eddies are accounted for using a subgrid scale model. It is called a "subgrid" model because it models things smaller than the grid size. If you solve a problem with LES you cannot get details about eddies smaller than the grid scale, which is why they need to be modelled. The reason LES takes less time than DNS is that the grid can be quite a bit more coarse because you don't need to capture the small turbulent fluctuations.
et1ap2 likes this.
cdegroot is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 16, 2012, 03:35
Default
  #15
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,568
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by et1ap2 View Post
Thank you for your replies.

So large-scale eddies are solved directly with NS equations in both LES and DNS cases. Small-scale eddies are firstly modelled with some subgrid model then solved with NS equations in LES. In DNS these ones (small-scale eddies) are solved directly with NS equations without modelling. Am I right? So where does the benefit of the computational effort in LES come from? How is this optimization achieved with subgrid modelling? In both LES and DNS the grid size is smaller than the smallest eddies, isn`t it?

I am trying to make the methods of LES and DNS clear to me so excuse me if my questions sound a bit silly

no, the issue is quite different ...
Assume you have some turbulent flow that you want to solve in a case with DNS and in a second case in LES.
The flow has a Kolmogorov scale eta (the smallest scale where a vortical structure is dissipated) that is a physical lenght depending on the problem. Performing DNS means that you use the (unfiltered) NS equation solved over a computational grid having all mesh sizes (dx, dy,dz) smaller than eta. You simply must solve all time and space components of the flow, this drive to a large number of computational unknowns.
Performing LES means that you will compute the solution of the "filtered" NS equations. The filter width, say delta (K_delta = pig/Delta), is greater than eta and lies in the inertial region of the energy spectra.
Very often, the filter width is only implicitly assumed by the computational mesh size. In conclusion, the optimization in LES is in the fact that you have a smaller computational number of unknowns than DSN. That part of the energy spectrum that you cut away by filtering is NOT resolved but modelled. The effect of the model (SGS) acts on the resolved field, but mainly near the highest resolved wavenumber components of the flow. The low wavenumber components are not practically altered neither by the filter or the SGS model, in this sense they are directly solved.
atmcfd, cdegroot, et1ap2 and 1 others like this.
FMDenaro is online now   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Mesh size for DNS and LES Glenn Horrocks Main CFD Forum 24 May 14, 2015 12:52
Converting RANS solver into LES Chiara Main CFD Forum 5 February 19, 2009 10:36
Need help for DNS and LES methods Paul Main CFD Forum 1 August 12, 2003 07:22
what re differences between DNS /LES starPlatinum Main CFD Forum 2 April 16, 2003 12:18
3D-2D LES Jan Ramboer Main CFD Forum 8 January 4, 2000 14:31


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:59.