Professional Documents
Culture Documents
j
ij
i
i j
i
i
x x
P
) U U (
x
) U (
t
+
=
+ +
e, temperatur T enthalpy, h = =
209
Governing Equations (Continued)
Stress-strain relation
Viscous dissipation
Equation of state
; Kroneckers delta
j
i
ij
x
U
=
ij
~ ~
j
i
i
j
ij
U
3
2
x
U
x
U
=
) T , ( func P =
{
j i if 1
j i if 0 ij
=
=
210
Stationary Turbulence
Averaging Techniques: Reynolds Averaging
Unstationary Turbulence
211
U = <U> + u; Notation u = u = fluctuating component of U(x,t)
Time average:
Ensemble average:
Phase Averaging:
t = window width
>= =<
+
t as Limit ; dt ) t ( U
t
1
U U
t t
t
0
0
( ) Large N ; t , x U
N
1
U
N
1 i
i
>= <
=
( ) + >= <
2
t
2
t
d ) t , x ( U
t
1
t , x U
Averaging Techniques: Reynolds Averaging
212
For flows with significant variations in fluid properties,
fluctuations in density and viscosity etc., can not be neglected.
In such flows a density weighted average (Favre average) is
more appropriate.
U = {U}+ u; decomposition of U(x,t)
Definition {U}= <U>/< >, {}= Favre average
note: <u> = -< u>/< > = - < u>/< > 0,
but < u> = 0.
{uv}= <uv> + < uv>/< > - < u
v>/< >
2
Averaging Techniques: Favre Averaging
213
< U + V > = <U> + <V>; < <U> > = <U>; <U><V>> = <U><V>
<dU/dt> = d(<U>)/dt; <d(UV)/dx> = d (<UV>)/dx
average of a derivative = derivative of the average
<u> = 0; average of the fluctuations is zero , (not for Favre
averaging)
<UV> = <U><V> + <uv> ; <uv> 0. (non linear terms!)
Comment: Average of linear terms is the same with the averaged
quantities substituted, Non-linear terms, e.g. d(UV)/dx, lead to extra
terms that need to be calculated separately.
Averaging Rules
214
Two- Equation Models: Exact k- Equations
Exact equation can be derived for turbulent kinetic energy, k,
and its dissipation rate, , from Naiver-Stokes Equation.
k-Equation
; P Diff
Dt
Dk
k k
+ =
; diffusion diffusion
Turbulent Laminar
; u ' p u u u
2
1
x
k
q
j j i i
j
k
j
=
j
i
j
i
j
i
j i
j
i
t
ij k
x
u
x
u
x
U
u u
x
U
P
=
j
k
k
x
q
Diff
+ =
Production:
Dissipation:
215
Two- Equation Models: k- Equations
Similarly exact equations can be obtained for any quantity
n
ch
2 / m n
ch
m
ch
k u Z l l = =
(See Rodi, 1980; Menter and Scheueres, 1998, also the work book)
e.g.: : dissipation per unit turbulence kinetic energy (Specific dissipation rate);
t
ch
=()
-1
or rms fluctuation voticity (enstropy)
: Const u/l =c k
1/2
/l=c/k; -Equation(see Wilcox, 1993)
Diss P Diff
Dt
D
+ =
Diss P Diff
Dt
D
+ =
-equation:
(See workbook for details)
216
Two- Equation Models: Modeling assumptions
Turbulent diffusion is proportional to gradient of the mean flow
properties (analogous to heat conduction q
hj
=-k
h
dT/dx
j
)
The principal axes of turbulent stresses and mean-strain rate S
ij
are
aligned (Not valid for many flows)
Small turbulent eddies are isotropic (Valid at high turbulence Reynolds
number)
Turbulence phenomenon is consistent in symmetry, invariance (e.g.
coordinate invariance), permutation, and physical observations
(consistency and reliability)
Turbulence phenomenon can be characterized by one velocity scale
u
ch
k
1/2
, and one length scale, l
ch
.
