 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Calibrating subgrid scale models for highorder wallmodeled large eddy simulation
Advances in Aerodynamics volumeÂ 6, ArticleÂ number:Â 5 (2024)
Abstract
Highorder methods have demonstrated orders of magnitude reduction in computational cost for large eddy simulation (LES) over loworder methods in the past decade. Most such simulations are wallresolved implicit LES (ILES) without an explicit subgrid scale (SGS) model. The use of highorder ILES for severely underresolved LES such as wallmodeled LES (WMLES) often runs into robustness and accuracy issues due to the low dissipation embedded in these methods. In the present study, we investigate the performance of several popular SGS models, the static Smagorinsky model, the walladapting local eddyviscosity (WALE) model and the Vreman model, to improve the robustness and accuracy of underresolved LES using highorder methods. The models are implemented in the highorder unstructured grid LES solver called hpMusic based on the discontinuous flux reconstruction method. The length scales in these SGS models are calibrated using the direct numerical simulation (DNS) database for the turbulent channel flow problem. The Vreman model has been found to produce the most accurate and consistent results with a proper choice of the length scale for WMLES.
1 Introduction
The promise offered by large eddy simulation (LES) to tackle complex turbulent flow problems is being realized in engineering applications five decades after its conception [1]. Wallmodeled LES has demonstrated its potential to accurately predict the maximum lift for the NASA highlift Common Research Model (CRMHL) from the 4th AIAA Highlift Prediction Workshop [2]. The cost and accuracy of LES lie between direct numerical simulation (DNS) and Reynoldsaveraged NavierStokes (RANS) approaches since only the large eddies are resolved in LES while the effects of the small eddies are taken into account using subgrid scale (SGS) models. The solution quality of LES is dictated by many factors including the resolution of the numerical methods, the computational mesh, the SGS model, the filter size, the quality of boundary conditions and wall models, etc. Overlooking any factor can lead to erroneous simulation results.
Even for the windtunnel scale CRMHL, the cost of WMLES is very high and hundreds of millions of degreesoffreedom (DOFs) are needed to obtain reasonable results with 2ndorder methods. The high cost continues to hinder the applications of LES in aerospace engineering because many problems have high Reynolds numbers well over 10 million. The development of highorder methods (3rd order and higher) [3,4,5,6,7] has reduced the cost of LES by orders of magnitude and pushed LES into the realm of design studies of missioncritical problems [8]. Because of the progress made in the past decade in numerical methods, mesh generation and highperformance CPU/GPU architectures, highorder wallresolved LES (WRLES) can now be conducted for flow with a Reynolds number on the order of 1 million on mediumsized industriallevel computer clusters for turbomachinery flow problems [9].
Highorder methods have very low dissipation and dispersion errors. When they are used to solve nonlinear conservation laws, one observes energy pileup in high wavenumber small scales. The degree of this pileup depends on the dissipation and dispersion characteristics. In a comparative study of highorder central finite difference (FD), upwind biased FD, filtered compact difference (CD), and the discontinuous Galerkin (DG) methods [10], these schemes were tested to resolve a broadband spectrum with the Burgers equation. The filtered CD and DG methods have the highest resolution while the central FD has the lowest resolution because of the large dispersion error as shown in Fig.Â 1. The central FD scheme also produced the most energy pileup in the high wavenumber regime, which can cause an LES to crash due to negative pressure or density without other means to enhance stability. One can also see that all highorder schemes produced energy pileups of various degrees. For example, the (strongly) filtered CD and DG methods produced much smaller bumps in the energy spectrum. As a result, they have demonstrated excellent performance in WRLES of many complex turbulent flow problems because of the adequate resolution of the small nearwall scales [11,12,13,14,15].
However, for higher Reynolds number problems encountered in the aeronautical industry, WRLES will be too expensive for many years to come because of the excessive nearwall mesh resolution requirement [16, 17]. Although WRLES solves spacefiltered NavierStokes equations and costs much less than DNS, the simulation expense is still very high because of the nearwall mesh resolution requirement [18]. WMLES [19], on the other hand, dramatically reduces the nearwall mesh resolution requirement and is much more affordable for realworld industrial applications [20,21,22,23,24].
In the nearwall region of WMLES, the turbulent scales are severely underresolved. Highorder ILES often encounters robustness and accuracy problems. The low dissipation embedded in highorder methods is often not sufficient to stabilize such simulations. Other means are usually necessary to achieve robust simulations such as solution limiting [25], filtering [26], polynomial dealiasing or overintegration [27,28,29], explicit SGS models [30,31,32], and various kinetic energy preserving (KEP) and entropy preserving (KEEP) schemes [33]. With such stabilizing techniques, the computations can proceed in a robust manner, but the accuracy often depends on how much smallscale energy is drained from the simulations. One such example is shown in Fig.Â 2, which illustrates the influence of solution limiting [25] on the mean flow in WMLES of the fully developed turbulent channel flow at a friction Reynolds number of 5,200. Note that insufficient damping of the small scales caused the wall friction to be overpredicted and the velocity to be underpredicted. On the other hand, the overdamping of the small scales caused the friction to be underpredicted and the velocity profile to be overpredicted. For complex configurations, it is very challenging to determine the appropriate amount of solution limiting. Filtering techniques also face this dilemma.
