Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This analysis demonstrates WMLES's predictive limitations for turbulent fluctuations and coherent structures, highlighting buffer layer resolution's importance.
Wall-modeled large-eddy simulation (WMLES) of turbulent channel flow is performed to evaluate its predictive capability for near-wall turbulent fluctuations, coherent structures, and turbulence kinetic energy (TKE) budget—aspects that have received relatively little attention in previous studies. Our investigation begins with a low Reynolds number case (Reτ ≈ 1000) to establish the baseline performance of WMLES, followed by an assessment of its generalizability under moderately higher Reynolds number conditions (Reτ ≈ 5200). The results show that WMLES tends to overestimate the low-wavenumber (frequency) component of wall pressure fluctuations. Two convection ridges are observed in its wavenumber-frequency spectra. Further analyses reveal that the additional low-speed convection ridge is primarily attributed to the low-speed wall-attached eddies. When the first-layer grid height is large, these wall-attached eddies are nonphysically elongated in the wall-normal direction. Under-resolving buffer layer degrades streak coherence, suppresses ejection (Q2), and sweep (Q4) events. The probability density function of streamwise velocity fluctuations at y+=15 tends to a Gaussian distribution, indicating a loss of turbulence anisotropy and intermittency. Additionally, a term-by-term comparison of TKE budget equation indicates a shift in the turbulent core region near the wall—from a fully resolved balance between turbulence production (Pk) and viscous dissipation (ε) to a balance dominated by Pk and turbulent transport (Tk). To improve the predictive accuracy of WMLES for near-wall turbulence fluctuations and coherent structures, appropriately resolving the buffer layer (Δyw+=10) is essential. The conclusions of this study are consistent across the range of Reynolds numbers considered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fan et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: