Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
w
t
u
k
k ;
yu
y ;
u ;
u
u
u = = + = =
+ +
Results normalized by:
RNG-DV: RNG model with differential viscosity option enabled
This does not appear to have noticeable effect for this flow
Models predict similar velocity profiles, peak tke values
15
Results for k- and V2F Models
All models predict similar velocity profiles
SKO and V2F predict TKE better than k- models for this flow
SST model calculations performed without transitional flows
option. Would this have helped with TKE?
y
+
u
+
k
+
y
+
16
RSM Results
y
+
u
+
k
+
y
+
Calculations performed with default pressure strain term (GL) and quadratic pressure strain term
(SSG) using wall boundary conditions obtained from the k-equation and from the individual Reynolds
stresses (BC)
The wall boundary condition treatment does not appear to have much effect for this flow
The quadratic pressure strain model is not intended for use in the viscous sublayer.
Results from V2F and k- model appear to be more accurate for this flow
17
Results for Low-Re Models
y
+
u
+
k
+
y
+
Calculations performed with Lam Bremhorst and Launder-Sharma low Re k-
models
The Lam Bremhorst model appears slightly more accurate than the other
variations of k- models shown in a previous slide
The Launder-Sharma model does not appear to have been calibrated for this type
of flow
18
Are Results Grid-Independent?
Results shown for RSM and V2F. Similar agreement seen for standard k-
and standard k- models
y
+
u
+
k
+
y
+
y
+
u
+
k
+
y
+
19
What About Triangular Cells?
Standard k- model: For quadrilateral cells
and boundary layer mesh, y+ = 1. For
triangular cells, 0.35 < y+ < 0.7.
With sufficient mesh resolution, results are
nearly identical for quad and tri meshes
y
+
u
+
k
+
y
+
20
2d Backstep
Experiments conducted at NASA Ames (Driver and
Seegmiller, 1985); Re
H
= 3.74 x 10
4
, = 0 deg.
The flow features re-circulation, reattachment, and re-
developing BL.
Computed using SKE, RNG, RKE, and k- models on a
fine mesh.
21
Std. k- Real. k- SST k- Wilcox k- Measured
x
r
/H 5.8 6.6 6.6 7.3 6.4
Predicted reattachment lengths
Skin Friction Coefficient
22
The 2-D back-step of Driver and Seegmiller was computed
using five different near-wall mesh resolutions with the
standard wall functions (SWF) and the enhanced wall
treatment (EWT).
2D Backstep: Mesh (y
+
) Dependency
23
Symmetric Diffuser
Measured by Reneau et al.(1967)
Flow goes from attached to stalled as
included angle, , increases
24
Flow Near End of Diverging Section
RSM, 2 = 12
SKO, 2 = 12
SKO, 2 = 16
RSM, 2 = 16
25
Pressure Recovery Results
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 5 10 15 20 25
2
C
p
2
-
C
p
1
Reneau et al. (1967)
SKO
SST
RSM
SKE
RKE
RNG
SA
SKO (w/o transitional flows option)
26
Summary
Standard k-omega model results most
closely match data
Quality of standard k-omega results
decreases without transitional flows options
active
Results are similar for different models for
small included angle, but differ significantly
after stall begins
27
Measured by Obi (1993), Bruice and
Eaton (1997) - ERCOFTAC test case)
Incompressible, moderately high-Re flow
(Re
H
= 20,000 at the inlet channel) with
separation
Computed using various k- models and
k- models on a fine near-wall mesh (y+
< 1)
Asymmetric Planar Diffuser
28
Comparison with Data
Y(m)
Y(m)
29
Skin-friction predictions
Asymmetric Planar Diffuser
30
2-D Hill
Measured by Baskaran et al. (JFM, Vol. 182, 1987)
High-Re (Re
L
= 1.33 x 10
6
/m) incompressible BL
subjected to pressure gradient, streamline curvature
The main interests are the skin-friction, static pressure, and
extent of the BL separation (x=1.1 m).
