On the Control of the Mass Errors in Finite Volume-Based Approximate Projection Methods for Large Eddy Simulations

Filtering in Large Eddy Simulation (LES) is often only a formalism since practically discretization of both the domain and operators is used as implicit grid-filtering to the variables. In the present study, the LES equations are written in the integral form around a Finite Volume (FV) Ώ rather than in the differential form as is more usual in Finite Differences (FD) and Spectral Methods (SM). Grid-filtering is therefore associated to the use of an explicit local volume average, by the way of surface flux integrals, and specific LES equations are here described. Moreover, since the filtered pressure characterizes itself only as a Lagrange multiplier used to satisfy the continuity constraint, projection methods are used for obtaining a divergence-free velocity. The choice of the non-staggered collocation is often preferable since is easily extendable on general geometries. However, the price to be paid in the so-called Approximate Projection Methods, is that the discrete continuity equation is satisfied only up to the magnitude of the local truncation error. Thus, the effects of such source errors are analyzed in FD and FV-based LES of turbulent channel flow. It will be shown that the FV formulation is much more efficient than FD in controlling the errors.

[1]  Marcel Lesieur,et al.  Large-Eddy Simulations of Turbulence , 2005 .

[2]  A. W. Vreman,et al.  A new treatment of commutation-errors in large-eddy simulation , 2002 .

[3]  F. M. Denaro,et al.  A deconvolution‐based fourth‐order finite volume method for incompressible flows on non‐uniform grids , 2003 .

[4]  P. Sagaut BOOK REVIEW: Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows. An Introduction , 2001 .

[5]  Giuliano De Stefano,et al.  A finite volume dynamic large-eddy simulation method for buoyancy driven turbulent geophysical flows , 2007 .

[6]  F. M. Denaro A 3D second‐order accurate projection‐based Finite Volume code on non‐staggered, non‐uniform structured grids with continuity preserving properties: application to buoyancy‐driven flows , 2006 .

[7]  A. Chorin Numerical solution of the Navier-Stokes equations , 1968 .

[8]  John Kim,et al.  DIRECT NUMERICAL SIMULATION OF TURBULENT CHANNEL FLOWS UP TO RE=590 , 1999 .

[9]  John B. Bell,et al.  Approximate Projection Methods: Part I. Inviscid Analysis , 2000, SIAM J. Sci. Comput..

[10]  F. Denaro,et al.  On the application of the Helmholtz–Hodge decomposition in projection methods for incompressible flows with general boundary conditions , 2003 .

[11]  Andrea Aprovitola,et al.  A non‐diffusive, divergence‐free, finite volume‐based double projection method on non‐staggered grids , 2007 .

[12]  Fotini Katopodes Chow,et al.  The effect of numerical errors and turbulence models in large-eddy simulations of channel flow, with and without explicit filtering , 2003, Journal of Fluid Mechanics.

[13]  F. M. Denaro,et al.  High‐order filtering for control volume flow simulation , 2001 .

[14]  Joel H. Ferziger,et al.  Computational methods for fluid dynamics , 1996 .

[15]  P. Sagaut Large Eddy Simulation for Incompressible Flows , 2001 .

[16]  L. Berselli,et al.  Mathematics of Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flows , 2005 .

[17]  Johan Meyers,et al.  A computational error-assessment of central finite-volume discretizations in large-eddy simulation using a Smagorinsky model , 2007, J. Comput. Phys..

[18]  Thomas S. Lund,et al.  Kinetic energy conservation issues associated with the collocated mesh scheme for incompressible flow , 2006, J. Comput. Phys..

[19]  F. M. Denaro,et al.  Time‐accurate intermediate boundary conditions for large eddy simulations based on projection methods , 2005 .