These challenges have led us to investigate the use of explicit SGS models in highorder WMLES. Early LES successes were largely attributed to the development of adequate SGS models, such as the classical Smagorinsky model [1], since they were critical in stabilizing very underresolved LES. Various SGS models have been developed after the Smagorinsky model. The scale similarity model [35] assumes that the energy transfer between the resolved scales and unresolved scales is similar at different length scales. The gradient model [36] estimates the local SGS stress tensor using a Taylor expansion of the flow velocity. The mixed model [37] combines the similarity model and the Smagorinsky model. To satisfy the physical condition of vanishing eddy viscosity near the wall, the walladapting local eddyviscosity (WALE) model [38] and theÂ Vreman model [39] were developed. The dynamic version of some of these models can be found in [40,41,42,43,44,45]. The development of SGS models for compressible flow is described in [46, 47]. A comprehensive review of SGS models is provided in [48].
SGS models and the underlying numerical methods are very tightly connected. For example, if a numerical method is nondissipative, an adequate SGS model is essential for a stable and accurate LES. Otherwise, energy from the small subgrid scales is not drained and can pile up near the highest resolvable wave number to drive the simulation unstable. On the other hand, if a numerical scheme is dissipative, the energy from the small subgrid scales can often be sufficiently dissipated to main simulation stability without the use of an explicit SGS model for WMLES. For example, many highresolution schemes with limiters have sufficient numerical dissipation to stabilize LES without a SGS model, thus popularizing the socalled implicit LES (ILES) [49]. Many studies also found that the use of SGS models in WRLES using highorder methods can be detrimental because of the excessive damping [50, 51]. This is because the SGS models introduced physically uncorrelated dissipation and degraded the resolution of large eddies.
In the present study, we investigate several SGS models for underresolved WMLES using the discontinuous flux reconstruction (FR) or correction procedure via reconstruction (CPR) method [7, 52,53,54]. More specifically, we study three popular SGS models, the Smagorinsky, WALE, and Vreman models, and calibrate the length scale for various solution polynomial orders using the DNS results of the channel flow. The present paper is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews the governing equations and the three SGS models. Section 3 describes the numerical method and the implementation of the SGS models in the FR/CPR method, followed by an introduction of the equilibrium wall model in Section 4. In Section 5, we compare the simulation results from the SGS models for several benchmark cases. Conclusions and future work are given in Section 6.
2 Governing equations and SGS models
2.1 NavierStokes equations for LES
The unsteady 3D NavierStokes equations governing the dynamics of compressible viscous flow can be written as [55]
where \(\rho\) is the density, \(u_i\) are the velocity components, p is the pressure, E is the total energy, while \(\tau _{ij}\) and \(q_j\) are the viscous stress tensor and heat flux. These are
where \(\mu\) is the viscosity, \(\delta _{ij}\) is the Kronecker delta, T is the temperature and \(\kappa\) is the thermal conductivity, which is usually computed based on the Prandtl number Pr,
with \(c_p\) the specific heat at constant pressure. The above equations use the summation convention for repeated indices. To close the equations, we employ the ideal gas law to compute the total energy,
where \(\gamma = 1.4\) is the ratio of specific heats. For ILES, these equations can be directly used with the assumption that all variables are implicitly spacefiltered quantities. The implicit filter width is related to the mesh size. For explicit LES, many terms need closure models to completely define the governing equations. For the sake of simplicity, we only augment the viscous stress tensor with a subgrid stress term, i.e., \(\tau _{ij} = \tau _{ij} + \tau ^{SGS}_{ij}\). The SGS term is then computed with an SGS model. From a physical perspective, \(\tau ^{SGS}_{ij}\) accounts for the effect of the subgrid scales on the resolved scales. From a mathematical perspective, this is the extra term that appears in the filtered NavierStokes equations due to space filtering. While compressible flows also require modeling of the SGS pressure work, SGS heat transfer, SGS turbulent diffusion and SGS viscous diffusion, these additional terms are omitted for the low Mach number flows considered in the present study.
In the present study, three SGS models are studied in the context of the FR/CPR method. They are described next.
2.2 Smagorinsky model
The original SGS model introduced by Smagorinsky remains one of the most widely used eddy viscosity models which follows the Boussinesq hypothesis and set
where \(\nu _{SGS}\) is the eddy viscosity and \({S}_{ij}\) is the rate of strain tensor,
The eddy viscosity has the dimensions of length squared times the velocity gradient. The length scale is taken as \(c_s\Delta\) with \(\Delta\) the filter width while the velocity gradient is taken as the magnitude of the rate of strain tensor. So the eddy viscosity is
and \({S} = \sqrt{2{S}_{ij}{S}_{ij}}\) represents a Galilean invariant estimation of velocity differences over length scales of order \(\Delta\). The Smagorinsky coefficient \(c_s\) was estimated to be 0.16 by Lilly [56] for isotropic turbulence.
2.3 Walladapting local eddyviscosity (WALE) model
The WALE model is also an eddy viscosity model with a different eddy viscosity. Let the velocity gradient tensor be
A traceless symmetric part of the square of the velocity gradient tensor is defined as
where \({g}_{ij}^2={g}_{ik}{g}_{kj}\). The eddy viscosity is computed as
where the constant \(c_w\) is often estimated to be 0.325. One of the advantages of the WALE model over the Smagorinsky model is the eddy viscosity contains both the strain rate and rotation rate of the turbulent structure. The eddy viscosity of the Smagorinsky model only contains the strain rate. To see this, Eq. (12) can be written as
where \({\Omega }_{ij} = \frac{1}{2} \left( \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i}  \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} \right)\) is the rotation rate tensor. Another advantage of the WALE model is that the eddy viscosity is reduced in the vicinity of the wall to produce the proper asymptotic behavior.
2.4 Vreman model
We simplify the model by assuming an isotropic filter width in all directions. The eddy viscosity of the Vreman model is computed as
with \(\beta _{ij}=g_{mi}g_{mj}\), \(B_{\beta }=\beta _{11}\beta _{22}\beta _{12}^2 + \beta _{11}\beta _{33}\beta _{13}^2 + \beta _{22}\beta _{33}\beta _{23}^2\). The coefficient \(c_v\) is related to the Smagorinsky coefficient by \(c_v \approx \sqrt{2.5}c_s\). The Vreman model also has the proper nearwall behavior similar to the WALE model.
