- DFS Direct Finite Element Simulation.
- RANS-LES Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes-Large Eddy Simulation.
- DNS Direct Numerical Simulation.
The characteristics are:
- DFS: Best possible solution of Euler's equations with force boundary condition as slip/small friction without turbulence and wall model.
- RANS-LES: Turbulence model and wall model specifying velocity profile into no-slip on wall.
- DNS: Navier-Stokes equations without turbulence/wall model with no-slip on wall.
The capabilities/limitations are:
- DFS: Captures high Reynolds number flows (beyond drag crisis around $10^6$) with slip in large generality including separated flow, and through drag crisis with small friction.
- RANS-LES: Large difficulties of turbulence/wall modeling and flow separation.
- DNS: Restricted to low Reynolds numbers.
For a review of the state-of-the-art of RANS-LES and DNS (2016), see
by P. R. Spalart and V. Venkatakrishnan, Boeing Commercial Airplanes Seattle.
DFS prescribes a force boundary condition on a solid wall as slip/small friction, while RANS-LES and DNS both prescribe velocities to be zero on wall as no-slip.
A force boundary condition is a so called natural or weak boundary condition, which mathematically can be imposed in variational form and as such represents a physical boundary condition, which can be controlled as slip/small friction.
On the other hand, a no-slip boundary condition on velocity is mathematically referred to as an unnatural or strong boundary condition, which is unphysical in the sense of being possible to impose in reality, only by paper and pen in a mathematical model or computer code.
DFS captures flow separation by using a force boundary condition allowing the simulation to "follow the physics".
RANS-LES does not capture flow separation by artificially prescribing the velocity close to the wall which does not "follow the physics".
DNS for high Reynolds number flow requires computational power estimated to be reached only in 2080, as predicted by Spalart in 2000 and repeated in the above review.
In short, DFS is the only CFD method which today can deliver simulations of high Reynolds number capturing the essential aspects of turbulence and flow separation. Compare with Spalart's bleak perspective for RANS-LES and DNS:
RANS-LES handles separation by ad hoc prescription of velocities close to the wall, and not in true computation simulation. But ad hoc prescription is not prediction.
The difference between unnatural unphysical paper and pen velocity boundary condition comes to expression in the famous Kutta condition, where the velocity in a (potential) flow computation is artificially ad hoc prescribed to be zero (stagnation) at a sharp trailing edge of an airfoil. The separation is thus prescribed to take place at the trailing edge, which corresponds to artificially introducing a massive force to this effect, for which however the physics is lacking. The fake explanation is that the singularity of a sharp trailing edge "prevents" the flow from earlier separation with loss if lift. With the Kutta trick lift is generated, but the physics is missing.
To come to grips with the unphysical flow separation in RANS-LES by ad hoc prescription of velocities close to the wall, remedies such as Detached Eddy Simulation DES have be tried but again relying on velocity prescription without true predictive capability.
A solid wall can force the normal fluid velocity to vanish as a non-penetration condition (ultimately realised by a force), but the tangential velocity cannot be prescribed e g as a no-slip condition; only tangential forces can be prescribed, such as zero skin friction or slip.
The change from early separation on the crest of the flow around a sphere with no-slip for Reynolds numbers below the drag crisis with massive wake, to later 3d rotational slip separation for Reynolds numbers through and beyond the drag crisis with smaller wake diameter and corresponding drastic drop of drag, can be followed in these pictures:
- Our expectations for a breakthrough in turbulence, whether within traditional modelling or LES, are low and as a result off-design flow physics including separation will continue to pose a substantial challenge, as will laminar-turbulent transition.
RANS-LES handles separation by ad hoc prescription of velocities close to the wall, and not in true computation simulation. But ad hoc prescription is not prediction.
The difference between unnatural unphysical paper and pen velocity boundary condition comes to expression in the famous Kutta condition, where the velocity in a (potential) flow computation is artificially ad hoc prescribed to be zero (stagnation) at a sharp trailing edge of an airfoil. The separation is thus prescribed to take place at the trailing edge, which corresponds to artificially introducing a massive force to this effect, for which however the physics is lacking. The fake explanation is that the singularity of a sharp trailing edge "prevents" the flow from earlier separation with loss if lift. With the Kutta trick lift is generated, but the physics is missing.
To come to grips with the unphysical flow separation in RANS-LES by ad hoc prescription of velocities close to the wall, remedies such as Detached Eddy Simulation DES have be tried but again relying on velocity prescription without true predictive capability.
A solid wall can force the normal fluid velocity to vanish as a non-penetration condition (ultimately realised by a force), but the tangential velocity cannot be prescribed e g as a no-slip condition; only tangential forces can be prescribed, such as zero skin friction or slip.
The change from early separation on the crest of the flow around a sphere with no-slip for Reynolds numbers below the drag crisis with massive wake, to later 3d rotational slip separation for Reynolds numbers through and beyond the drag crisis with smaller wake diameter and corresponding drastic drop of drag, can be followed in these pictures:
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar