Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan
General Motors
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan.
Journal of Engineering for Gas Turbines and Power-transactions of The Asme | 2014
Xiaofeng Yang; Saurabh Gupta; Tang-Wei Kuo; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan
A comparative cold flow analysis between Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) and large eddy simulation (LES) cycle-averaged velocity and turbulence predictions is carried out for a single cylinder engine with a transparent combustion chamber (TCC) under motored conditions using high-speed particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements as the reference data. Simulations are done using a commercial computationally fluid dynamics (CFD) code CONVERGE with the implementation of standard k-e and RNG k-e turbulent models for RANS and a one-equation eddy viscosity model for LES. The following aspects are analyzed in this study: The effects of computational domain geometry (with or without intake and exhaust plenums) on mean flow and turbulence predictions for both LES and RANS simulations. And comparison of LES versus RANS simulations in terms of their capability to predict mean flow and turbulence. Both RANS and LES full and partial geometry simulations are able to capture the overall mean flow trends qualitatively; but the intake jet structure, velocity magnitudes, turbulence magnitudes, and its distribution are more accurately predicted by LES full geometry simulations. The guideline therefore for CFD engineers is that RANS partial geometry simulations (computationally least expensive) with a RNG k-e turbulent model and one cycle or more are good enough for capturing overall qualitative flow trends for the engineering applications. However, if one is interested in getting reasonably accurate estimates of velocity magnitudes, flow structures, turbulence magnitudes, and its distribution, they must resort to LES simulations. Furthermore, to get the most accurate turbulence distributions, one must consider running LES full geometry simulations.
Volume 2: Fuels; Numerical Simulation; Engine Design, Lubrication, and Applications | 2013
Xiaofeng Yang; Saurabh Gupta; Tang-Wei Kuo; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan
A comparative cold flow analysis between Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) and Large Eddy Simulation (LES) cycle-averaged velocity and turbulence predictions is carried out for a single cylinder engine with transparent combustion chamber (TCC) under motored conditions using high-speed Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) measurements as the reference data. Simulations are done using a commercial CFD code CONVERGE with the implementation of standard k-e and RNG k-e turbulent models for RANS and a one-equation eddy viscosity model for LES. The following aspects are analyzed in this study:1. The effects of computational domain geometry (with or without intake and exhaust plenums) on mean flow and turbulence predictions for both LES and RANS simulations2. Comparison of LES versus RANS simulations in terms of their capability to predict mean flow and turbulenceBoth RANS and LES full and partial geometry simulations are able to capture the overall mean flow trends qualitatively; but the intake jet structure, velocity magnitudes, turbulence magnitudes and its distribution are more accurately predicted by full geometry simulations.The guideline therefore for CFD engineers is that RANS partial geometry simulations (computationally least expensive) are good enough for capturing overall qualitative flow trends. However, if one is interested in getting reasonably accurate estimates of velocity magnitudes, flow structures, turbulence magnitudes and its distribution, they must resort to LES simulations. Furthermore, to get the most accurate turbulence distributions, one must consider running LES full geometry simulations.Copyright
SAE International journal of engines | 2011
Youngchul Ra; Paul Loeper; Rolf D. Reitz; Michael Andrie; Roger Krieger; David E. Foster; Russ Durrett; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan; Alejandro H. Plazas; Richard C. Peterson; Patrick G. Szymkowicz
Archive | 2010
Russell P. Durrett; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan
Flow Turbulence and Combustion | 2013
Kai Liu; Daniel C. Haworth; Xiaofeng Yang; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan
Fuel | 2016
Raul Payri; Juan P. Viera; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan; Patrick G. Szymkowicz
Fuel | 2017
Raul Payri; Juan P. Viera; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan; Patrick G. Szymkowicz
Oil & Gas Science and Technology – Revue d’IFP Energies nouvelles | 2014
Tang-Wei Kuo; Xiaofeng Yang; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan; Zhaohui Chen
Archive | 2009
Russell P. Durrett; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan
SAE Technical Paper Series (Society of Automotive Engineers) | 2016
Alok Warey; Venkatesh Gopalakrishnan; Michael Potter; Enrico Mattarelli; Carlo Alberto Rinaldini