Isn't it the DNS result? Are there something wrong in my post processing?

[GoogleCodeExporter]

What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. I tried to do the simulation with channel flow procedure(phisical 
size:4×pi,2,2*pi  grid size:128*129*84) .In the end, I can get the 
ux001-ux030,uy001-uy030,uz001-uz030,pp001-pp030,vort001-vort030 etc binary data 
file.
2. Then I use the pathline.f90(in the attach files),to translate the binary 
data to ascii data,in order that I can watch the data with Tecplot
3. But the results show that It isn't my ideal expectation output. The result 
isn't perfect!  I don't know whether there are something wrong in my post 
processing?

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?
   My expected output : more clear flow field structure information is shown than the LES/DES.
   What I saw is the coarse output without enough flow field message.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?
   Incompact3d under UbuntuKylin13.10

Please provide any additional information below.
    vort30.jpg is the file generated at the the 30th time step.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by [email protected] on 18 Apr 2014 at 5:09

Attachments:

• pathline.f90
• uxuyuz.jpg
• uxuyuz--.jpg
• vort30.jpg

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Dear Ye Zhaoliang,

It seems to me that you did not trigger instabilities to get a turbulent state. 
Looks like you obtain a laminar channel flow. You need to add flow 
perturbations to get a fully turbulent channel flow.

Sylvain Laizet

Original comment by [email protected] on 2 May 2014 at 7:19

[GoogleCodeExporter]

Thanks for your prompt reply.
  Here you mean that the current version of the code in the google is the default laminar channel flow while the re is equal to 4200(so if you want to reach the kolmogrove scales mesh numbers N must greater than re**2.25=142007376.24599978 rather than 128*129*84).
  Then I have a question.why do you set the mesh number be 128*129*84 while re=4200? or How can you explain it?

Ye Zhaoliang

Original comment by [email protected] on 3 May 2014 at 5:57