Computed using SA, SKE, RKE, and k- models.
31
Results from 2D Hill
Pressure distribution
The k- models predict the
C
p
plateau very closely.
Skin-friction distribution
The k- models give an earlier
and larger separation than other
models.
32
Axisymmetric Bump
Measured by Bachalo and Johnson (1986).
Transonic BL flow with a standing shock and a pocket of
BL separation behind the shock.
Ma = 0.875, Re
c
= 13.6 x 10
6
at freestream.
Computed using S-A, SKE, RKE, KO, SST models.
33
Axisymmetric Bump (2)
Wall pressure predictions
34
RAE 2822 Airfoil
RAE2822 Transonic airfoil
Measured by Cox (1981) (Case 9 in Stanford
database)
The corrected = 2.79 deg., Ma = 0.73, Re = 6.5
x 10
6
Computed using SA, SKE, RKE, and k- models
on a wall function (coarse) mesh
35
RAE 2822 Airfoil
C
p
Predictions
36
RAE 2822
C
f
Predictions
37
RAE 2822 Airfoil Summary
Forces and moment predictions
( = 2.79, Re = 6.5 x 10
6
, Ma = 0.73)
The shock location predicted by the k- models is slightly
upstream of the measured one and the prediction by other
models.
The two k- models give a slightly lower lift coefficient,
but their results are almost identical.
Flow S-A SKE RKE SST k- Wilcox k- Exp.
CL 0.811 0.835 0.820 0.772 0.774 0.803
CD 0.0180 0.0198 0.0189 0.0172 0.0172 0.0168
CM -0.1093 -0.1063 -0.1092 -0.1068 -0.1072 -0.099
38
Axisymmetric Underwater Body
Experiments conducted (Huang et al., 1976) at DTNSRDC
High-Re (ReL= 5.9 x 106), incompressible BL flow with a separation
at around x/L = 0.92, and reattachment at x/L = 0.97.
SKE, RNG, RKE, SA, SKO, SST, RSM and Low Re models tried.
Different near-wall treatments tried.
Modified hull form
39
Axisymmetric Afterbody
Spalart-Allmaras
model (fine mesh)
Std. k- model +
2-layer (fine mesh)
No separation
on afterbody
40
Axisymmetric Afterbody
Model Separates?
Std k- n
RNG k- n
Real. k- y
RSM y
S-A y
Cp
Pressure coefficient on
coarse mesh (y
+
~ 40)
using wall functions
Position (m)
41
Axisymmetric Afterbody
Cp
Pressure coefficient on
fine mesh (y
+
~ 0.5)
using two-layer model
Model Separates?
Std k- n
RNG k- n
Real. k- y?
RSM y
S-A y
42
Axisymmetric Underwater Body
Pressure (C
p
) predictions
Static pressure in the separated
region is over-predicted by k-
models.
Skin-friction predictions
The experiment shows the flow
separates at x/L = 0.92 and
reattaches at x/L = 0.97
k- models gives too large a
separation.
43
Axisymmetric Afterbody
Spalart-Allmaras gives consistent results on both meshes
Separation not predicted by Standard k- on either mesh
RSM separates on both meshes
C
p
on body somewhat overpredicted on coarse mesh
Wall reflection term, or quadratic pressure-strain
term, necessary to obtain coarse mesh separation
Subtle separation illustrates effect of near-wall treatment
Realizable k- has smaller separation bubble on fine
mesh
Difficult to get grid-independent solutions using wall
functions --- would a low-Re formulation work?
44
Axisymmetric Afterbody
Cp
Position (m)
Model Separates?