t
ij
2
3
k
217
Turbulent eddy viscosity; (Dimensional analysis)
Diffusion fluxes
(See e.g. Speziale 1995, Hanjalic &Launder, 1972; p. 168 Shyy et al., 1997) <
add notes from Shyy et al and Ching and Shenq p.38 to work book or lecture notes)
Valid for equilibrium, P
k
(locally) flows at high Reynolds
number, see e.g. Hanjalic and Launder, 1972)
Two- Equation Models: Modeling of k- equations
k
u
t ;
k
; k u ;
k
c ; u c
ch
ch
2 / 3
ch
2 / 1
ch
2
t ch ch t
= = =
= = =
l
l
l
( )
j
eff k
kj
x
k
q
=
ch 2
t / C Diss
=
ch
k
1
t
P
C P
=
218
Turbulent Kinetic Energy budget: Wake flow
(After Menter & Scheuerer, 1998)
219
Two- Equation Models: Variants-1
1.15 0.8927 1.90 1.15 +0.25P/ 0.09
Nonequilibrium
0.7179 0.7179 1.68 1.42 - 0.085 RNG
1.3 1.0 1.92 1.44 0.09 Standard
k
C
2
C
1
C
Model
3
0
1
1
Table 2.0: Comparison of coefficients adopted by different models (Shyy et al., 1997)
( ) 0.015 ; 38 . 4 ; S S 2 S ; S
0
2
1
ij ij = = = =
Low-Reynolds number & near wall effects
2 2 2 1 1 1
C C ; C ; f f C f C C
Additional source term, S
= E; also * = -
0
220
Two- Equation Models: Variants-1
Example: Launder-Sharma Model
(see Wilcox, 1993, and Bardina et al; 1997 for other models)
3 . 1 , 0 . 1 , 09 . 0 C , 92 . 1 C , 44 . 1 C
y
U
2 ;
y
k
2
k
Re ; e 3 . 0 1 f ; 1 f ; e f
k 2 1
2
2
2
t
2
0
t
* 2
t
Re
2 1
50
Re
1 / 4 . 3
2
t
2
t
= = = = =
=
= = = =
Note: This model is asymptotically consistent near the wall.
3
xy
2
2
y ~ ,
y
2
~
k
, y ~ k , o y As
221
Two- Equation Models: Variants-2
Shear-Stress-Transport (SST) effects (see Menter, 1994)
Use standard two-equation (e.g. k-) model outside of the boundary layer (or
shear layer), but inside use
= (dU/dy), F
2
= [0,1] blending function
Dominant Strain-rate Effects
Near stagnation regions dU/dx is large
P
k
~ (u
2
v
2
)(U/x)
Kato-Launder modification:
Curvature, Buoyancy and Rotation effects- Zero Equation Models
l
mix
= l
m0
[ 1 + Ri
]
-1
; Ri = Richardson number (see later)
( )
31 . 0 ;
, max
;
1
2 1
1
1
2
1
= a
F a
k a
k a
P
t
[ ]
i
i
lm ij t k
x
U
k S P
=
3
2
2
2
1
2 2
222
Two- Equation Models: Variants-3
Buoyancy effects: production/destruction of k & is affected by buoyancy forces
Use Boussinesq approximation: => + only in the body force term;
g = gT
Additional source terms in the k- equations
Similarly
Ri
= Ri
g
= -G
k
/P
k
; in 2D Ri
g =
( g/)(/x)/(u/y)
2
C
3
= 1.0 (horizontal layers); C
3
= 0 (vertical layers)
Ri =Ri
f
= - (1/2) G
v
2
/(P
k
+G
k
); Flux Richardson Number, (Rodi, 1980)
Ri
f
= -G
k
/(P
k
+G
k
) Horizontal layers, Ri
f
= 0 (vertical layers); C
3
= 0.8
May also use G
= C
1
C
3
max(G
k
, 0)
If R
i
> 0 (/y>0) stable; otherwise unstable flow
;
y
g ' ' v g G
t
k
= =
( )( ) ( )
k
G P R C 1 C G
k k i 3 1
+ + =
y
g ' ' v g G
t
k
= =
223
Two- Equation Models: Variants-4
Streamline curvature effects: modify production and destruction of k and by
analogy to buoyancy
The Curvature Richardson number can be defined (for various definitions
see notes, also see Sloan et al., 1986) as:
U= velocity tangent to the curved surface, R = radius of curvature
n = direction normal to the curved surface
Rotating Flows: similar to curvature effects use
W= swirl velocity, U=axial velocity, r=radial distance
( )
( )
(
|
.
