Paper detail

Comparison of Sub-Grid Scale Models for Large-Eddy Simulation using a High-Order Spectral Element Approximation of the Compressible Navier-Stokes Equations at Low Mach Number

This study aims to identify the properties, advantages, and drawbacks of some common (and some less common) sub-grid scale (SGS) models for large eddy simulation of low Mach compressible flows using high order spectral elements. The models investigated are the classical constant coefficient Smagorinsky-Lilly, the model by Vreman and two variants of a dynamic SGS (DSGS) model designed to stabilize finite and spectral elements for transport dominated problems. In particular, we compare one variant of DSGS that is based on a time-dependent residual version (R-DSGS) in contrast to a time-independent residual based scheme (T-DSGS). The SGS models are compared against the reference model by Smagorinsky and Lilly for their ability to: (i) stabilize the numerical solution, (ii) minimize undershoots and overshoots, (iii) capture/preserve discontinuities, and (iv) transfer energy across different length scales. These abilities are investigated on problems for: (1) passively advected tracers, (2) coupled, nonlinear system of equations exhibiting discontinuities, (3) gravity-driven flows in a stratified atmosphere, and (4) homogenous, isotropic turbulence. All models were able to preserve sharp discontinuities. Vreman and the R-DSGS models also reduce the undershoots and overshoots in the solution of linear and non-linear advection with sharp gradients. Our analysis shows that the R-DSGS and T-DSGS models are more robust than Vreman and Smagorinsky-Lilly for numerical stabilization of high-order spectral methods. The Smagorinsky and Vreman models are better able to resolve the finer flow structures in shear flows, while the nodal R-DSGS model shows better energy conservation. Overall, the nodal implementation of R-DSGS (in contrast to its element-based counterpart) is shown to outperform the other SGS models in most metrics listed above, and on par with respect to the remaining ones.

preprint2022arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.