V2F y
Abid n
Launder-Sharma n
Yang-Shih n
Abe-Kondo-Nagano n
Chang-Hsieh-Chen n
Pressure coefficient on
fine mesh using Low-Re
models
45
Axisymmetric Afterbody
Low-Re models using damping
functions do not predict the separation
Durbins V2F (4-equation) model
predicts separation
46
Low-Re Backstep
Re = 5,100
Comparison with DNS data of Le and Moin
(1994)
Comparison of Standard k- + 2-layer, Yang-Shih
low-Re model and V2F low-Re model
47
Low-Re Backstep
C
p
C
fx
Pressure coefficient and x-component of skin friction
2-layer model less accurate than V2F and Yang-Shih
48
X
Velocity
X
Velocity
X
Velocity
X
Velocity
X/h = 1 X/h = 3
X/h = 5
X/h = 7
Low-Re Backstep
49
X/h = 1
X/h = 3
X/h = 5 X/h = 7
Y
Velocity
Y
Velocity
Y
Velocity
Y
Velocity
Low-Re Backstep
50
Low-Re Backstep
Contours of Re
y
< 200
For 2-layer model where Re
y
< 200, and
t
are
prescribed algebraically. Much of the flow is in
this region
2-layer model is not always a good substitute for a
low-Re model
51
Measured by Graziani (1980) -
P&W Aircraft Group in UTC
The local heat transfer rate was
measured.
A 2-D model of the original (3d-
D) configuration at the mid-span
The suction side flow undergoes a
laminar-to-turbulent transition.
Several near-wall models and
low-Re models were tested
Two-layer zonal model
k- models with and without
the transitional flow option
2D Turbine Blade
52
The k- models with the transitional flow
option give much better results than other models
on the suction side.
Results for 2D Turbine Blade
53
Ota & Kan 151x75 quad mesh
Impinging Flow Over a Blunt Plate
54
Standard k- model
Reynolds-Stress model
(exact)
Contours of TKE production
Blunt Plate
The standard k- model gives spuriously large turbulent
kinetic energy on the front face, underpredicting the size of
the recirculation.
55
Results: Blunt Plate Skin Friction
Standard k-
Realizable k-
Experimentally observed
reattachment point is at x/d = 4.7
Predicted separation bubble
56
Compressible Mixing Layer
A
B
STREAM A
Total Pressure: 487 kPa
Static Pressure: 36 kPa
Total Temperature: 360 K
Mach Number: 2.35
k: 74 m/s
: 62,300 m/s
STREAM B
Total Pressure: 38 kPa
Static Pressure: 36 kPa
Total Temperature: 290 K
Mach Number: 0.36
k: 226 m/s
: 332,000 m/s
300 mm
72 mm
Comparison with experimental data of Goebel and Dutton (1991)
x
=
5
0
m
m
x
=
1
0
0
m
m
x
=
1
5
0
m
m
x
=
1
7
5
m
m
57
Velocity Predictions
X= 50mm
X= 100mm
X= 150mm
X= 175mm
58
TKE Predictions
X= 50mm
X= 100mm
X= 150mm
X= 175mm
59
Conclusions from Mixing Layer
RNG and Realizable k-epsilon models more
accurately predict velocity profiles in mixing layer
RNG and Realizable k-epsilon models reasonably
accurate in predicting tke in low-speed layer, but
overpredict tke in high-speed layer
RSM and standard k-epsilon results very similar in
this case
60
Confined Swirling Coaxial Jet
Inner
Jet
Swirler
Computational
Domain
Swirling Outer
Jet
An axisymmetric representation of the geometry [Roback, R. and Johnson, B.V., 1983]
Calculations performed on fine mesh with y+ ~ 1
Velocity and turbulence
profiles specified at inlet to
computational domain
X=5mm X=25mmX=51mm X=102mm X=203mm
Inner injector
Annular injector
61
Velocity and Stream Function
62
Results at x = 5 mm Section
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
A
x
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
u
(
m
/
s
)
exp
u-SKE
u-RKE
u-RNG
u-RSM
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
S
w
i
r
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
w
(
m
/
s
)
exp
w-SKE
w-RKE
w-RNG
w-RSM
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
R
a
d
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
v
(
m
/
s
)
exp
v-SKE
v-RKE
v-RNG
v-RSM
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
I
n
n
e
r
j
e
t
m
o
l
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
exp
Xjet-SKE
Xjet-RKE
Xjet-RNG
Xjet-RSM
63
Results at x = 25 mm Section
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
A
x
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
u
(
m
/
s
)
exp
u-SKE
u-RKE
u-RNG
u-RSM
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