|
\
|
=
2
2 g
n
U
n
UR
R
U
2 Ri
( )[ ] ( )
2
2
g
r
U
r
W
2
r
U
r
W
2 Ri
=
224
Two- Equation Models: Variants-5
Two-Layer Models [2L]
Use two-eq. model away from the wall
Near the wall (Say for y/ <0.1) use one-eq. Model
Example (Chen and Patel, 1987):
08 . 5 A ; 70 A ;
yk
Re ; c c
A
Re
exp 1 y c ;
k
A
Re
exp 1 y c ; k c
2
1
t
4
3
1
t
1
2
3
t
1
2
1
t
= = = =
(
'
= =
(
(
'
= =
l
l
l l
Comments:
- Saves computer storage and time, increases robustness
- Avoids solving the troublesome and weakest modeled -equation in the
critical near wall regions.
225
Two- Equation Models: Examples
0.086 0.095
0.220 0.175 0.122
Round Jet
0.100 0.110
0.143 0.142 0.102 Plane Jet
0.115 0.109 0.100 0.100
Mix. Layer
0.365 0.339 0.308 0.256 Far Wake
Experimental
SA
RNG K- (SST) Flow
(After Menter and Scheurer, 1998)
Spreading rates for free shear flows: ) 0.5U (U width half ;
dx
d
Rate Spread
2
1
2
1
= = =
230
Compressibility Effects: Examples
(After Bardina et al., 1997)
Fig 5.9: Comparison of computed and measured surface
pressure and heat transfer for Mach 9.2 flow past a 40
cylinder flare.
(After Wilcox, 1993)
231
Compressibility Effects: Examples
(After Menter and Scheuerer, 1998)
232
Two- Equation Models: Assessment-1
Simple, robust, and easy to apply to complex industrial flows. No
restriction other than performance and accuracy concerns.
Eddy viscosity usually improves stability and convergence , but -
equation, especially when used with low Re-corrections can cause
convergence problems.
In general, the results can be rated as good to fair except for some
certain cases for which the model variants are calibrated.
Transport effects are partially taken into account via k- type equations,
but the history effects on Reynolds stresses are not.
233
Two- Equation Models: Assessment-2
Deficiencies of Boussinesq Approximation (i.e. eddy viscosity models)
Principal axias of Reynolds stresses are aligned with those of mean stain
rate; not necessarily so in reality (dU/dy = 0 does not always imply
Normal stresses are usually not well predicted; local isotropy assumption
which is implicitly inherent to these models is not always valid
In general these models are not good for flows with extra rate of strains
(rotation, curvature, buoyancy, secondary motion, sudden acceleration etc.)
Remedy: Reynolds Stress Transport, Models (RSTM)
Most of these short falls can be rectified by solving for the Reynolds stresses
explicitly using appropriate transport equations
This is also known as Second Moment Closure Models (SMCM)
0 uv
xy
= =
234
Turbulent scalar fluxes and variance:
For problems involving buoyancy effects or density fluctuations (e.g.
combustion, mixture fraction) turbulent fluxes , and variance (or
rms fluctuations) appear in the equations.
(Rodi, 1980)
( )
" " ! " " "! "
"! "
" " " ! " " "
" " " " ! " " " " "! "
!
isotropy) local in 0 (
destruction viscous
l l
j
correlation gradient
scalar - pressure
i
production
bouyancy
2
i
production field - mean
j
i
j
j
j i
transport diffusive
il l i
l
transport
convective
l
i
l
of change
time rate
i
x x
u
-
x
p
1
g -
x
U
u
x
u u
1
i u
x x
u
U
t
u
i
=
=
( )
" "! " " "! " "! " "! "
j j
field mean by the
production P
j
j
transport
diffusive
2
j
j
convective
transport
j
2
j
change
of rate
2
x x
2 -
x
u 2
u
x x
U
t
= =
Destruction of
2
j
u
2
235
Reynolds Stress Transport Models:
Exact Equations
Diff.