3 Numerical method
The FR/CPR method was originally developed by Huynh in 2007 for hyperbolic partial differential equations [52], and was then extended to hybrid unstructured meshes in [53, 54]. More recent work was reviewed in [7]. Let Q be the vector of conserved variables, \({F}_j\) and \({F}_{\nu ,j}\) represent the inviscid and viscous flux vectors in each coordinate direction. The conservation laws can be written as
Assume that the computational domain is discretized into nonoverlapping elements. Each physical element is transformed to a standard element with coordinates \((\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)\) by the transformation matrix,
Also define
The elements of W are the cofactors of K, and in a finite volume discretization, they are just the areas of the computational cells projected in the Cartesian coordinate directions. If a face of the physical element is mapped to a face in the standard element defined by
the surface metrics of this face can be computed according to
where \(\textbf{n}\) is the local unit face normal having components \((n_1, n_2, n_3)\), A is the local area, \(\nabla ^\xi\) is the gradient operator in the computational domain. The normal inviscid and viscous fluxes are defined as
Inside element k, a set of points (usually Gauss quadrature points) is selected to construct a degree P solution polynomial \(Q_k\) using the Lagrange interpolation. These points are called solution points (SPs). Let \(Q_{k,q}\) be the solution at SP q on element k. The local solution and the solutions at immediate face neighbors are used to compute a local gradient \(\nabla Q_k\). Then the inviscid and viscous fluxes are computed at the SPs, which are used to obtain flux polynomials, \(\hat{F}_j(Q_k)\) and \(\hat{F}_{v,j}(Q_k, \nabla Q_k)\), again using Lagrange interpolations. The FR/CPR formulation can be written as [54]
where index f denotes the faces of the element, and index l indicates the flux points (FPs) on the faces, which are usually the face Gauss quadrature points, \(\alpha _{q,f,l}\) are the lifting coefficients only depending on the shape of the element, \([F^n]\) and \([F^n_v]\) are the normal inviscid and viscous flux jumps at each flux point. Although the solution is generally discontinuous across element interfaces, the normal inviscid and viscous fluxes must be continuous across element interfaces at the flux points to ensure conservation. This unique inviscid flux is computed with the Roe Riemann solver [57] and the unique viscous flux is computed with common solutions and gradients at the FPs. They are called the common fluxes, i.e. \(F_{com}^n\) and \(F_{\nu ,com}^n\). In the present study, the common face gradients are computed with the BR2 approach [58].
The normal flux jumps are the difference between the common fluxes and the interpolated normal fluxes at the flux points, i.e.,
In the FR/CPR method, projecting an arbitrary solution onto the piecewise polynomial space can be considered a spacefiltering operation. As a result, the FR/CPR method without any SGS model becomes ILES. Adding an SGS model to the FR/CPR scheme is then equivalent to adding extra dissipation flux terms to the original formulation. The variation of the velocity gradient at each SP generally leads to a nonuniform eddy viscosity inside an element. To make the SGS model less oscillatory, we use an elementwise constant eddy viscosity instead of the local eddy viscosity. The constant eddy viscosity is the averaged value over the element,
where \(\nu _{SGS,q}\) is the local eddy viscosity at SP q, V is the volume of the element,Â and \(w_q\) is the quadrature weight at the SP.
In the implementation of an SGS model within the FR/CPR framework, we could have treated the SGS stresses in the standard way. In this case, common fluxes are introduced in the momentum and energy equations, which are related to the SGS stresses. Since the SGS stresses are not well correlated with the physical SGS stresses [51], their primary purpose is to dissipate energy from the small turbulence scales. To guarantee the conservation and minimize data communication for parallel implementations, we artificially set the common fluxes of all the SGS stresses to be zero at all element interfaces, i.e.,
In a FV method, each element has one degree of freedom (DOF). The filter width for all the SGS models is normally computed as
We will call this choice d1. In the FR/CPR method, there are multiple DOFs in an element. It seems that a natural choice for the filter width is then
We will call this choice d3. The SGS models have been mostly calibrated and used for 2ndorder methods. Highorder methods have much less numerical dissipation than secondorder ones. We thus expect choice d3 to not have sufficient dissipation for the small turbulence scales. We, therefore, introduce the following length scale between d1 and d3,
which is called choice d2. Benchmark results will be used to assess the impact of these choices on the computational results.
For time integration, we employ either a 3rd order SSP RungeKutta schemeÂ [59], or an optimized backward difference formula [60] with an LUSGS solverÂ [61, 62].
4 Equilibrium wall model
The equilibrium wall model used in the present study was developed in [24, 63], following an earlier attempt with an eddyviscosity type model [64] and a wall model for the highorder DG method [65]. The basic idea is to obtain the wall model data from within the turbulent boundary layer. The distance from the data exchange location to the wall is denoted \(h_{wm}\). Then the wall shear stress is computed based on the wall function, \(h_{wm}\), and wall model data.
A schematic of the idea is shown in Fig.Â 3. The wall shear stress is obtained utilizing the law of the wall based on the wall parallel velocity input at a distance away from the wall, where large eddies are captured. In Fig.Â 3, the dotted line separates the underresolved inner region and the resolved outer region of the boundary layer. The black solid line is a sample DNS velocity profile in the boundary layer. The circles represent the solutions in the outer part of the boundary layer obtained using a resolved LES. The wall model takes the flow information including wall parallel velocity U, density \(\rho\), and viscosity \(\mu\) from the resolved LES as the input at the solid black circle in Fig.Â 3 and solves a nonlinear equation to obtain \(u_{\tau }\). Then the wallstress \(\tau _w = \rho u^2_{\tau }\) is imposed at the wall to update the solution unknowns near the wall.
