# Implicit Large Eddy Simulations

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

 April 7, 2011, 09:53 Implicit Large Eddy Simulations #1 Senior Member     Join Date: Jan 2011 Posts: 248 Blog Entries: 5 Rep Power: 10 Sponsored Links I have recently found out about Implicit LES: The idea of the method is to use LES without subgrid model, i.e. run laminar simulation on a fine grid, which is much coarser than greeds used for DNS. The justification of the method is based on the fact that energy of the eddies with space size less than l is proportional to l^2/3, so if our problem scale is L and the grid spacing is l, then the unaccounted eddies carry only (l/L)^2/3 part of the turbulent energy (see e.g; http://www.mit.edu/~auranga/presentations/Uranga_presentation-AIAA-2009-SanAntonio.pdf ). Now, I would like to run flow around an airfoil at Re=50K, the characteristic size of the problem is the boundary layer thikness, which is relatively big at this Re: Does it mean that I can run Implicit LES for a 3D airfoil, (which, e.g. can be laminar calculation in FLUENT) with grid spacing at foil surface of about 1/50 of the boundary layer size and get reliable results? (y+ for such spacing is order of 1 at this Re)? People doing ILES claim that numerical error plays role of subgrid model. Will this work with traditional finite-volume schemes implimented in, say Fluent, or this methods needs special numeric schemes. mm.abdollahzadeh likes this. Last edited by truffaldino; April 7, 2011 at 11:27.

 April 9, 2011, 18:51 #2 Senior Member     Paolo Lampitella Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Italy Posts: 742 Blog Entries: 17 Rep Power: 21 In my experience, it almost always turns out that what you are actually doing in Fluent is ILES, in the sense that the SGS has always a very limited effect, if any. This is determined by the numerical schemes available, which almost always overwhelmes the SGS part (hence their use is questionable at least). Are those schemes suitable for ILES? In my opinion NO (neither they are for explicit LES) but the answer can change according to the application (bluff body flows could be best suited for this). To convince yourself of this just run two simulations, one with a SGS scheme and one without it. Will the difference in results justify the overhead of a SGS model (even if a low one)? However, the approach to ILES in FLuent is to use a laminar model (which means no turbulence model at all), a suitable convective scheme (bounded central) and a "proper" grid and time steps. What proper means for the grid is application depending, for the time step you need a courant lower than 1 (2 if unavoidable)

April 10, 2011, 13:16
#3
Senior Member

Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 248
Blog Entries: 5
Rep Power: 10
Quote:
 Originally Posted by sbaffini However, the approach to ILES in FLuent is to use a laminar model (which means no turbulence model at all), a suitable convective scheme (bounded central) and a "proper" grid and time steps. What proper means for the grid is application depending, for the time step you need a courant lower than 1 (2 if unavoidable)
Thanks Paolo,

Is the convective scheme you have mentioned (bounded central) is a of Non Oscillatory Finite Volume (NFV) type? As far as I understood one has to use this type of discretization scheme for ILES.

I will be grateful if you could give more info on discretization options to set in Fluent laminar unsteday simulations for run it as ILES.

Truffaldino

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post picouli OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 0 October 10, 2008 08:38 picouli OpenFOAM Post-Processing 0 October 10, 2008 08:35 DANG Huixue FLUENT 2 October 8, 2008 10:01 usker Siemens 2 May 28, 2008 11:02 Palani FLUENT 1 April 5, 2007 08:49