[Nek5000-users] Reynolds number setting in the turbChannel example

[nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov]

Yes -- but presumably if the LES is at all accurate then the mean wall shear should be reasonably close to DNS or it has otherwise missed an important quantity of interest?


Paul


________________________________
From: Nek5000-users <nek5000-users-bounces at lists.mcs.anl.gov> on behalf of nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov <nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov>
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2017 7:40:46 AM
To: nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov
Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] Reynolds number setting in the turbChannel example

Re_tau is a simulation result and not known a-priori i.e. the number below holds for a DNS but not for an LES.


-----Original message-----
> From:nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov <nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov>
> Sent: Friday 22nd December 2017 14:33
> To: nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov
> Subject: Re: [Nek5000-users] Reynolds number setting in the turbChannel example
>
> Hi Zhenrong,
>
> I used 2800 for shear Reynolds number 180 in channel flow and got a good agreement with Kim et al. (1987).
>
> Hope it work to you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Nek5000-users mailing list
> Nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov
> https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
_______________________________________________
Nek5000-users mailing list
Nek5000-users at lists.mcs.anl.gov
https://lists.mcs.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/nek5000-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.mcs.anl.gov/pipermail/nek5000-users/attachments/20171222/0d766d48/attachment.html>