In the present implementation of the highorder FR/CPR method, wall boundary conditions are imposed weakly at the wall flux points, as shown in Fig.Â 4. The data exchange location is on the interface between the first and second elements away from the wall. The wall model data are from the second element because the turbulent scales at the first element are always underresolved. Since the nearwall eddy size is roughly the same as its distance to the wall, the desirable aspect ratio for the nearwall element is one because the eddy size at the second element is comparable to the element size. When the solution polynomial order P is sufficiently high, the turbulent eddies at the second element can be resolved well, thus providing accurate wall shear stress to update the degrees of freedom of the nearwall element.
5 Numerical results
5.1 TaylorGreen vortex evolution
The compressible inviscid TaylorGreen vortex problem [66] is chosen as the first case to assess the performance of the SGS models in stability and accuracy. In addition, we want to compare the dissipative characteristics of the SGS models relative to the Riemann solver. The spatial domain \(\Omega\) is a box that spans \([\pi L, \pi L]\) in each coordinate direction, and L is the characteristic length. The smooth initial conditions are given by the following equations.
where \(V_0\) is the reference velocity, \(p_{0}\) is the reference pressure, and \(\rho _0\) is the reference density. The chosen reference state results in a Mach number \(M_0=0.1\). The characteristic convective time is defined as \(t_c = \frac{L}{V_0}\). The unsteady simulation is performed for \(20t_c\) with an explicit 3rd order SSP RungeKutta scheme. It has been found in multiple international highorder CFD workshops that the kinetic energy and enstrophy are good resolution indicators for turbulent eddies. The nondimensional kinetic energy is defined as
and the nondimensional enstrophy is computed as
where \(\textbf{v}\) is the velocity vector, and \(\varvec{\omega }= \varvec{\nabla } \times {\textbf{v}}\) is the vorticity. To test the performance of the SGS models for underresolved turbulence, the simulations were conducted assuming inviscid flow on a very coarse 16Â Ã—Â 16Â Ã—Â 16 Cartesian grid at \(P = 4\) (P4) with all the length scale choices for the SGS models. The kinetic energy and enstrophy histories are compared in Figs. 5 and 6. Both plots tell a similar story in the dissipative characteristics of the SGS models. It is striking that all three SGS models with any of the length scales heavily dissipated the turbulent eddies on this mesh compared to the ILES result. Both figures show that the amount of dissipation in the SGS models is much more than the dissipation embedded in highorder discontinuous methods due to the use of a Riemann solver. In addition, the smaller dissipation with d2 and d3 is very obvious in comparison to the result with d1. Note that the WALE model is visibly less dissipative than either the Smagorinsy modelÂ or the Vreman model, while the Vreman model is slightly less dissipative than the Smagorinsky model.
Next, we test the performance of SGS models in a wellresolved simulation to see if and how they degrade the solution quality. A viscous simulation at
was conducted on a mesh of \(64^3\) elements at P4. The Prandtl number is 0.71. The enstrophy histories from the present simulations are compared with the DNS results [66] in Fig.Â 7. The P4 ILES result is comparable to the DNS result at this resolution as their enstrophy histories are almost on top of each other. The SGS models appear to impact the enstrophy histories significantly with length scales of d1 and d2, and to a much less extent with d3. All three SGS models with d3 did not seriously degrade the results. Relatively speaking, we again confirm that the WALE model is the least dissipative, followed by the Vreman model while the Smagorinsky model is the most dissipative.
5.2 Isotropic turbulence
A decaying isotropic turbulence is simulated to study the impact of the SGS models on the kinetic energy spectra. We use the data collected by experiments of ComteBellot and Corrsin [67] for this purpose. In the experiments, the isotropic turbulence was triggered by a freestream passing through a grid. Using the Taylor hypothesis, the spectra are measured at three downstream locations of the grid, which are converted into time instants of \(U_0t/M=42\), 98, and 171, where \(M=5.08\; {\text {cm}}\) is the grid size and \(U_0=10\;{\text{m/s}}\) is the freestream velocity. The Reynolds number based on the grid size is \(Re \equiv U_0M/\nu ={34000}\). In the present study, the isotropic turbulence is modeled inside a square box with periodic boundary conditions. The size of the box is chosen to be \(L_B=11M\). The initial random velocity field whose energy spectrum matches the experimental data at \(U_0t/M=42\) is generated on a uniform Cartesian grid using the method proposed by Kwak et al. [68]. The random velocity field is then interpolated to the solution points of the computational mesh by trilinear interpolations. The computational mesh is a Cartesian mesh with 32 cells in each direction. The computed turbulent kinetic energy spectra with different solution polynomial orders and SGS models are shown in Fig.Â 8 at \(U_0t/M=98\). Note that the lower the solution polynomial order, the more energy pileup is observed near the high wave number regime compared to the experimental data. We believe this phenomenon was caused by the aliasing error due to a lack of resolution especially for \(P=2\) and \(P=3\). For \(P=4\) and \(P=5\), the spectra from the simulations agree quite well with the measured spectra in the low wave number regime. It is obvious that the spectra of ILES simulations differ from the measured data the most in the high wave number regime compared to the spectra computed with the SGS models. One can also observe that both the WALE and Vreman models produced similar results, with the Vreman model having slightly more damping than the WALE model. This observation is compatible with the results in the TaylorGreen vortex case. The length scales in the SGS models caused a significant difference in damping characteristics, especially for \(P=4\) and \(P=5\). With length scale d3 (solid green and red curves), very little dissipation is introduced such that the energy spectra are very similar to the spectrum from the ILES simulations. On the other end, length scale d1 introduces too much dissipation that considerably reduces the range of resolvable wave numbers (dotted green and red curves). The SGS models with length scale d2 introduce a moderate amount of dissipation so that a good balance is achieved between resolution and energy dissipation near the highest resolvable wave numbers (dashed green and red curves).
