
[Sponsors] 
September 5, 2012, 04:54 

#21  
Senior Member

Quote:
Actually, it can be shown that assuming the constant to be equal at the two filter levels imply that the computed dynamic constant is that at the test filter level and not at the basic filter level (either explicit or implicit). Of course, for a very well resolved DNS this is not a real issue, also because the delta^2 factor will still be at work. Nonetheless, it is a well known inconsistency of the classical dynamic procedure. There are two known modifications of the dynamic procedure to overcome this issue. The first one is proposed by PortčAgel, Menevau and Parlange; the other ones are by TejadaMartinez and Jansen: PortéAgel F, Meneveau C, Parlange MB. 2000a. A scaledependent dynamic model for largeeddy simulation: application to a neutral atmospheric boundary layer. J Fluid Mech 415: 261284 “A parameterfree dynamic subgridscale model for largeeddy simulation”, A.E. Tejada Martinez and K.E. Jansen, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering,195 (2006), pp 29192938 “A Dynamic Smagorinsky Model with a Dynamic Filter Width Ratio”, A.E. TejadaMartinez and K.E. Jansen, Physics of Fluids, 16 (2004) 25142528 The work of TejadaMartinez also adresses the issue of determining the delta ratio when the basic filter is implicit and you can't simply fix a value based on the computational cell. However, i'm not pretty confident on this work as in some cases (i.e., the finite volume based dynamic procedure of Prof. Denaro) i found some inconsistencies in applying such procedure. Last edited by sbaffini; September 5, 2012 at 05:07. Reason: corrected the incomplete references 

September 5, 2012, 05:45 

#22 
Member
Francesco Capuano
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 78
Rep Power: 7 
Dear Paolo, thank you very much! That is exactly what I was looking for, and I'll go through the references you suggested. I think the underlying problem for classical SGS models is that they imply a certain filter, rather then adapting to the actual filter.
However, one more reference I suggest is a part from the book by Pope (p. 594597), when he talks about the limiting behaviors of the Smagorinsky model (filter in the dissipative range, filter being large compared to the integral scale and laminar flow). In any case, as you also said, this is just a theoretical issue: from a practical point of view there is no concrete inconsistency. 

September 5, 2012, 06:44 

#23 
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,780
Rep Power: 23 
Remember that the Germano identity is exact, it is the SGS model you introduce in it that generates the approximations (and the inconsistences).
You can think about several improvements ... different functions model at different grid levels, or some modification in the eddy viscosity assumption... I hope you can work on it 

December 5, 2012, 06:04 

#24 
Senior Member
Albrecht vBoetticher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Swizerland
Posts: 187
Rep Power: 7 
Adressing the filtering, there is aswll the point of averaging the SGS model constant when using dynamic SGS models. Averaging along homogenious flow directions is a theoretical case when simulating natural flows, the dynamic localization approach has its own drawbacks, so I wonder what you would think about a lagrangian dynamic mixed smagorinsky / scale similarity SGS model? (not implemented in OpenFOAM yet)


December 5, 2012, 09:02 

#25  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,780
Rep Power: 23 
Quote:


December 10, 2012, 06:44 

#26 
Senior Member
Albrecht vBoetticher
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Zürich, Swizerland
Posts: 187
Rep Power: 7 
I see. So I wonder what you 'd think about the dynamic mixed version of Meneveau's lagrangian SGS model in comparison to the dynamic mixed model, both provided for OpenFOAM by Prof. Kornev: http://www.lemos.unirostock.de/en/cfdsoftware/
Found it due to a link by Hannes Kröger, thanks Hannes! 

December 10, 2012, 08:28 

#27  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,780
Rep Power: 23 
Quote:


April 17, 2013, 11:44 
Gaussing Filters and LES codes

#28  
New Member
sankarv
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
I have a general question about the use of filters other than tophat filter in CFD codes. Let us consider implicitly filtered LES approach, Smagorinsky model without dynamic coefficient estimation and finite volume CFD code. If I want to use Gaussian filter, where will the Gaussian filter kernel appear in the cfd code ? The filtered LES equation only needs filter length scale for the subgrid model. If I want to use Gaussian filter how will the CFD code see the filter kernel shape ? Will the filter length scale be different from cube root of cell volume if I want to use Gaussian filter ? If I use dynamic smagorinsky or mixed models for subgrid stresses, there will be a step to explicit filter where the filter shape information is used by the code. If I use nondynamic models, then I do not see where the filter shape will be used in the CFD code. Can you please clarify ? Thanks Vaidya 

April 17, 2013, 12:09 

#29  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,780
Rep Power: 23 
Quote:
[/QUOTE] Will the filter length scale be different from cube root of cell volume if I want to use Gaussian filter ? If I use dynamic smagorinsky or mixed models for subgrid stresses, there will be a step to explicit filter where the filter shape information is used by the code. If I use nondynamic models, then I do not see where the filter shape will be used in the CFD code. Can you please clarify ? Thanks Vaidya[/QUOTE] actually, both in scalesimilar and mixed (static) model, the shape of the second filter must be prescribed as it is really applied on the variable to formulate the SGS model. To complete the answers, the lenght of the filter should be deduced by the transfer function that is really in action in the code. The cube root of the cell measure is a rude approximation. Further details can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...21999111000933 

April 17, 2013, 13:39 

#30 
New Member
sankarv
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 26
Rep Power: 7 
Thanks a lot for the quick reply. Your paper is certainly interesting. I will look into it carefully.


September 10, 2013, 23:46 

#31 
New Member
Mahfuz Sarwar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 5 
In most of the cases we are talking about the filter size is larger than the grid size in the case of explicit filtering or almost equals to grid size if implicitly filtered.
What will happen if the filter width is less than the grid cell? Whether it will create any unphysical condition? What will be the effect on the SGS modelling? 

September 11, 2013, 03:58 

#32  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,780
Rep Power: 23 
Quote:


September 19, 2013, 22:56 

#33  
New Member
Mahfuz Sarwar
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 13
Rep Power: 5 
Quote:
It would be a great help if you just clear me up in this regards, what is the difference between sharp cutoff filter and smooth filter in LES? 

September 20, 2013, 11:02 

#34  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,780
Rep Power: 23 
Quote:
The smooth filter is characterized by a smoothing behaviour of the resolved frequencies. For example the tophat filter acts as sin (k*h) / (k*h). The first zero corresponds to the same cutoff frequency Kc=pi/h, but before it the components are now smoothed 

Tags 
filter, les, navier stokes equation 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
basic question for pressure BC  vivien  OpenFOAM  0  November 23, 2009 06:01 
Basic Poiseuille flow simulation question  Ashish  Main CFD Forum  0  October 2, 2007 13:05 
New to CFD with some basic question  Newbie  Main CFD Forum  3  October 23, 2006 12:22 
About filtering process in LES  Yang  Main CFD Forum  2  January 29, 2002 14:46 
Dynamic filtering for LES  Takuya TSUJI  Main CFD Forum  1  July 14, 1999 02:17 