R
a
d
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
v
(
m
/
s
)
exp
v-SKE
v-RKE
v-RNG
v-RSM
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
S
w
i
r
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
w
(
m
/
s
)
exp
w-SKE
w-RKE
w-RNG
w-RSM
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
I
n
n
e
r
j
e
t
m
o
l
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
exp
Xjet-SKE
Xjet-RKE
Xjet-RNG
Xjet-RSM
64
Results at x = 51 mm Section
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
A
x
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
u
(
m
/
s
)
exp
u-SKE
u-RKE
u-RNG
u-RSM
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
R
a
d
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
v
(
m
/
s
)
exp
v-SKE
v-RKE
v-RNG
v-RSM
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
S
w
i
r
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
w
(
m
/
s
)
exp
w-SKE
w-RKE
w-RNG
w-RSM
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
I
n
n
e
r
j
e
t
m
o
l
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
exp
Xjet-SKE
Xjet-RKE
Xjet-RNG
Xjet-RSM
65
Results at x = 102 mm Section
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
A
x
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
u
(
m
/
s
)
exp
u-SKE
u-RKE
u-RNG
u-RSM
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
R
a
d
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
v
(
m
/
s
)
exp
v-SKE
v-RKE
v-RNG
v-RSM
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
S
w
i
r
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
w
(
m
/
s
)
exp
w-SKE
w-RKE
w-RNG
w-RSM
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
I
n
n
e
r
j
e
t
m
o
l
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
exp
Xjet-SKE
Xjet-RKE
Xjet-RNG
Xjet-RSM
66
Results at x = 203 mm Section
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
A
x
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
u
(
m
/
s
)
exp
u-SKE
u-RKE
u-RNG
u-RSM
-0.16
-0.14
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
R
a
d
i
a
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
v
(
m
/
s
)
exp
v-SKE
v-RKE
v-RNG
v-RSM
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
S
w
i
r
l
v
e
l
o
c
i
l
y
w
(
m
/
s
)
exp
w-SKE
w-RKE
w-RNG
w-RSM
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
y/R0
I
n
n
e
r
j
e
t
m
o
l
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
exp
Xjet-SKE
Xjet-RKE
Xjet-RNG
Xjet-RSM
67
Conclusions
Johnson-Roback test case was run using the k- turbulence
models and the Reynolds Stress model (RSM)
Velocities (axial, radial and swirl) showed good agreement
with data
RNG k- model performed the best in predicting velocities and
mixing
Mixing results were poor downstream (x > 25 mm)
A possible cause for this behavior is the presence of large,
unsteady flow structures that cannot be captured in a RANS
framework.
68
Analysis of Differences Between
Turbulence Models
Treatment of Reynolds stresses
Treatment of terms in model equations
Treatment of wall boundary conditions
Near-wall modeling
69
RANS Equations
Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations:
How to model the Reynolds Stresses, R
ij
= ?
1. Boussinesq hypothesis
Isotropic eddy viscosity based on dimensional analysis
2. Reynolds stress transport equations
No assumption of isotropy, but more computationally
expensive and requires additional modeling
( )
j
j i
j
i
j i k
i
k
i
x
u u
x
U
x x
p
x
U
U
t
U
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
j i
u u
70
The Boussinesq Approach
Relates the Reynolds stresses to the mean flow by a turbulent
(eddy) viscosity, m
t
Relation is drawn from analogy with molecular transport of
momentum.
Assumptions valid at molecular level, not necessarily valid
at macroscopic level
m
t
is a scalar (R
ij
aligned with strain-rate tensor, S
ij
)
Taylor series expansion valid if l
mfp
|d
2
U/dy
2
| << |dU/dy|
Average time between collisions l
mfp
/ v
th
<< |dU/dy|
-1
|
|
.
|
\
|
= =
i
j
j
i
ij ij ij
k
k
ij j i ij
x
U
x
U
S k
x
U
S u u R
2
1
;
3
2
3
2
2
t t
ij xy
S v u t 2 =
=
71
Modeling
t
Oh well, focus attention on modeling
t
anyways.