5.3 Fully developed turbulent channel flow at \(Re_\tau = 180\)
This fully developed low Reynolds turbulent channel flow is selected to evaluate the performance of the SGS models for WRLES. The DNS data from [34] is used for comparison. The domain size is \([4\pi \delta , 2\delta , \frac{4}{3}\pi \delta ]\), where \(\delta\) is the half channel height. The Reynolds number based on \(\delta\) and the friction velocity \(u_{\tau }\) is \(Re_{\tau } = \frac{u_{\tau }L}{\nu } = 180\). The bulk Mach number is 0.3. The grid has 100 elements in the streamwise, 20 elements in the wall normal, and 33 elements in the spanwise directions respectively. The minimum element size in the wallnormal direction is \(0.015\delta\) and the element growth rate is 1.5 in the wall normal direction. The flow variables are approximated with \({P}=3\) polynomials resulting in an equivalent mesh resolutions of \(\Delta x^+ = 5.7\), \(\Delta y^+ = 0.68\), \(\Delta z^+ = 5.7\). Periodic boundary conditions are applied in both the streamwise and spanwise directions. A source term is added dynamically to the xmomentum equation to maintain a constant bulk velocity through the channel. The temporal solver uses the block lowerupper symmetric GaussSeidel (LUSGS) method [61, 62] together with a 2nd order optimized backward differential formula. The simulations were run sufficiently long to obtain converged mean flow and Reynolds stress profiles.
The mean velocity profiles computed with the SGS models at all length scales are compared with the DNS result and the ILES result in Fig.Â 9. Note first that the ILES result agrees very well with the DNS result because the present mesh resolution can be considered comparable to that of the DNS. It is obvious that the Smagorinsky model performed very poorly with all three length scales because of its large eddy viscosity near the wall boundary. This observation confirmed many earlier studies which showed that the Smagorinsky model degraded the accuracy of WRLES, e.g., [25]. The WALE and the Vreman models produced much better results than the Smagorinsky model, especially with lengths d2 and d3. Due to the proper nearwall behavior, both the WALE and Vreman models produced mean velocity profiles which agree very well with the DNS result in the viscous sublayer with \(y^+ < 10\). With d1, both models performed poorly in the buffer and log regions. With d2 and d3, the mean velocity profiles agree much better with the DNS result in the entire boundary layer, with the WALE model performing slightly better than the Vreman model.
Next, we compare the computed Reynolds shear stress using the SGS models with the DNS result in Fig.Â 10. Again the Smagorinsky model did not perform well with any length scale. Both the WALE and Vreman models performed well with length scales d2 and d3, and the WALE model produced visibly better agreement with the DNS data than the Vreman model. Obviously for this case, the smaller the eddy viscosity is, the better the agreement is with DNS because of the fine mesh resolution.
5.4 Fully developed turbulent channel flow at higher Reynolds numbers
The high Reynolds number channel flow problem at \(Re_{\tau }=5200\) is selected to evaluate the performance of the WALE and Vreman models for severely underresolved turbulence with WMLES [63]. We again use the DNS data from [34] for comparison purposes. The computational domain is the same as the one used for the low Reynolds number case. A uniform grid was generated for WMLES with a total of 60Â Ã—Â 16Â Ã—Â 40 elements. The mesh resolutions based on the element size in terms of wall units are roughly: \(\Delta x^+ = 1088\), \(\Delta y^+ = 650\), \(\Delta z^+ = 544\).
At the present flow condition, ILES was not stable. Previously we used an accuracypreserving limiter to stabilize the simulation. With the limiter, the computational results strongly depend on how much limiting is used as illustrated in Fig. 2. Therefore, the use of solution limiting for underresolved turbulence becomes very ad hoc. Because of the poor performance of the Smagorinsky model for the low Reynolds number case, we only consider the WALE and Vreman models in the present simulations. In order to obtain a complete picture of the performance of both SGS models, P2 to P5 simulations were performed with all three length scales. The computed mean velocity profiles and Reynolds shear stresses are compared in Figs.Â 11, 12, 13, and 14.
Relatively speaking, the spread in the mean velocity profiles is larger than the spread in the Reynolds stress \(\langle \textbf{uv} \rangle\) for all solution orders. We therefore focus on comparing performance with the mean velocity profiles. At \(P = 2\), both SGS models perform quite differently. With a decreasing length scale from d1 to d3, the mean velocity profiles shifted downward because of the reduced eddy viscosity. This trend is similar to that with a solution limiter. It is surprising, however, to see that the WALE model with the largest length scale d1 still failed to provide sufficient dissipation for the small turbulent scales in the case. Accordingly, the best result was produced with the largest length scale d1 for the WALE model. The Vreman model, on the other hand, performed as expected in that d1 has too much dissipation while d3 has too little dissipation with d2 generating the best agreement with the DNS data.
At \(P=3\) and \(P=4\), the velocity profiles computed with the WALE model agreed better with the DNS results at all length scales. The best result is still produced by the largest length scale d1. This trend, however, does not hold for \(P = 5\). At \(P = 5\), the best result is produced by d2 with the WALE model. It is strange to see that with a decreasing eddy viscosity from d1 to d3, the mean velocity profiles shifted upwards, completely reversing the trend observed from \(P=2\) to \(P=4\).
