180 likes | 304 Views
Vorticity as a signature of interfaces and wakes. G.-H. Cottet Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann, Grenoble. Outline: Vorticity and interfaces variable density flows fluid-structure interaction Vorticity and wakes 3D aspects control A glance at vortex particle methods.
E N D
Vorticity as a signature of interfaces and wakes G.-H. Cottet Laboratoire Jean Kuntzmann, Grenoble
Outline: • Vorticity and interfaces • variable density flows • fluid-structure interaction • Vorticity and wakes • 3D aspects • control • A glance at vortex particle methods
Formulation vorticity / density gradients (cf C. Anderson, JCP’82): Variable density fluids Primitive variables: 2 incompressible fluids with surface tension: level-set type formulation (Hou-Osher): Surface tension term:
Rising bubbles Interface and vorticity for N=256 and N=512
cloud of dust on slope Kelvin-Helmholtz instability Interaction with boundary layer and ejection
Other interface problem: fluid interacting with rigid body (with Coquerelle & Cani, 2006) Two approaches: solve separately fluid and solid and impose continuity Consider system as single flow with variable density and Constitutive laws Second approach more numerically efficient
Curl of the equation gives: Two vortex generators on the interface Idea: formulate problem as a penalization model : where is the rigid displacement obtained by averaging velocities over S and l>>1.
64 X 64 X 64
Tumbling of spheres Validation against ALE methods Flow physics for visualization
Vorticity and wakes In 3d, vorticity is a lagrangian vector (satisfies same equation as transport of lines) Orientation matters a lot: illustration in cylinder wake control
Control of wake by enhancing 3d instabilities Goal : minimize drag Starting point: optimal belt actuator (tangential body velocities) obtained for 2D cylinders by genetic algorithms (Milano & Koumoutsakos, 2002): Tangential velocity profile
Optimization on a small number of harmonics of the span, by “brute force” area bombing (12h/run) (with Hildebrand, Poncet, Kiumoutsakos, 2006)
Result: compared to 2D optimal control, with same energy, improvement in drag reduction by a factor 4 (same factor for Re=1000 !)
Drag reduction mechanism: streamwise vorticity attached to the body delays shedding Top view of vorticity Close up braids of streamwise vorticity
A glance at vortex particle methods Incompressible 3D Navier-Stokes equations Random walk or vorticity exchange + « blob » regularization : d -> z and Biot-Savart law: u=u(w)
As such, the method is useless: • Too expansive • Particle deformation prevents accuracy • -> need to rely on a grid to • -compute fields • -remesh particles -> frustrating (or not ..) -> but understanding why remeshing is necessary is useful ..
In velocity form, energy transfer between scales at particle p given by Claim: remeshing necessary because particle methods create small and large scale (-> backscatter) Amount of backscatter and transfer to small scales can be evaluated through numerical analysis of enstrophy budget
Dissipation to small scales given by : Sub grid scale dissipation in turbulent channel flow: particle model vs dynamic model 2D turbulent flow: subgrid dissipation correlates with saddle points