A scale-dependent dynamic model for large-eddy simulation: application to a neutral atmospheric boundary layer

By Fernando Port'e-Agel, Charles Meneveau, Marc B. Parlange. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2000

601 citations recorded by the source corpus.

A scale-dependent dynamic subgrid-scale model for large-eddy simulation of turbulent flows is proposed. Unlike the traditional dynamic model, it does not rely on the assumption that the model coefficient is scale invariant. The model is based on a second test-filtering operation which allows us to determine from the simulation how the coefficient varies with scale. The scale-dependent model is tested in simulations of a neutral atmospheric boundary layer. In this application, near the ground the grid scale is by necessity comparable to the local integral scale (of the order of the distance to the wall). With the grid scale and/or the test-filter scale being outside the inertial range, scale invariance is broken. The results are compared with those from (a) the traditional Smagorinsky model that requires specification of the coefficient and of a wall damping function, and (b) the standard dynamic model that assumes scale invariance of the coefficient. In the near-surface region the traditional Smagorinsky and standard dynamic models are too dissipative and not dissipative enough, respectively. Simulations with the scale-dependent dynamic model yield the expected trends of the coefficient as a function of scale and give improved predictions of velocity spectra at different heights from the ground. Consistent with the improved dissipation characteristics, the scale-dependent model also yields improved mean velocity profiles.

Subfields: Atmospheric Science, Computational Mechanics, Environmental Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/638d5670fa327ce7e676a49f966f24e7a3f91c80

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Atmospheric Science

In Computational Mechanics

In Environmental Engineering

Citations in the corpus

Approximate Wall Boundary Conditions in the Large-Eddy Simulation of High Reynolds Number Flow (2000, background): “It has also been noticed recently that the value of the Smagorinsky coefficient and eddy viscosity drop dramatically near the wall in the outer flow, which has been found to be occur on the first few grid cells away from the wall regardless of the physical grid spacing [ 41 ].”
Large-eddy simulation of stably stratified atmospheric boundary layer turbulence: A scale-dependent dynamic modeling approach (2005, methodology): “Instead of the Newton-Raphson method used by Porté-Agel et al. (2000) and Porté-Agel (2004), we use a more robust eigenvalue based method (Press et al. 1992) to obtain the roots of this polynomial.”
Explicit Filtering and Reconstruction Turbulence Modeling for Large-Eddy Simulation of Neutral Boundary Layer Flow (2005, methodology): “It is better than several previous attempts to improve profiles, where agreement within about 0.2 from unity was achieved by Sullivan et al. (1994), the backscatter results of Mason and Brown in Andren et al. (1994), Porte-Agel et al. (2000) , and Ding et al. (2001), using various SGS methods.”
Proper orthogonal decomposition closure models for turbulent flows: A numerical comparison (2011, methodology): “…proposed in Wang et al. (2011) to discretize two new POD-ROMs, inspired from state-of-the-art LES closure modeling strategies: the dynamic subgrid-scale (DS) model (Germano et al. 1991; Meneveau et al. 1996; Porté-Agel et al. 2000) and the variational multiscale (VMS) model (Hughes et al. 2000).”
Wall-layer models for large-eddy simulations (2008, methodology): “Corrections to the subgrid-scale stresses near the wall (see, for instance [64]) may be a more realistic technique to improve the model accuracy near the wall.”
Large‐eddy simulation of a diurnal cycle of the atmospheric boundary layer: Atmospheric stability and scaling issues (2006, background): “However, this assumption does not hold in the vicinity of the surface [Porté-Agel et al., 2000b] and in stable conditions [Kleissl et al., 2003], and a proper SGS formulation should incorporate scale dependence in such scenarios.”