With the Vreman model, the results are very consistent in that d1 always has too much dissipation while d3 has too little dissipation with the best result produced by d2.
As a final verification of the performance evaluation, we perform a WMLES on the same mesh with \(P=3\) at the Reynolds number of \(Re_{\tau }=544\). The mesh resolutions based on the element size in terms of wall units are roughly: \(\Delta x^+ = 114\), \(\Delta y^+ = 68\), \(\Delta z^+ = 57\). The computed mean velocity and Reynolds shear stress profiles are compared with the DNS results from [34] in Fig. 15. Even though this case has a Reynolds number nearly an order of magnitude smaller, the same performance trend is observed here: d2 produces the best results for the Vreman model and d1 generates the best result for the WALE model.
6 Conclusions
A comparative study of three SGS models, namely the Smagorinsky, the WALE and the Vreman models has been conducted in the present study for WRLES and WMLES with the discontinuous highorder FR/CPR method. These models have been used extensively in the CFD community and calibrated for secondorder finite volume methods. Because of the vast difference in dissipative characteristics between secondorder and highorder methods, we expect that these SGS models need to be recalibrated for highorder methods. Our decision is to retain the same model coefficient while revising the length scale in the SGS models. We therefore consider the following three length scales: d1: \(\Delta ={V^{1/3}}\), d2: \(\Delta =\frac{V^{1/3}}{\sqrt{P+1}}\), and d3: \(\Delta =\frac{V^{1/3}}{P+1}\). Based on the benchmark problems of the TaylorGreen vortex, isentropic turbulence and the fully developed turbulent channel flows, we can draw the following conclusions:

From the TaylorGreen vortex case, we can observe that SGS models introduce much more dissipation than the numerical dissipation embedded in the highorder discontinuous methods due to the use of Riemann solvers. The WALE model is the least dissipative, followed by the Vreman model, and the Smagorinsky model.

The different length scales in the SGS models produced visibly different kinetic energy and enstrophy histories in the TaylorGreen vortex case for both underresolved and wellresolved turbulence. Needless to say, ILES always performs the best for wellresolved turbulence.

For the isentropic turbulence problem, both the WALE and the Vreman models performed similarly with the best results obtained with length scale d2.

The channel flow case showed that the Smagorinsky model performed very poorly for wallbounded flow due to its erroneous nearwall behavior. For WRLES, both the WALE and Vreman models performed reasonably well with length scales d2 and d3 while d1 produced large errors in the mean velocity profiles. We again confirmed conclusions from many studies which showed ILES performed better than explicit SGS models for WRLES.

For WMLES, the most accurate and consistent results are delivered by the Vreman model from \(P=2\) to \(P=5\) with length scale d2. We therefore recommend the Vreman model for highorder WMLES with d2. In contrast, the WALE modelâ€™s performance is not consistent with different solution polynomial orders. Even with the largest length scale d1, the WALE model appears to have insufficient dissipation to damp the small scales. At \(P=5\), the WALE modelâ€™s behavior is unexpected. We therefore recommend the Vreman model for highorder WMLES with choice d2 as the length scale.
Availability of data and materials
The solution data will be available upon request.
References
Smagorinsky J (1963) General circulation experiments with the primitive equations. I. The basic experiment. Mon Weather Rev 91(3):99â€“164.Â https://doi.org/10.1175/15200493(1963)0912.3.CO;2
Kiris CC, Ghate AS, Browne OM et al (2022) HLPW4/GMGW3: Wallmodeled LES and latticeBoltzmann technology focus group workshop summary. Paper presented at the AIAA aviation 2022 forum, Chicago, 27 June  1 July 2022.Â https://doi.org/10.2514/6.20223294
Ekaterinaris JA (2005) Highorder accurate, low numerical diffusion methods for aerodynamics. Prog Aerosp Sci 41(3â€“4):192â€“300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2005.03.003
Wang ZJ (2007) Highorder methods for the Euler and Navierâ€“Stokes equations on unstructured grids. Prog Aerosp Sci 43(1â€“3):1â€“41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2007.05.001
Vincent PE, Jameson A (2011) Facilitating the adoption of unstructured highorder methods amongst a wider community of fluid dynamicists. Math Model Nat Phenom 6(3):97â€“140. https://doi.org/10.1051/mmnp/20116305
Wang ZJ, Fidkowski K, Abgrall R et al (2013) Highorder CFD methods: current status and perspective. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 72(8):811â€“845. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.3767
Huynh HT, Wang ZJ, Vincent PE (2014) Highorder methods for computational fluid dynamics: a brief review of compact differential formulations on unstructured grids. Comput Fluids 98:209â€“220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2013.12.007
Bhaskaran R, Jia F, Laskowski GM et al (2017) Towards highorder large eddy simulation of aerothermal flows for turbomachinery applications. In: Proceedings of the ASME turbo expo 2017: turbomachinery technical conference and exposition. Volume 2B: turbomachinery, Charlotte, 2630 June 2017. https://doi.org/10.1115/GT201763358
Wang ZJ, Li Y, Jia F et al (2017) Towards industrial large eddy simulation using the FR/CPR method. Comput Fluids 156:579â€“589. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2017.04.026
Alhawwary M, Wang ZJ (2018) Fourier analysis and evaluation of DG, FD and compact difference methods for conservation laws. J Comput Phys 373:835â€“862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.07.018
Karamanos GS, Karniadakis GE (2000) A spectral vanishing viscosity method for largeeddy simulations. J Comput Phys 163(1):22â€“50. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.2000.6552
Visbal MR, Rizzetta DP (2002) Largeeddy simulation on curvilinear grids using compact differencing and filtering schemes. J Fluids Eng 124(4):836â€“847. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.1517564
Uranga A, Persson PO, Drela M et al (2011) Implicit large eddy simulation of transition to turbulence at low Reynolds numbers using a discontinuous Galerkin method. Int J Numer Methods Eng 87(1â€“5):232â€“261. https://doi.org/10.1002/nme.3036