Basic approach made through dimensional arguments
Units of
t
=
t
/ are [m
2
/s]
Typically one needs 2 out of the 3 scales:
velocity - length - time
Models classified in terms of number of transport
equations solved, e.g.,
zero-equation
one-equation
two-equation
72
K- Model of Wilcox (1998)
Originally conceived by Kolmogorov (1942) - The first
two-equation model
Based on Kolmogorov-Prandtl relation:
Turbulent viscosity
The dependency of * upon Re
T
was designed to
recover the correct asymptotic values in the limiting
cases.
k
k k
k k
t
where
, , l
k
t
*
=
k
R
R
R
T k
i
i
k T
k T
= =
= =
+
+
=
Re , 6
125
9
,
3
,
Re 1
Re
*
0
*
0 *
bulent) (fully tur as 1
*
T
Re
1
k
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
j k
t
j j
i
ij
x
k
x
k f
x
U
Dt
Dk
*
*
( )
( )
( )
0 . 2
8 ,
Re 1
Re 15 4
100
9
2
3
1
4
4
*
* *
=
=
+
+
=
(
+ =
k
T
T
i
t i
R
R
R
M F
( )
4 4 3 4 4 2 1
parameter diffusion - cross
j j
k
k
k
k
k
t t
t t t t
t t
t
x x
k
f
RT a M
a
k
M
M M M M
M M
M F
>
+
+
=
= = =
>
=
3
2
2
0
2
2
0
2
0
2
0
1
,
0
400 1
680 1
0 1
,
4
1
,
2
0
*
Note the dependence upon Re
T
, M
t
, and
k
.
Dilatation dissipation is accounted for via M
t
term. Improves high-Mach
number free shear and boundary layer flow predictions - reduces spreading rates
The cross-diffusion parameter (
k
) is designed to improve free shear flow predictions.
Transitional Flows option controls all Re
T
Terms, Shear Flow Corrections option
controls cross-diffusion, parameter, Compressibility Effects option controls M
t
terms.
74
SDR Equation for k- Model
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
=
j
t
j j
i
ij
x x
f
x
U
k Dt
D
2
( )
( )
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
=
+
+
=
(
+ =
= = = =
+
+
=
i
j
j
i
ij
i
j
j
i
ij
ki jk ij
t
i
i
i
T
T
x
U
x
U
x
U
x
U
S
S
f M F
R
R
R
2
1
,
2
1
,
80 1
70 1
,
2
3
1
0 . 2 , 95 . 2 ,
9
1
,
25
13
,
Re 1
Re
3
*
*
0
0
*
.
Vortex-stretching parameter (
i j j i
u NS u u NS u
Reynolds Stress Models
Starting point is the exact transport equations for the
transport of Reynolds stresses, R
ij
.
six transport equations in 3d
Equations are obtained by Reynolds-averaging the product
of the exact momentum equations and a fluctuating velocity.
+ + =
Generation
|
|
.
|
\
|
k
i
k j
k
j
k i ij
x
U
u u
x
U
u u P
|
|
.
|
\
|
i
j
j
i
ij
x
u
x
u
p
k
j
k
i
ij
x
u
x
u
2
Pressure-Strain
Redistribution
Dissipation
Turbulent
Diffusion
(modeled)
(related to )
(modeled)
(computed)
(incompressible flow w/o body
forces)
Reynolds Stress
Transport Eqns.
43 42 1
43 42 1 4 4 3 4 4 2 1
) (
j i
k
k j i ik j jk i ijk
u u
x
u u u u p u p J
Pressure/velocity
fluctuations
Turbulent
transport
Molecular
transport
78
Importance of Near-Wall Turbulence
Walls are main source of vorticity and turbulence.