ij
=Diffusion (molecular + turbulent transport)
P
ij
= Production
ij
= redistribution or pressure-strain term
ij
= Dissipation (relation to dissipation rate of k , (3/2)
ij
=
ij
)
P
ij
= ; Production rate by the mean flow
k
j
k
i
ij
x
u
x
u
2 =
; Dissipation Rate
t
) (
t
ij
= +
k
t
k
x
) (
U
ij
Diff
ij
+P
ij
+
ij
-
ij
+
ijk
k
t
k
C
x
) (
x
ij
jk i ik j j i k ijk
pu pu u u u C + + =
k
j t
k
i t
x
U
x
U
ik jk
+
ij
i
j
j
i
ij
ps 2
x
u
x
u
p =
=
Diff = ;
236
Reynolds Stress Transport Models:
Assumptions
The modeling of various terms in the RST equations is quite
complicated and involves a deeper understanding of physics of
turbulent flows.
A brief discussion is presented in the work book. Interested readers can
find excellent reviews in the following references: Rodi (1980), Shih
(1996), Leschziner (1998), and Speziale (1998)
Here a commonly used RSTM by Launder, Reece and Rodi (1975)
namely LRR model, is given as an example. Most other models are
based on LRR model, they differ primarily in modeling of the pressure
strain term
ij
.
237
Reynolds Stress Transport Models:
Modeled Eqs.
The LRR model (Launder-Reece-Rodi, 1975)
In their original paper, Launder, Reece and Rodi recommend C
1
=1.5, C
2
=0.4, C
s
=0.11, C
=0.15,
C
1
=1.44 and C
2
=1.90. (Wilcox, 1993, pp. 232)
(Note here n is the distance normal to the surface, but P is not the pressure !)
238
Reynolds Stress Transport Models:
Examples.
(Hogg, et. al., 1989)
239
Reynolds Stress Models: Assessment.
Most rigorous of all models
Have great potential for remedying the short comings of Boussinesq
approximation without ad hoc corrections
Physically realistic predictions for flows with curved streamlines, system
rotation, stratification, sudden changes in mean strain rate, secondary
motion and anisotropy.
The most problematic equation is still the -equation
These models are mathematically complex, numerically challenging
and computationally expensive.
Wall functions and viscous damping functions are still necessary for
wall bounded and free surface flows.
Possible remedy(a compromise): non-linear eddy viscosity models
(NLEVM) and algebraic stress models (ASM)
240
Non-linear Eddy Viscosity Models - NLEVM
Assume that the Boussinesq approximation is the first term in a series expansion of
functionals (see Wilcox, 1993; Leschziner, 1997; Speziale, 1998). Here we give as an
example the Shih et al. (1993) model. See also the work book.
( )
( )
ij kl kl
3
3
7 ij kl kl
3
3
6 ij mk lm kl li kl jk lj kl ik
3
3
5 kl il jk jl ik
3
3
4
ij kl kl jk ik
2
2
3 ik jk jk ik
2
2
2 ij kl kl ij ik
2
2
1 ij ij
S
~
k
C S S S
~
k
C S
3
2
S S
~
k
C S S S
~
k
C
3
1
~
k
C S S
~
k
C S S
3
1
S S
~
k
C S
~
k
C 2 a
+ +
+ + + +
+ + +
+ =
ij
j i
ij
k
3
2
k
u u
a
9 . 0 S 25 . 1
3 2
C
+ +
=
( ) ( )
2
2
1
~
3 3 2 1
y
k
2 ;
S 1000
1
19 , 15 , 3 C , C , C
=
+
=
ij ij
S S 2
k
S
=
ij ij
2
k
= ( ) ( )
3
7 6 5 4
C 16 , 16 , 0 , 80 C , C , C , C
=
241
Algebraic Stress Models - ASM
The traditional ASMs can be viewed as implicit NLEVM. The most
commonly used ASM was proposed by Rodi (1976, 1980)
Assumption: Transport of
t
ij
is proportional to transport of k
D(
t
ij
)/Dt - Diff(
t
ij
) =
t
ij
/k [ Dk/Dt - Diff ( k ) ] =
t
ij
/k [P
k
+ G - ]
Result:
a
ij
= F
a
[ P
ij
/ - (2/3)P/
ij
] + (1-c
3
)[ G
ij
/ - (2/3) G/ ]
F
a
= (1- )/[c
1
- 1 + (P+G)/]
P
ij
= (
t
il
U
j
/ x
l
+
t
jl
U
i
/ x
l
)/ ; G
ij
= - [g
i
<u
j
> +g
j
<u
i
>]
P
k
= P
ii
/2 ; G
k
= G
ii
/2
Typical values for the constants are(Rodi, 1980):
= 0.6, c
1
= 1.8, c
3
= 0.5
Since
t
ij
appears in P
ij
and a
ij
this equation needs to be solved iteratively.