Beck AD, Bolemann T, Flad D et al (2014) Highorder discontinuous Galerkin spectral element methods for transitional and turbulent flow simulations. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 76(8):522â€“548. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.3943
Vermeire BC, Nadarajah S, Tucker PG (2016) Implicit large eddy simulation using the highorder correction procedure via reconstruction scheme. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 82(5):231â€“260. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.4214
Chapman DR (1979) Computational aerodynamics development and outlook. AIAA J 17(12):1293â€“1313. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.61311
Choi H, Moin P (2012) Gridpoint requirements for large eddy simulation: Chapmanâ€™s estimates revisited. Phys Fluids 24(1):011702. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.3676783
Alhawwary M, Wang ZJ (2019) On the mesh resolution of industrial LES based on the DNS of flow over the T106C turbine. Adv Aerodyn 1:21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4277401900236
Deardorff JW (1970) A numerical study of threedimensional turbulent channel flow at large Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech 41(2):453â€“480. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112070000691
Balaras E, Benocci C, Piomelli U (1996) Twolayer approximate boundary conditions for largeeddy simulations. AIAA J 34(6):1111â€“1119. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.13200
Cabot W, Moin P (2000) Approximate wall boundary conditions in the largeeddy simulation of high Reynolds number flow. Flow Turbul Combust 63:269â€“291. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009958917113
Larsson J, Kawai S, Bodart J et al (2015) Large eddy simulation with modeled wallstress: recent progress and future directions. Mech Eng Rev 3(1):15â€“00418. https://doi.org/10.1299/mer.1500418
Bose ST, Park GI (2018) Wallmodeled largeeddy simulation for complex turbulent flows. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 50(1):535â€“561. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurevfluid122316045241
Shi J, Yan H, Wang ZJ (2020) Flux reconstruction implementation of an algebraic wall model for largeeddy simulation. AIAA J 58(7):3051â€“3062. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J058957
Li Y, Wang ZJ (2017) A convergent and accuracy preserving limiter for the FR/CPR method. In: 55th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting, Grapevine, 913 January 2017.Â https://doi.org/10.2514/6.20170756
Fukushima Y, Haga T (2021) Assessment of wallmodeled LES with a fluxreconstruction method for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. Paper presented at the AIAA aviation 2021 forum, Virtual, 26 August 2021. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.20212750
Kirby RM, Karniadakis GE (2003) Dealiasing on nonuniform grids: algorithms and applications. J Comput Phys 191(1):249â€“264. https://doi.org/10.1016/S00219991(03)003140
Gassner GJ, Beck AD (2013) On the accuracy of highorder discretizations for underresolved turbulence simulations. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 27:221â€“237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s0016201102537
Winters AR, Moura RC, Mengaldo G et al (2018) A comparative study on polynomial dealiasing and split form discontinuous Galerkin schemes for underresolved turbulence computations. J Comput Phys 372:1â€“21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2018.06.016
Beck AD, Flad DG, TonhÃ¤user C et al (2016) On the influence of polynomial dealiasing on subgrid scale models. Flow Turbul Combust 97:475â€“511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s104940169704y
Fernandez P, Nguyen NC, Peraire J (2017) Subgridscale modeling and implicit numerical dissipation in DGbased largeeddy simulation. In: 23rd AIAA computational fluid dynamics conference, Denver, 59 June 2017. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.20173951
Duan Z, Wang ZJ (2023) Comparative study of subgrid scale models with high order flux reconstruction method for turbulent flows. Paper presented at the AIAA scitech 2023 forum, National Harbor, 2327 January 2023. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.20231607
Flad D, Gassner G (2017) On the use of kinetic energy preserving DGschemes for large eddy simulation. J Comput Phys 350:782â€“795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2017.09.004
Lee M, Moser RD (2015) Direct numerical simulation of turbulent channel flow up to \(Re_{\tau } \approx 5200\). J Fluid Mech 774:395â€“415. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2015.268
Bardina J, Ferziger JH, Reynolds WC (1980) Improved subgridscale models for largeeddy simulation. In: 13th fluid and plasma dynamics conference, Snowmass, 1416 July 1980. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.19801357
Clark RA, Ferziger JH, Reynolds WC (1979) Evaluation of subgridscale models using an accurately simulated turbulent flow. J Fluid Mech 91(1):1â€“16. https://doi.org/10.1017/S002211207900001X
Zang Y, Street RL, Koseff JR (1993) A dynamic mixed subgridscale model and its application to turbulent recirculating flows. Phys Fluids A Fluid Dyn 5(12):3186â€“3196. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.858675
Nicoud F, Ducros F (1999) Subgridscale stress modelling based on the square of the velocity gradient tensor. Flow Turbul Combust 62(3):183â€“200. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009995426001
Vreman AW (2004) An eddyviscosity subgridscale model for turbulent shear flow: Algebraic theory and applications. Phys Fluids 16(10):3670â€“3681. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1785131
Germano M, Piomelli U, Moin P et al (1991) A dynamic subgridscale eddy viscosity model. Phys Fluids A Fluid Dyn 3(7):1760â€“1765. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.857955
Germano M (1992) Turbulence: the filtering approach. J Fluid Mech 238:325â€“336. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112092001733
Vreman B, Geurts B, Kuerten H (1996) Largeeddy simulation of the temporal mixing layer using the Clark model. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 8(4):309â€“324. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00639698
