Comparison of the stochastic fields method and DQMoM-IEM as turbulent reaction closures

Abstract This paper compares two mean reaction rate closures for turbulent reacting flow: the Stochastic Fields (SF) method and the Direct Quadrature Method of Moments using the Interaction by Exchange with the Mean micromixing model (DQMoM-IEM). The methods have many common features and have received significant attention in recent literature, yet have not been systematically compared. We present both methods in the same mathematical framework and compare their numerical performance. In addition, we introduce antithetic sampling as a variance reduction technique to increase the efficiency of the SF algorithm. We extend the methodology to take advantage of this development and show details of the implementation of each method in a commercial computational fluid dynamics code. We present a systematic investigation and consider both axisymmetric and 3D formulations of a problem known from the literature. DQMoM-IEM showed excellent agreement with experimental and transported probability density function data. SF gave reasonable agreement, but retained a minor grid-dependence not seen with DQMoM-IEM and did not fully resolve the sub-grid segregation of the species. The antithetic sampling was demonstrated to significantly increase the efficiency of the axisymmetric SF cases.

[1]  J. H. Ahrens,et al.  Extensions of Forsythe’s method for random sampling from the normal distribution , 1973 .

[2]  Takuji Nishimura,et al.  Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator , 1998, TOMC.

[3]  Markus Kraft,et al.  Some analytic solutions for stochastic reactor models based on the joint composition PDF , 1999 .

[4]  Antonello Barresi,et al.  CFD modelling and scale-up of Confined Impinging Jet Reactors , 2007 .

[5]  Epaminondas Mastorakos,et al.  Micromixing effects in a reacting plume by the Stochastic Fields method , 2006 .

[6]  Rodney O. Fox,et al.  A Finite-Mode PDF Model for Turbulent Reacting Flows , 2002 .

[7]  G. Strang.  On the Construction and Comparison of Difference Schemes , 1968 .

[8]  Joseph F. Traub,et al.  Faster Valuation of Financial Derivatives , 1995 .

[9]  W. P. Jones,et al.  Large eddy simulation of hydrogen auto-ignition with a probability density function method , 2007 .

[10]  James R. Wilson.  Antithetic Sampling with Multivariate Inputs , 1983 .

[11]  Ying Liu,et al.  CFD predictions for chemical processing in a confined impinging‐jets reactor , 2006 .

[12]  K. Li,et al.  Turbulent reactive mixing with a series‐parallel reaction: Effect of mixing on yield , 1986 .

[13]  Antonello Barresi,et al.  CFD Modelling of Nano-Particle Precipitation in Confined Impinging Jet Reactors , 2006 .

[14]  R. Fox.  Computational Models for Turbulent Reacting Flows , 2003 .

[15]  J. Geweke,et al.  Antithetic acceleration of Monte Carlo integration in Bayesian inference , 1988 .

[16]  A. Garmory.  MICROMIXING EFFECTS IN ATMOSPHERIC REACTING FLOWS , 2007 .

[17]  Rodney O. Fox,et al.  Multi-environment probability density function method for modelling turbulent combustion using realistic chemical kinetics , 2007 .

[18]  J. M. Hammersley,et al.  Proof of the antithetic variates theorem for n > 2 , 1958 .

[19]  George S. Fishman,et al.  Antithetic variates revisited , 1983, CACM.

[20]  Russell C. H. Cheng,et al.  The Use of Antithetic Variates in Computer Simulations , 1982 .

[21]  R. Britter,et al.  Simulations of the dispersion of reactive pollutants in a street canyon, considering different chemical mechanisms and micromixing , 2009 .

[22]  G. Hauke,et al.  Computing reactive flows with a field Monte Carlo formulation and multi-scale methods , 2004 .

[23]  Rodney O. Fox,et al.  Computational Models for Turbulent Reacting Flows: PDF methods for turbulent reacting flows , 2003 .

[24]  J. Hammersley,et al.  A new Monte Carlo technique: antithetic variates , 1956, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[25]  C. Gardiner.  Handbook of Stochastic Methods , 1983 .

[26]  Amit Bhave,et al.  Partially Stirred Reactor Model: Analytical Solutions and Numerical Convergence Study of a PDF/Monte Carlo Method , 2004, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[27]  Olivier Soulard,et al.  Rapidly decorrelating velocity-field model as a tool for solving one-point Fokker-Planck equations for probability density functions of turbulent reactive scalars. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[28]  W. Jones,et al.  Numerical Study of n-Heptane Auto-ignition Using LES-PDF Methods , 2009 .

[29]  Rodney O. Fox,et al.  PDF simulation of a turbulent series-parallel reaction in an axisymmetric reactor , 1994 .

[30]  W. P. Jones,et al.  A probability density function Eulerian Monte Carlo field method for large eddy simulations: Application to a turbulent piloted methane/air diffusion flame (Sandia D) , 2006 .

[31]  P. Kloeden,et al.  Numerical Solution of Stochastic Differential Equations , 1992 .

[32]  Rodney O. Fox,et al.  Comparison of micromixing models for CFD simulation of nanoparticle formation , 2004 .

[33]  P. Glasserman,et al.  Monte Carlo methods for security pricing , 1997 .

[34]  James R. Wilson.  Proof of the antithetic-variates theorem for unbounded functions , 1979 .

[35]  J. G. Mauldon,et al.  General principles of antithetic variates , 1956, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society.

[36]  D. Haworth.  Progress in probability density function methods for turbulent reacting flows , 2010 .

[37]  S. Pope.  PDF methods for turbulent reactive flows , 1985 .

[38]  Salvador Navarro-Martinez,et al.  Large eddy simulation of autoignition with a subgrid probability density function method , 2007 .

[39]  F. Williams,et al.  Turbulent Reacting Flows , 1981 .

[40]  E. Mastorakos,et al.  Aerosol nucleation and growth in a turbulent jet using the Stochastic Fields method , 2008 .

[41]  Markus Kraft,et al.  Numerical investigation of DQMoM-IEM as a turbulent reaction closure , 2010 .

[42]  Ronald L. Wasserstein,et al.  Monte Carlo: Concepts, Algorithms, and Applications , 1997 .

[43]  L. Valiño,et al.  A Field Monte Carlo Formulation for Calculating the Probability Density Function of a Single Scalar in a Turbulent Flow , 1998 .

[44]  E. Hairer,et al.  Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II , 2010 .

[45]  Heinz Pitsch,et al.  Eulerian transported probability density function sub-filter model for large-eddy simulations of turbulent combustion , 2006 .