Accurate near-wall modeling is important for most
engineering applications.
Successful prediction of frictional drag for external
flows, or pressure drop for internal flows, depends on
fidelity of local wall shear predictions.
Pressure drag for bluff bodies is dependent upon extent
of separation.
Thermal performance of heat exchangers is determined
by wall heat transfer whose prediction depends upon
near-wall effects.
79
Near-Wall Modeling Issues (1)
k- and RSM models are valid in the turbulent
core region and through the log layer.
Some of the modeled terms in these equations are based
on isotropic behavior.
Isotropic diffusion (
t
/)
Isotropic dissipation
Pressure-strain redistribution
Some model parameters based on experiments of isotropic
turbulence.
Near-wall flows are anisotropic due to presence of
walls.
Special near-wall treatments are necessary since
equations cannot be integrated down to wall.
80
Near wall modeling issues (2)
K-, Spalart-Allmaras and V2F models require no
special near-wall treatment.
Designed to predict correct behavior when integrated to
the wall (first grid point in viscous sublayer)
FLUENTs implementation of these models is
sufficiently robust for use on coarse meshes (first grid
point in log-law region)
Low Reynolds number variations of standard k-
models use damping functions to attempt to
reproduce correct near wall behavior
81
Flow Behavior in Near-Wall Region
Velocity profile exhibits layer structure identified
from dimensional analysis
Inner layer
viscous forces rule, U = f(,
w
, , y)
Outer layer
dependent upon mean flow
Overlap layer
log-law applies
k U/u
( | |
| |
= + + +
| (
|
|
(
\ .
\ .
Diffusion production dissipation
Fluent 6.1: define/model/viscous/turbulent-expert/
Impinging Jet Example
99
Modification of TKE production term
Production based on S Production based on :
k- model
Effect of Modified Production Term
100
The following RANS models were evaluated
Standard k- model SKE
RNG k- model: minimizes TKE at stagnation point.
k- model: laminar/turbulent transition in boundary layer.
k- with production based on rotation rate (KWW)
V2F model: effect of near-wall anisotropy accounted for with transport
equation for v
2
Flow Characteristics: Pr=0.7
RE=23 000, H/D=2
RE=23 000, H/D=6
Flow Calculations
101
Results: H/D=2, RE=23 000
Mean velocity
profiles
KWW
RNG
V2F
r/D=1
r/D=2
Impinging Jet: Velocity Profiles
102
Results: H/D=2, RE=23 000
SKE
RNG
KWW
SKE
RNG
KWW
Nu*
Results from Two-Equation Models
TKE*
103
Results: H/D=2, RE=23 000
Comparison of k- and V2F models
Nu*
TKE*
V2F
KWW
V2F
KWW
104
In the vicinity (r<2D) of the stagnation point
H/D=2, Re=23 000
Standard k-e model (SKE) is not suitable
Heat transfer coefficient: up to 80 % error.
30-40 % energy imbalance.
Modified k- model (KWW): good estimation of the
stagnation point and transition zone
Heat transfer coefficient: 25 %
Energy imbalance less than 5%
V2f:
Best results at low Reynolds numbers
Impinging Jet: Conclusions (1)
105
Conclusions:
H/D=6 (not shown):
Two-equation models give similar results (heat transfer coefficient
over predicted by 20%).
The results obtained with the V2F model are still superior to the
results from the two-equation models.
Computational expense:
Two-equation models: Grid independence achieved with 10,000 cells,
acceptable results with 6,000 cells
V2F: 30% - 40% more expensive for similar mesh. 30,000 cells
needed for grid independent results.
Impinging Jet: Conclusions (2)
106
Flow configuration:
Johnston et al. (1972)
Re
H
= 11,500
Ro = 0.21
Flow in a Rotating Channel
Represents flows through
rotating internal passages
(e.g. turbomachinery
applications)
Rotation affects mean axial
momentum equation
through turbulent stresses.
Rotation makes mean axial
velocity asymmetrical.
Computations are carried
out using SKE, RNG, RKE
and RSM models are with
the standard wall
functions.
