Abstract
With performance in mind, we propose two general improvements to the popular class of turbulent inlet boundary conditions known as the ‘synthetic eddy method’, originally proposed 10 years ago by Jarrin 2006. Our updated version offers improvement in both statistical accuracy and computational efficiency. We first demonstrate that the original approach led to inaccuracies where eddy length-scale prescription was inhomogeneous. We then describe a correction to the normalisation procedure to ensure that prescribed statistics can be correctly recovered. A second improvement focusses on the computational efficiency of the method; by generalising the method to allow for arbitrary eddy placement, the required number of eddies whilst conserving the target ‘eddy density’ is reduced. The former enhancement is observed to deliver a consistent and measurable improvement over the standard formulation, whilst the latter provides efficiency savings of around 1–2 orders of magnitude. The original SEM has spawned a number of derivatives over the past decade, many of which would be expected to benefit from the improvements reported herein (whether they are used as boundary conditions, volume source terms or as part of a dynamic forcing algorithm). We apply the improved formulation to the case of a turbulent channel flow at two Reynolds numbers as well as to the case of an asymmetric planar diffuser, which is set up to exhibit a pressure-induced separation expected to be highly sensitive to upstream flow conditions. It is demonstrated that even apparently small errors in the imposed flow field can persist in such cases, adversely affecting the downstream flow prediction.
Highlights
Numerical simulation of turbulent flow will typically consider a computational domain that covers a subset of the physical space which the test fluid occupies
This is not generally the case for the original Synthetic Eddy Method (SEM), where inhomogeneity of the eddy properties introduces an error in the reproduction of the Reynolds stresses
The seemingly small errors of the original SEM, can have a significant impact on the downstream flow development for cases that are sensitive to the inlet conditions
Summary
Numerical simulation of turbulent flow will typically consider a computational domain that covers a subset of the physical space which the test fluid occupies This is clearly practical since there is little to be gained by solving for the complete flow field in a large scale system (e.g. a closed loop wind tunnel) if the region of interest (e.g. the test section) is much smaller. This approach does, introduce artificial boundaries to the domain in the form of inlets and outlets; the treatment of which must be considered carefully. In cases where it might be made available, by pre-cursor simulation for instance, the storage requirements may not always be practical
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.