The LES model's role in jet noise

Abstract

Problem definition, near wall modeling and other factors, including grid structure along with its implications on filter definition, are suggested to be of potentially greater importance for practical jet simulations than the LES (large eddy simulation) model. This latter element in itself can be theoretically questionable. When moving to realistic engine conditions, it is noted that disentangling numerical influences from the LES model's appear difficult and negates the model value with its omission potentially being beneficial. Evidence cited suggests that if using an LES model for jets, choosing the numerically best conditioned or the one the code has or, for a dissipative solver, even LES model omission seems sensible. This view point precludes combustion modeling. Tensors of additional derivatives, used in non-linear LES models, when expanded, can yield potentially several hundred interesting derivatives. It is suggested that the MILES (monotone-integrated LES) and LES communities should move towards seeing where modified equation derivatives connect with derivatives that appear in more state of the art non-linear LES models. Then the best features could be combined to form mixed MILES–LES models or even mixed MILES–LES–RANS models. Combustion modeling also presents hybridization potential but in a different context. Most MILES-modified equation analysis focus on the spatial discretization and not the temporal. However, with some codes the spatial discretization terms are deliberately constructed to cancel temporal truncation error terms. Hence, the two things work in harmony and the temporal discretization can make a strong impact on resolved scales.