107
Flow in a Rotating Channel
Predicted axial velocity profiles (Re
H
= 11.500, Ro = 0.21)
Symmetric
profiles
108
Flow in a Cyclone
40,000 cell hexahedral
mesh
High-order upwind
scheme was used.
Computed using SKE,
RNG, RKE and RSM
models with the
standard wall functions
Represents highly
swirling flows (W
max
=
1.8 U
in
)
0.97 m
0.1 m
0.2 m
U
in
= 20 m/s
0.12 m
109
Velocity Profiles in Cyclone
Tangential velocity profile at 0.41 m below the vortex finder
110
Flow in a Triangular Duct
Duct flows exhibit secondary flows caused by
anisotropy of Reynolds stresses
Solved using RSM, SST and RNG with swirl
and differential viscosity options.
Periodic flow with Re = 9870. 14,772 hex
cells, fine near wall mesh (y+ < 3).
111
Streamwise Velocity Contours
Similar streamwise velocity profiles
predicted by all models
RNG SST RSM
112
Transverse Velocity Components
Only the Reynolds stress model predicts flow in
plane normal to streamwise direction
RNG SST RSM
113
Secondary Flow Details
Recirculating secondary flow patterns
caused by anisotropy of Reynolds stresses
RSM SST & RNG RSM
114
Friction Factor
Is prediction of secondary flows important in
predicting pressure drop?
0.0349
0.0252
0.0301
0.0373
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
0.04
Braga and
Saboya (1996)
SST RNG RSM
h
2
2
D
v
z p
=
f
115
Measured by Prof. Simpsons group at VPI
Incompressible (Ma = 0.15), high-Re (Re = 4.2 x 10
6
) flow
The most salient features are the cross-flow (open) separation,
stream-wise vortices, and vortex-lift (nonlinear).
Computed using SA, SKE, RKE, k-, and RSM models.
6:1 Prolate Spheroid at Incidence
116
6:1 Prolate Spheroid at Incidence
117
Flow in a Transition Duct
Fully developed inlet profiles, 64,240 hexahedral cells,
Re = 3.9x10
5
.
Calculated with k-, k- and RSM with non-equilibrium wall
functions (30 < y+ < 70)
Measurements by Davis and Gessner (1992) taken at centerline and
locations shown below
Station 5
Station 6
Inlet
Outlet
118
All models predict similar transverse velocity pattern at
station 6
Secondary flow induced by transition from circular to
rectangular duct in this case
Velocity Vectors at Station 6
RSM SST SKO SKE
119
Pressure and Skin-Friction Coefficients
Station 5 Station 5
Station 6 Station 6
120
Centerline Pressure Coefficient
121
Transition Duct Summary
All models considered predict skin friction
and pressure coefficients qualitatively
Except for standard k- model, all models
considered here predict similar results.
Experimental velocity contours (not shown)
suggest that velocity field predicted by SKE
is slightly less accurate than the other
models.
122
Example: Ship Hull Flow
Experiments: KRISOs 300K VLCC (1998)
Complex, high Re
L
(4.6 10
6
) 3D Flow
Thick 3D boundary layer in moderate pressure gradient
Streamline curvature
Crossflow
Free vortex-sheet formation
(open separation)
Streamwise vortices embedded
in TBL and wake
Simulation
Wall Functions used to manage mesh size.
y
+
30 - 80
Hex mesh ~200,000 cells
Contours of axial velocity compared with simulations.
123
Contour Plots of Axial Velocity
SKO and RSM models capture characteristic shape at propeller plane.
SA RKE RNG
SKE SKO RSM
124
0.486
0.482
0.537
0.539 0.538
0.583
0.561 0.56
0.557
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
S
-
A
S
K
E
R
N
G
R
K
E
K
O
-
S
S
T
K
O
-
W
i
l
c
o
x
R
S
M
-
G
L
R
S
M
-
S
S
G
E
x
p
.
w
4.051
4.216
4.145 4.149
4.2
4.258
4.048 4.06 4.056
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
S
-
A
S
K
E
R
N
G
R
K
E
K
O
-
S
S
T
K
O
-
W
i
l
c
o
x
R
S
M
-
G
L
R
S
M
-
S
S
G
E
x
p
.
