Characteristics of subgrid-resolved-scale dynamics in anisotropic turbulence, with application to rough-wall boundary layers

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Large-eddy simulation (LES) of the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) using eddy viscosity subgrid-scale (SGS) models is known to poorly predict mean shear at the first few grid cells near the ground, a rough surface with no viscous sublayer. It has recently been shown that convective motions carry this localized error vertically to infect the entire ABL, and that the error is more a consequence of the SGS model than grid resolution in the near-surface inertial layer. Our goal was to determine what first-order errors in the predicted SGS terms lead to spurious expectation values, and what basic dynamics in the filtered equation for resolved scale (RS) velocity must be captured by SGS models to correct the deficiencies. Our analysis is of general relevance to LES of rough-wall high Reynolds number boundary layers, where the essential difficulty in the closure is the importance of the SGS acceleration terms, a consequence of necessary under-resolution of relevant energy-containing motions at the first few grid levels, leading to potentially strong couplings between the anisotropies in resolved velocity and predicted SGS dynamics. We analyze these two issues (under-resolution and anisotropy) in the absence of a wall using two direct numerical simulation datasets of homogeneous turbulence with very different anisotropic structure characteristic of the near-surface ABL: shear- and buoyancy-generated turbulence. We uncover three important issues which should be addressed in the design of SGS closures near rough walls and we provide a priori tests for the SGS model. First, we identify a strong spurious coupling between the anisotropic structure of the resolved velocity field and predicted SGS dynamics which can create a feedback loop to incorrectly enhance certain components of the predicted velocity field. Second, we find that eddy viscosity and “similarity” SGS models do not contain enough degrees of freedom to capture, at a sufficient level of accuracy, both RS-SGS energy flux and SGS-RS dynamics. Third, to correctly capture pressure transport near a wall, closures must be made more flexible to accommodate proper partitioning between SGS stress divergence and SGS pressure gradient.