Morinishi Y, Vasilyev OV (2001) A recommended modification to the dynamic twoparameter mixed subgrid scale model for large eddy simulation of wall bounded turbulent flow. Phys Fluids 13(11):3400â€“3410. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1404396
Yang Z, Cui G, Xu C et al (2012) Large eddy simulation of rotating turbulent channel flow with a new dynamic globalcoefficient nonlinear subgrid stress model. J Turbul 13:N48.Â https://doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2012.726996
Ghaisas NS, Frankel SH (2016) Dynamic gradient models for the subgrid scale stress tensor and scalar flux vector in large eddy simulation. J Turbul 17(1):30â€“50. https://doi.org/10.1080/14685248.2015.1083106
Pino MartÃn M, Piomelli U, Candler GV (2000) Subgridscale models for compressible largeeddy simulations. Theor Comput Fluid Dyn 13(5):361â€“376. https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00020896
Lenormand E, Sagaut P, Phuoc LT et al (2000) Subgridscale models for largeeddy simulations of compressible wall bounded flows. AIAA J 38(8):1340â€“1350. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.1133
Meneveau C, Katz J (2000) Scaleinvariance and turbulence models for largeeddy simulation. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 32(1):1â€“32. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fluid.32.1.1
Grinstein FF, Margolin LG, Rider WJ (2007) Implicit large eddy simulation: computing turbulent fluid dynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511618604
Garmann DJ, Visbal MR, Orkwis PD (2013) Comparative study of implicit and subgridscale model largeeddy simulation techniques for lowreynolds number airfoil applications. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 71(12):1546â€“1565. https://doi.org/10.1002/fld.3725
Li Y, Wang ZJ (2016) A priori and a posteriori evaluations of subgrid scale models for the Burgersâ€™ equation. Comput Fluids 139:92â€“104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compfluid.2016.04.015
Huynh HT (2007) A flux reconstruction approach to highorder schemes including discontinuous Galerkin methods. In: 18th AIAA computational fluid dynamics conference, Miami, 2528 June 2007. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.20074079
Wang ZJ, Gao H (2009) A unifying lifting collocation penalty formulation including the discontinuous Galerkin, spectral volume/difference methods for conservation laws on mixed grids. J Comput Phys 228(21):8161â€“8186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2009.07.036
Haga T, Gao H, Wang ZJ (2011) A highorder unifying discontinuous formulation for the NavierStokes equations on 3D mixed grids. Math Model Nat Phenom 6(3):28â€“56. https://doi.org/10.1051/mmnp/20116302
Jameson A (2022) Computational aerodynamics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108943345
Lilly DK (1992) A proposed modification of the Germano subgridscale closure method. Phys Fluids A Fluid Dyn 4(3):633â€“635. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.858280
Roe PL (1981) Approximate Riemann solvers, parameter vectors, and difference schemes. J Comput Phys 43(2):357â€“372. https://doi.org/10.1016/00219991(81)901285
Bassi F, Rebay S (1997) A highorder accurate discontinuous finite element method for the numerical solution of the compressible NavierStokes equations. J Comput Phys 131(2):267â€“279. https://doi.org/10.1006/jcph.1996.5572
Gottlieb S, Shu CW, Tadmor E (2001) Strong stabilitypreserving highorder time discretization methods. SIAM Rev 43(1):89â€“112. https://doi.org/10.1137/S003614450036757X
Vatsa V, Carpenter M, Lockard D (2010) Reevaluation of an optimized second order backward difference (BDF2OPT) scheme for unsteady flow applications. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition, Orlando, 47 January 2010. https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010122
Jameson A, Yoon S (1987) Lowerupper implicit schemes with multiple grids for the Euler equations. AIAA J 25(7):929â€“935. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.9724
Chen RF, Wang ZJ (2000) Fast, block lowerupper symmetric GaussSeidel scheme for arbitrary grids. AIAA J 38(12):2238â€“2245. https://doi.org/10.2514/2.914
Wang ZJ (2022) High order wallmodeled largeeddy simulation on mixed unstructured meshes. AIAA J 60(12):6881â€“6896. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J061641
Zhu H, Fu S, Shi L et al (2016) Implicit largeeddy simulation for the highorder flux reconstruction method. AIAA J 54(9):2721â€“2733. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.j054826
FrÃ¨re A, Carton de Wiart C, Hillewaert K et al (2017) Application of wall models to discontinuous Galerkin LES. Phys Fluids 29(8):085111. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4998977
van Rees WM, Leonard A, Pullin DI et al (2011) A comparison of vortex and pseudospectral methods for the simulation of periodic vortical flows at high Reynolds numbers. J Comput Phys 230(8):2794â€“2805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcp.2010.11.031
ComteBellot G, Corrsin S (1971) Simple Eulerian time correlation of full and narrowband velocity signals in gridgenerated, â€˜isotropicâ€™ turbulence. J Fluid Mech 48(2):273â€“337. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112071001599
Kwak D, Reynolds WC, Ferziger JH (1975) Threedimensional time dependent computation of turbulent flow. NASA Contr Rep NASACR166408
Acknowledgements
The first author gratefully acknowledges the support from GE Research while the second author is partially supported by AFOSR under grant number FA95502010315.
Funding
This material is based upon work supported by the Air Force Office of Scientific Research under Award Number FA95502010315, and GE Research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Zhaowen Duan: Methodology, Software, Simulation, WritingÂ  Original draft. Z.Â J. Wang: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Simulation, WritingÂ  Reviewing and Editing, Funding acquisition.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors do not have any competing interests.
Additional information
Publisherâ€™s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Duan, Z., Wang, Z.J. Calibrating subgrid scale models for highorder wallmodeled large eddy simulation. Adv. Aerodyn. 6, 5 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42774023001697
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42774023001697