1
0
0
0
x
C
T
,
C
F
,
C
V
P
CT
CF
CVP
Wake Fraction and Drag
Though SKO (and SST)
were able to resolve salient
features in propeller plane,
not all aspects of flow
could be accurately
captured.
Eddy viscosity model
RSM models accurately
capture all aspects of the
flow.
Complex industrial flows
provide new challenges to
turbulence models.
dA
U
u
A
w
P
A P
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
0
1
1
125
Advanced Applications
Large Eddy Simulation (LES) and Detached
Eddy Simulation (DES)
Theory
Applications
126
Large Eddy Simulation (LES)
Recall: Two methods can be used to eliminate the need to resolve
small scales.
Reynolds Averaging Approach
Periodic and quasi-periodic unsteady flows
Filtering (LES)
Transport equations are filtered such that only larger eddies need be
resolved.
Difficult to model large eddies since they are
anisotropic
subject to history effects
dependent upon flow configuration, boundary conditions, etc.
Smaller eddies are modeled.
Typically isotropic and so more amenable to modeling.
Deterministic unsteadiness of large eddy motions can be resolved.
127
In finite-volume schemes, the cell size in a mesh can determine the
filter width.
e.g., in 1-D,
more or less information is filtered as is varied.
In general,
where the subgrid scale (SGS) velocity,
( ) ( ) V d x t u
V
t x u
V
i i
r r
r
r
r
, ; ,
1
,
where V is the volume of cell
u
i
x
i
u
i
u
i
|
.
|
\
|
+
x
x
i
i i
d u
dx
d x u x u
) (
2
1
2
) ( ) (
i i i
u u u =
|
|
.
|
\
|
1
) (
0
j i j i ij
u u u u
j i j i j i j i j i
u u u u u u u u u u
+
+ =
LES - Governing Equations
129
The subgrid-scale stress is modeled by;
The subgrid-scale eddy viscosity
is modeled by:
Smagorinskys subgrid-scale model
RNG-based subgrid-scale model
|
|
.
|
\
|
=
i
j
j
i
ij ij ij kk ij
x
u
x
u
S S
2
1
; 2
3
1
( )
ij ij S
S S C 2
2
( )
ij ij RNG S
eff s
eff
S S C C H 2 , 1
2
3 / 1
3
2
(
(
|
|
.
|
\
|
+ +
Smagorinsky constant C
s
varied from flow to flow
SGS Stress Modeling
130
Iso-surface of instantaneous
vorticity magnitude colored by
velocity angle
LES Example: Dump Combustor
A 3-D model of a lean premixed combustor studied by Gould (1987) at
Purdue University
Non-reacting (cold) flow was simulated with a 170K cell hexahedral
mesh using second-order temporal and spatial discretization schemes.
131
Simulation done for:
Computed using
RNG-based subgrid-
scale model
Mean axial velocity at x/h = 5
( ) 150 Re 10 Re
5
=
d
LES Example: Dump Combustor
Mean axial velocity
prediction at x/h = 5;
132
LES Example: Dump Combustor
RMS velocities predictions at x/h = 10;
133
Detached Eddy Simulation (DES)
Hybrid RANS/LES Modeling Approach
DES approach combines an unsteady RANS version of the Spalart-
Allmaras model with a filtered version of the same model
A practical and computationally efficient alternative to LES for predicting
flow around high-Reynolds-number, high-lift airfoils
To enable DES
1. Activate S-A model in viscous panel
2. In TUI, enter
/define/models/viscous/turbulence-expert/detached-eddy-
simulation? yes
134
DES: Calculation of Turbulent/SGS Viscosity
Recall that for S-A model, the distance from the wall, d, plays a major
role in the terms for production and destruction of turbulent viscosity