Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Introduction
The first part of this lecture aims to recall the linear eddy-viscosity
schemes studied in previous courses:
In the second part of the lecture, attention will be turned to the near-wall
region.
The aim is to explore how viscous and other near-wall effects are built
into linear EVMs to allow them to be applied across the thin near-wall
viscous sub-layer.
Reading:
S. Pope, Turbulent Flows
D. Wilcox, Turbulence Modelling for CFD
Closure Strategies for Turbulent and Transitional
Flows, (Eds. B.E. Launder, N.D. Sandham)
Notes:
Blackboard and CFD/TM web server:
http://cfd.mace.manchester.ac.uk/tmcfd
- People - T. Craft - Online Teaching Material
Linear Eddy-Viscosity Models
2011/12
1 / 38
2011/12
Mixing-Length Models
(1)
+
ui uj
=
Dt
xi xj
xj
Linear eddy-viscosity models employ a stress-strain relation of the form
Ui Uj
(2)
+
ui uj = 2/3 k ij t
xj
xi
The Reynolds stresses are linearly related to mean strains via the
turbulent, or eddy, viscosity.
lm
3 / 38
2
(4)
2011/12
Ui Uj
+
xj
xi
(3)
The lengthscale lm is taken to vary linearly with distance from the wall,
but with a damping term to account for near-wall viscous effects.
2 / 38
D = 1 exp(y + /A)
2011/12
4 / 38
One-Equation Models
Two-Equation Models
k
Dk
( + t /k )
= Pk +
Dt
xj
xj
(5)
2011/12
5 / 38
is not the only variable that can be solved for to determine the
lengthscale.
( + t / )
(9)
= c 1
c 2 2 +
Dt
k
xj
xj
(8)
2011/12
6 / 38
Ui Uj
Ui
1 P
t
+
+
+
(2/3 k ) (11)
=
Dt
xi xj
xj
xj
xj
xi
xi
The final term, containing the gradient of k , can be absorbed into the
pressure term.
( + t ) i +
t
xj
xj
xj
xi
(10)
Numerical Implementation
t = c k /
(7)
(6)
( + t / )
= c 1 Pk c 2 +
Dt
k
k
xj
xj
t = c k 2 /
t = c k 1/2 l
2011/12
7 / 38
(12)
2011/12
8 / 38
The first of these diffusion terms appears similar to the laminar form,
except with a modified effective viscosity, eff = t + .
Zero-Equation Models
The second term (which is negligible in thin shear flows), must simply be
added into the momentum equation as a source term.
From a computational point of view, the above equation can thus be
treated almost identically to the case of a laminar flow except that the
viscosity is now varying in space, and cannot be taken as a constant.
In this case, all that need be done, having updated the velocity field, is to
re-calculate t using the new velocity gradients.
+ S
=
Dt
xj
xj
(13)
(14)
2011/12
9 / 38
(15)
In the case of the k and equations, there are often quite significant
source terms on the right hand side of the difference equations.
The source term Su in the k equation can be split into two parts:
10 / 38
2011/12
The generation rate Pkp is simply evaluated from the turbulent viscosity
and velocity gradients.
Su = Su + Sp kp
(16)
Sp can then be transferred onto the left hand side of the equation:
(ap Sp )kp = ai ki + Su
2011/12
11 / 38
(17)
2011/12
12 / 38
Sp = (kp /l )Vol
(18)
(19)
Later lectures will consider wall function approaches which aim to avoid
or simplify the resolution of this region.
2011/12
13 / 38
2011/12
= yk 1/2 / .
14 / 38
2011/12
15 / 38
16 / 38
t = f c
k2
giving
Wall-Limiting Behaviour
uv
= f c S
k
w = c1 y + c2 y 2 + c3 y 3 +
where y is distance from the wall, and the as, bs and cs are functions of
x , z and time, but not y .
Continuity ( u/ x + v / y + w/ z = 0) gives b1 = 0.
2011/12
17 / 38
w2 y2
v2 y4
uv y 3
2011/12
The Equation
k2 U
uv = c f
y
As k y 2 and is O(1) near the wall (see later), the above implies that
f 1/y at the wall.
This explains the upturn in the effective c seen earlier in the immediate
near-wall vicinity DNS data.
With a linear EVM, one cannot obtain the correct near-wall (or often, in
fact, the outer) behaviour of all the normal stress components.
