
[Sponsors] 
November 9, 2021, 04:51 
Computational effort of various LES models

#1 
New Member
velkon123
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 4 
Is there a significant difference in compational effort between 0equation and 1equation LES models. For simulation a combustor for an aero engine I want to decide between the 0equation models (Upwind LES model, Smagorinsky Model, Dynamic Smagorinsky Model, Sigma LES) and the 1equation models (Oneequation model/kequation, Dynamic Structure model and Consistent Dynamic Structure model).
It seems that the Dynamic structure model and the Consistent Dynamic Structure model are most accurate however I also want to take the computational power into account for these models. 

November 9, 2021, 06:19 

#2  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,152
Rep Power: 66 
Quote:
The dynamic procedure is generally more expensive than other SGS models. PS: what do you mean for "Upwind LES model", the ILES formulation? 

November 9, 2021, 06:49 

#3 
Senior Member

There are two factors here to consider, in my opinion.
The formal aspect is very simple. Assuming you use a segregated solver, the cost of a 1 eq. turb. model is similar to the one of any of your momentum equations. In any case, this is order of magnitudes higher than any algebraic model, however complex, for any reasonable implementation of the two. Then there is the practical aspect. You mention better results, however "seems" might be a little weak to switch from an algebraic model to a 1 eq. model. One important aspect is also related to how such 1 eq models are used. If they still provide an eddy viscosity for the momentum equations, my personal opinion is that yes, they can give some additional insight for an eddy viscosity, but not much beyond what a simple wall distance function could give. Also, it is of paramount importance to understand the nature of the code where such models are implemented. The exact same models can behave differently, just with respect to each other, when implemented in different codes. It is probable that 1 eq models might be somehow better in the so called VLES regime, maybe with strong recirculations; that is, where actual history effects might become important and more reliable than a grid dependent dissipation function. Or maybe you have a case where one of the two modeling approaches is simply wrong, while the other not: you don't really have choice then. But all in all, 1 eq. models haven't had great traction in LES, exactly because of the cost and the limited effect that they can have with respect to simple algebraic models. 

November 9, 2021, 17:47 

#4 
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,025
Rep Power: 60 
Already answered but since I can perceive certain points to be still unclear, I write it again in my own words in hopes that it might benefit other readers.
Solving a transport equation is at least one order of magnitude more expensive than solving an algebraic equation. In a stereotypical LES you solve 3 transport equations for the filtered velocities (one for each component). Then you have probably a subgrid model. If it is a 0eqn algebraic model then it adds some cost which is generally small compared to how much it is to solve your 3 transport equations (because orders of magnitude) unless there is some really quirky implementation details you have to work around. If your subgrid model is a 1eqn model then it solves another transport equation so your computational cost goes like 3+1=>4 (or 33% increase). The Dynamic procedure in the Dynamic Smagorinsky approach involves solving the filtered velocities on both the test filter and the grid filter so you have to solve the 3 momentum equations twice. So 3+3=>6 and you dbl your computational cost. This is despite the underlying subgrid model still being an algebraic 0eqn model. So be careful where you put these dynamic procedure approaches in your ranking. Actually in reality there are a lot of other overhead costs so the increase isn't 33% or 100% but a bit lower. The dynamic Smagorinsky approach for example is more like x1.8 compared to regular algebraiconly Smagorinsky and 1eqn models about x1.2. 

November 9, 2021, 17:57 

#5  
Senior Member

Quote:
Last edited by sbaffini; November 10, 2021 at 03:09. 

November 10, 2021, 09:06 

#6 
New Member
velkon123
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 4 
Thank you all for the replies. As I read that as the Dynamic Structure model is not a purely dissipative model like the dynamic Smagorinsky model it performs better in rotating turbulence, so also for the processes similar in combustion. However, when reading the above replies, is it true that the increase in performance in anisotropic flows for the dynamic structure model is marginal? In addition, how does the Dynamic Smagorinsky model and the Dynamic Structure model relate to each other in terms of computational effort?


November 10, 2021, 09:39 

#8  
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,152
Rep Power: 66 
Quote:
In addition, consider also the scale similarity model, it is not dissipative and can be formulated in the dynamic procedure framework. It requires the cost of the explicit filtering. 

November 10, 2021, 09:44 

#9  
New Member
velkon123
Join Date: Jan 2020
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 4 
Quote:
The turbulence models are compared in the section from page 8 till page 12 

November 10, 2021, 13:23 

#10  
Senior Member

Quote:
Note that the role of k_sgs (and its transport equation) here is pretty much different from the case where it is used in determining an eddy viscosity. Here it scales a pure scalesimilar term, that has nothing to do with the eddy viscosity. In practice, k_sgs works like a sensor/reservoir for the model. In this sense, the additional equation might have more sense here. Unless they use a dynamic procedure in the k_sgs equation (which is not clear from the paper), I think that the "dynamic" in the model name is pure marketing and highly misleading. It is dynamic in the same way that a pure scale similar model is... that is, no way. With these details, I think it's up to you to decide if the costs are worth it or not. All considered, I think you should compare this model with a dynamic mixed model. Considering that the area of application seems to be combustion, the relative costs are indeed order 37 (if I did my math correctly) scalars to be filtered and gradients of 10 variables to be computed. So, the dynamic structure model might be really a winning option if it actually works as mentioned in the paper. Note, however, that this is mostly a review and, in my opinion, these should be carefully scrutinized in LES because, as I said, the code is very important in LES and two codes using the same sgs model might give different results. You could basically do a whole Ph.D. on the implementation of scale similar terms in actual codes, so you might want to look carefully if the said dynamic structure model has specifications for the code you intend to use. Also, I feel obliged to add that, the dynamic procedure numbers I used above are those of the classical, and most common, procedure. There are variants of this that greatly reduce such costs (say, around 12 scalars only to be filtered in the general case). 

November 11, 2021, 09:30 

#11 
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,025
Rep Power: 60 
I just realized combustion is involved so some points can be reinforced.
Always you solve at least the momentum transport equations. In addition to this, you are solving also an energy equation if you have any type of compressible medium. In combustion you solve some type of mixture model and a reaction model (at the very minimum). You are going to have some type of oxidizer/fuel mixture fraction model or a bunch of additional species transport models. Then you have at least a reaction progress equation if you are not brute forcing the chemistry. So most of your computational cost is expended doing non subgrid things and the overall difference in computational time that you see in practice can indeed become quite marginal when you go from one LES model to the next. So back to my old example. If I go from solving 3 momentum equations + 1 keqn then the cost goes like 3+1=>4. But a combustion problem might look more like 3 momentum equations, 1 energy equation, 1 mixture fraction, 1 progress variable, + my 1eqn ksgs model so 6+1=>7 is a much less significant increase than before for a very very lean reacting LES. 

Tags 
1equation, combustion, computational effort, dynamic smagorinsky, les 
Thread Tools  Search this Thread 
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
LES scale similarity and mixedSmagorinsky models for OpenFOAM v4.x or above  eddykendo  OpenFOAM  0  August 9, 2018 02:59 
Comparing SGS models for LES  sjwon1991  Main CFD Forum  3  November 23, 2016 05:30 
LES of Turbulent Channel Flow; increased flux for some models?  Selvinus  Main CFD Forum  14  September 29, 2015 05:15 
LES models and relative coefficients  ArathoN  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  3  February 23, 2014 08:40 
Scale similarity models in LES  Gary Dantinne  Main CFD Forum  0  September 21, 1999 10:10 