Dynamic localization and second-order subgrid-scale models in large eddy simulations of channel flow

The objective here is to test the Dynamic Localization (DL) model in a wall-bounded channel flow for numerical stability and accuracy of results. Algebraic stress models suggest that the model for the residual subgrid-scale (SGS) Reynolds stress and scalar flux should generally have terms comprising most of the unique products of the resolved strain (S) and rotation (R) tensors with S and the resolved scalar gradient. The standard dynamic SGS model uses a simple (Smagorinsky) base model for the residual Reynolds stress, which is made proportional to S, and down-gradient base models for residual scalar fluxes; these correspond to the lowest, 'first-order' terms in algebraic stress models. Temporal scaling terms in these base models are formed from the magnitude of the resolved strain rate. While this is appropriate for simple shear flows, it may not be appropriate for more complicated flows (relevant to geophysical and astrophysical problems) that include any combination of shear, rotation, buoyancy, etc. On the other hand, the coefficient in the dynamic SGS model readily adjusts itself to different flow conditions and may adequately take account of these effects without the need for more complicated base models. Cabot (1993) has begun to test the dynamic SGS model in buoyant flows (Rayleigh-Benard and internally heated convection) with and without buoyancy terms explicitly included in the scaling terms of the base model; no great differences were found in large eddy simulation (LES) results for the different base model scalings. The second objective in this work is to test base models with additional, 'second-order' terms (e.g., S(sup 2) and RS for the residual Reynolds stress). These terms have been found to improve large-scale flow predictions by kappa-epsilon models in the presence of rotation and shear. Second-order base models will be tested here in the LES of channel flow with and without solid-body rotation and compared with results from the standard first-order base models to determine if there are significant differences or improvements in results that would warrant the added complexity of the second-order base models.