Talk:Turbulence: Subgrid-Scale Modeling

From Scholarpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

    Minor suggestions:

    after Eq. (6) "...has see extensive..."; should be "...has seen extensive..."?

    in discussing WALE models there is a typo in the definition of W_ij where S_kJ is used instead of S_kj.

    Fig. 2 is appropriate for sharp spectral filters only. This may be stressed in the main text or if more general filters G are used (as implied by the text) then the figure should be modified as discussed by

    \bibitem{CaratiWinckelmansJeanmart} D.~Carati, G.~Winckelmans, and H.~Jeanmart, \enquote{On the modelling of the subgrid-scale and filtered-scale stress tensors in large-eddy simulation,} J. Fluid Mech. \textbf{441}, pp. 119--138 (2001).

    In the sentence "In order to avoid possible divisions by zero, a more robust was subsequently developed by Lilly (1992)." should be "...a more robust procedure..."?

    The discussion of insufficient dissipation in deconvolution models: " addition to filtering, there is irreversible loss of information when representing fields, even filtered ones, onto a discrete grid". This is issue as well as insufficient dissipation in similarity models have been addressed and explained in detail in section 2 of the paper

    \bibitem{domar02a} J.~A. Domaradzki, K.~Loh, and P.~P. Yee, \enquote{Large eddy simulations using the subgrid-scale estimation model and truncated {N}avier-{S}tokes dynamics,} Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. \textbf{15}, pp. 421--450 (2002),

    where perfect deconvolution is shown to be equivalent to under-resolved DNS. I forward that paper to the author to let him decide if a reference would be helpful to a reader.

    Chapter "Fundamental properties of the subgrid scale stress tensor": It is not said explicitely what the definition of the angle brackets is. This may lead to some confusion. Further, when printing out the article in portrait style, equation (3) exceeds the paper fit.
    Chapter "Germano identity and dynamic model": Before equation (7), there is referred to a figure, but the number is missing. Obviously, it refers to Fig. 2. --Schaefer-Rolffs 05:54, 29 January 2010 (EST)

    Author :

    Response from curator:

    Many thanks for these useful comments. I have added the corrections in latest version (except for the format of Eq. 3 which I feel is currently "better than other options") Thanks again,

    Charles Meneveau

    Personal tools

    Focal areas