242
ASM & k- model: Examples
Swirling flow; (After Sloan et al., 1986)
Swirling flow; (After Sloan et al., 1986)
Fig. 1. Qualitative representation of a combined vortex.
Fig. 2. Qualitative spatial distribution of the stream function as
induced by a strongly swirling flow.
243
ASM & k- model: Examples
(After Sloan et al., 1986)
Fig. 14. Comparison of predicted and measured velocity
profiles for Case 4 (data from Yoon
71
; legend supplied
by table 18)
Fig. 15. Case 4
Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted and measured tangential
velocity profiles for case 4 (data from Yoon
71
; legend
supplied by table 18).
Fig. 3: Cases 3-5
Fig. 3. Case 6
244
ASM & k- model: Examples
(After Wilcox, 1993)
(After Chen et al., 1998)
245
NLEUM & k- model: Examples
(After Apsley et al., 1998)
(After Apsley et al., 1998)
Fig. 1. Plane Channel flow: comparison of solutions with
different models against DNS data ok Kim et al., (1987);
(a) u
2
; (b) v
2
; (c) -uv
Fig. 4. High-lift aerofoil: mean-velocity and Reynolds-stress profiles
at 82.5% chord; (a) U; (b) -uv; (c) u
2
; (d) v
2
.
246
NLEUM & RSTM: Examples
(After Apsley et al., 1998)
Fig. 5. High-lift aerofoil: streamwise normal stress in aerofoil wake.
Fig. 7. Plane asymmetric diffuser: mean-velocity and Reynolds-
stress profiles in the diffuser section (A U; (b) -uv; u
2
; (d) v
2
247
NLEUM & RSTM: Examples
(Ref., Apsley et al., 1998)
Figure 6: Plane asymmetric diffuser: development of the mean velocity
profile along the diffuser
248
Algebraic Stress Models: Assessment
Have the potential of including the extra strain effects, as well as
anisotropy at some cost less than that of RSTMs
Mimic the physical behavior by means of mathematical artifacts
and careful calibration (Apsley et al. 1997)
They need to be modified for low-Re effects and near wall
treatment similar to the two-Eq. models
The advantages seems to be less pronounced in 3D than 2D
flows.
Recommended for problems where anisotropy and certain extra
strain rate effects are known to dominate
249
Influence of Inlet Conditions
(After Sloan, et al., 1986)
(After Hogg, et al., 1989)
Fig. 31. Comparison of predicted and measured centerline
axial velocity profiles for Case 7 based on various inlet
conditions (data from Vu and Gouldin
30
; legend supplied
by Table 19).
250
Initial and Boundary Conditions
Inlet: Prescribe all unknowns from experiments
example: U, V, W, k, etc.
If k, are not available from experiments:
( ) assumed) or given intensity e (turbulenc
U
u
u T ; TuU
2
3
k
inlet
rms
2
inlet
= =
1 . 0 C diameter; Hydraulic D ; D C ;
U
h h
3
rms
= =
l
l
or
Let ( ) model) - (k
k
C 10 - 10
t
2
3 2
t
Outlet: Put outlet boundary away from recirculation regions and set , P =P
ambient
.
0
x
=