Instead of solving for itself, many -based models use the isotropic
dissipation rate, , defined by
!2
k 1/2
= + 2
xj
18 / 38
2011/12
19 / 38
2011/12
20 / 38
D
( + t / )
= c 1
c 2 f2 + E +
Dt
Tt
Tt
xj
xj
Dk
= Pk ( + D) +
Dt
xj
t = c f k 2 /
then the damping function f should be proportional to y at the wall.
Additional near-wall source terms are often also included in the modelled
(or ) equation.
Model
LS
c 1
1.44
c 2
1.92
f2
1 0.3 exp(Rt2 )
Tt
CH
1.35
1.8
YS
1.44
1.92
MK
1.4
1.8
1.0
h
ih
i2
+
1 29 exp{( R6t )2 } 1 exp( y5 )
SZS
1.5
1.83
1.0
1/2
LS: Launder & Sharma (1974); CH: Chien (1982); YS: Yang & Shih (1993);
MK: Myong & Kasagi (1990); SZS: So et al (1991)
Linear Eddy-Viscosity Models
2011/12
Model
LS
0.09
exp(3.4/(1 + Rt /50)2 )
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.3
0.75
1.45
CH
0.09
YS
0.09
MK
0.09
SZS
0.096
Model
LS
1 exp(0.0115y )
1/2
1 exp(a1 Rey a3 Rey3 a5 Rey5 )
i
h
1/2
[1 exp(y + /70)]
1 + 3.45/Rt
i
h
1/2
[1 exp(y + /115)]
1 + 3.45/Rt
D
2
k 1/2 / xj
CH
2 k /y 2
YS
MK
SZS
E
2t
2U
i / xj xk
21 / 38
2011/12
( + t / )
= c 1 f1
c 2 2 +
Dt
k
xj
xj
f1 =
2
o + Rt /R
c f (1 + Rt /R )
0
h
i
2
exp((Rt /64)2 ) 2 k + 1.5 (k)
23 / 38
f =
o + Rt /Rk
1 + Rt /Rk
1 =
2 exp(y + /2)/y 2
2
t 2 Ui / xj xk
2011/12
22 / 38
6
c 2 y12
2011/12
24 / 38
P
k
2
D
= (1 c 1 ) k + (c 2 f1 f2 1) + ( + t / 1 )
Dt
k
k
xj xj
2
( + t / 2 )
( + t / 2 )
+
xj xj xj
xj
f1 = 1
2
exp{(Rt /6)2 }
9
t = c f k
2
f2 = 1 exp(y + /4.9)
"
f = 1 +
3.45
1/2
Rt
v2
2
( + t )
= 22 v
+
Dt
k xj
xj
#
tanh(y + /70)
Like the -based schemes above, the details differ from model to model,
but the principles are generally similar to those already outlined.
2011/12
2011/12
26 / 38
T = max(k / , CT ( / )1/2 )
Far away from a wall f22 should revert to the form of the LRR model, but
the differential operator in equation (20) modifies this behaviour near a
wall.
2011/12
27 / 38
2011/12
28 / 38
Boundary Layer
Most models
perform reasonably.
2011/12
29 / 38
Near-wall k profiles
for several low-Re
EVMs (from Sarkar
& So, 1997).
dU
U2 dx
2011/12
30 / 38
Wilcox k -
W
x
z
2011/12
31 / 38
2011/12
32 / 38
By-Pass Transition
1.0
uv
0.75
uv+ (T=0.3)
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
y/h
0.0
0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
y/h
0.0
0.0
Skin friction
0.25
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.25
uv+ (T=1.0)
uv+ (T=0.4)
0.75
0.5
0.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
0.25
0.5
0.75
Velocity profiles
1.0
y/h
y/h
k - schemes
1.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.75
0.75
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.0
0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.75
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1.0
2011/12
33 / 38
Impinging Flow
2011/12
34 / 38
Summary
Previous flows have mainly involved obtaining the correct shear stress.
In flows with more complex strains, linear EVMs (high or low Re) may fail.
All these low-Re schemes require a very fine near-wall grid, which can be
expensive in 3-D. Alternative strategies will be examined in a later lecture.
2011/12
35 / 38
2011/12
36 / 38
References
2011/12
37 / 38
Myong, H.K., Kasagi, N., (1990), Prediction of anisotropy of the near wall
turbulence with an anisotropic low-Reynolds number k - turbulence
model, ASME J. Fluids Eng., voli. 112, pp. 521-524.
Yang, Z., Shih, T-H., (1993), A Galilean and tensorial invariant k - model
for near-wall turbulence, NASA Tech. memo 106263, NASA Langley
Research Center.
2011/12
38 / 38