Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

A Comparison of Three Approaches to Compute the Effective Reynolds Number of the Implicit Large-Eddy Simulations

[+] Author and Article Information
Ye Zhou

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, CA 94550

Ben Thornber

School of Aerospace, Mechanical and
Mechatronic Engineering,
The University of Sydney,
Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 4, 2015; final manuscript received November 11, 2015; published online April 12, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Daniel Livescu.The United States Government retains, and by accepting the article for publication, the publisher acknowledges that the United States Government retains, a nonexclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, worldwide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this work, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes.

J. Fluids Eng 138(7), 070905 (Apr 12, 2016) (7 pages) Paper No: FE-15-1139; doi: 10.1115/1.4032532 History: Received March 04, 2015; Revised November 11, 2015

The implicit large-eddy simulation (ILES) has been utilized as an effective approach for calculating many complex flows at high Reynolds number flows. Richtmyer–Meshkov instability (RMI) induced flow can be viewed as a homogeneous decaying turbulence (HDT) after the passage of the shock. In this article, a critical evaluation of three methods for estimating the effective Reynolds number and the effective kinematic viscosity is undertaken utilizing high-resolution ILES data. Effective Reynolds numbers based on the vorticity and dissipation rate, or the integral and inner-viscous length scales, are found to be the most self-consistent when compared to the expected phenomenology and wind tunnel experiments.

Copyright © 2016 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.



Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The time variation of the key properties of the HDT flow field: (a) time variation of integral length (left), (b) turbulent kinetic energy (middle), and (c) enstrophy (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Turbulent kinetic energy spectra (left) and compensated spectra (right) as a function of time

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Effective Reynolds number for all models (left) and a close-up of models A and B (right)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Eddy viscosities computed using models A and B, respectively

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Integral length plotted against the Taylor microscale for the duration of the simulation




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