0
Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

Comparison of Partially Averaged Navier–Stokes and Large-Eddy Simulations of the Flow Around a Cuboid Influenced by Crosswind

[+] Author and Article Information
Siniša Krajnović1

 Division of Fluid Dynamics, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Swedensinisa@chalmers.se

Per Ringqvist

 Division of Fluid Dynamics, Department of Applied Mechanics, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 Gothenburg, Sweden

Branislav Basara

 Chief CFD Developer AVL List GmbH, Advanced Simulation Technologies, 8020 Graz, Austria

1

Corresponding author.

J. Fluids Eng 134(10), 101202 (Sep 28, 2012) (10 pages) doi:10.1115/1.4007363 History: Received February 07, 2012; Revised August 08, 2012; Published September 24, 2012; Online September 28, 2012

Th e paper presents a partially averaged Navier–Stokes (PANS) simulation of the flow around a cuboid influenced by crosswind. The results of the PANS prediction are validated against experimental data and results of a large-eddy simulation (LES) made using the same numerical conditions as PANS. The PANS shows good agreement with the experimental data. The prediction of PANS was found to be better than that of the LES in flow regions where simulations suffered from poor near-wall resolution.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2012 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

(a) Schematic view of the experimental setup and reference coordinate system. (b) Computational domain. (c) Boundary conditions.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

(a) The points on the cuboid body where the pressure is measured during the experiment. (b) The dimensions of the cuboid body and the distances between the measurement points. All numbers are given in mm.

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Mesh region seen from (a) the side of the cuboid and (b) front of the cuboid

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Instantaneous flow structures around the cuboid body, visualized by a Q-surface with value Q=2×105

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Comparison of LES, PANS, and experimental data for pressure coefficient Cp at centered cross sections taken from a y-normal front (a) and from a z-normal above (b) view

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Comparison of LES, PANS, and experimental data for pressure coefficient Cp at the lateral cross sections

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Streamlines at the centered cross section

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Streamlines at one of the lateral cross sections

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Streamlines seen from above; plane at mid-height of the train

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Time-averaged flow structures visualized with vortex cores and streamlines projected onto several planes

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Time history of side force coefficient Cs from LES (a) and PANS (b). Power spectral density for Cs signal from LES (c) and PANS (d).

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Comparison of the resolved turbulence kinetic energy ⟨kr⟩ for LES and PANS

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Averaged unresolved turbulence kinetic energy comparison between LES and PANS

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Averaged unresolved to total ratio of the turbulence kinetic energy, ⟨ku⟩/(⟨ku⟩+kr)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In