Comparison of a finite volume and two Lattice Boltzmann solvers for swirled confined flows

Comparison of a finite volume and two Lattice Boltzmann solvers for swirled confined flows

A finite volume and two Lattice–Boltzmann unsteady, flow solvers using LES (Large Eddy Simulation) were compared in a swirling flow configuration, typical of aeronautical combustion chambers. Numerical results were validated against experimental data collected at EM2C laboratory by comparing pressur...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Computers & fluids Vol. 241; p. 105463
Main Authors: Aniello, A., Schuster, D., Werner, P., Boussuge, J.F., Gatti, M., Mirat, C., Selle, L., Schuller, T., Poinsot, T., Rüde, U.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Amsterdam Elsevier Ltd 15-06-2022
Elsevier BV
Subjects:
Combustion chambers
Confined flow
CPU efficiency
Large Eddy Simulation
LBM and FVM comparison
Pressure loss
Solvers
Swirling
Swirling flow
Velocity distribution
CPU efficiency
Large Eddy Simulation
Swirling flow
LBM and FVM comparison
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:A finite volume and two Lattice–Boltzmann unsteady, flow solvers using LES (Large Eddy Simulation) were compared in a swirling flow configuration, typical of aeronautical combustion chambers. Numerical results were validated against experimental data collected at EM2C laboratory by comparing pressure losses, mean and RMS velocity profiles on multiple planes and axial velocity spectra. Meshes and the overall numerical setups were individually adjusted for each code to obtain the targeted accuracy before comparing CPU efficiencies. Results confirm that the three LES codes provide high fidelity results, much better than usual RANS especially in terms of RMS data. The analysis of CPU performances shows that LBM (Lattice–Boltzmann Method) solvers are faster than the finite volume solver, even if CPU efficiencies remains of the same order of magnitude. In addition, strong scaling tests from 36 to 900 cores show that the finite volume solver scales more efficiently than the LBM codes, specially when the number of grid points per core is not sufficient. •Swirling turbulent flows are proven to be a valid test case to compare different LES solvers.•LBM results in better CPU performances than Finite Volume Method for the simulations performed.•FVM shows better scaling capability than LBM methods over the range investigated: 36 to 900.
ISSN:0045-7930
1879-0747
DOI:10.1016/j.compfluid.2022.105463