Modeling Reynolds-Number Effects in Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows

So, R. M. C.; Aksoy, Hakan; Yuan, Shouqi; Sommer, T. P.

doi:10.1115/1.2817372

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 å dissipation rate of k å ij dissipation rate tensor å ijk cyclic tensor å w wall value of å å reduced å å À 2ík= y 2 å reduced å å À 2í(@ k 1=2 =@x i ) 2 ae rotational strain invariant (2W Ã ij W Ã ij ) 1=2 ç mean strain invariant (2S Ã ij S Ã ij ) 1=2 í fluid kinematic viscosity í t eddy viscosity î near-wall correction function Ð stress invariant b ij b ij Ð ij velocity pressure gradient correlation tensor Ð P ij near-wall correction for pressure diffusion Ð w ij near-wall correction tensor r fluid density ó k model constant assigned a value of 1 ó å model constant assigned a value of 1.45 (1.40) ô rx rx component of the shear stress ô rè rè component of the shear stress Ù rotation rate or angular velocity of pipe Ù i rotation vector…”

Section: B Ijmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The NWRS has been given by So et al [12] for nonrotating flows. Since the additional terms due to system rotation appearing in equation (3) and in the pressure strain model [13] are of order y 2 ; therefore, to order y, the rotation terms do not affect the near-wall behaviour of the modelled equations.…”

Section: Reynolds Stress Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similar designations are also used in conjunction with SSGZ. The performance of these models is compared with that given by a near-wall Reynolds stress (NWRS) closure [12]. This closure assumes the realizable pressure strain model of Speziale et al [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Turbulent rotating flow calculations: An assessment of two-equation anisotropic and Reynolds stress models

Yuan

1998

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stress field in a rotating turbulent internal flow is highly anisotropic. This is true irrespective of whether the axis of rotation is aligned with or normal to the mean flow plane. Consequently, turbulent rotating flow is very difficult to model. This paper attempts to assess the relative merits of three different ways to account for stress anisotropies in a rotating flow. One is to assume an anisotropic stress tensor, another is to model the anisotropy of the dissipation rate tensor, while a third is to solve the stress transport equations directly. Two different near-wall two-equation models and one Reynolds stress closure are considered. All the models tested are asymptotically consistent near the wall. The predictions are compared with measurements and direct numerical simulation data. Calculations of turbulent flows with inlet swirl numbers up to 1.3, with and without a central recirculation, reveal that none of the anisotropic two-equation models tested is capable of replicating the mean velocity field at these swirl numbers. This investigation, therefore, indicates that neither the assumption of anisotropic stress tensor nor that of an anisotropic dissipation rate tensor is sufficient to model flows with medium to high rotation correctly. It is further found that, at very high rotation rates, even the Reynolds stress closure fails to predict accurately the extent of the central recirculation zone. NOTATION b ijanisotropy tensor (u i u j À 2kä ij =3)=(2k) C D dimensionless constant with an assigned value of 1.68 C s model constant with an assigned value of 0.11 C 1 , C Ã 1 , C 2 , C Ã 3 , C 5 model constants = 3.4, 1.8, 4.2, 1.3 and 0.4 respectively C å , C å1 , C å2 , C å3 , C å5 model constants = 0.12, 1.5, 1.83, (1.9), 2.9556 and 5.8 respectively C ì model constant with an assigned value of 0.096 (0.09) D pipe diameter D ij production tensor D T ij turbulent diffusion tensor f w1 damping function exp[À(Re t =200) 2 ] f w2 damping function exp[À(Re t =40) 2 ] f å damping function 1 À 2 9 exp[À(Re t =6) 2 ] f ì damping function h channel half-width k turbulent kinetic energy L, M, N model constants 2:25, 0:5 and 0.57 respectively n i wall unit normal vector (0, 1, 0) p fluctuating pressure P mean pressure P ij production tensor P production of turbulent kinetic energy Àu i u j (@U i =@x j ) r radial coordinate R pipe radius Re Reynolds number U m D=í Re t turbulent Reynolds number k 2 =åí Re å turbulent Reynolds number (åí) 1=4 y=í Ro rotation number W 0 =U m or 2jÙjh=U m S swirl number [2 R 0 U W r 2 dr]=(R 3 U 2 m ) S ij mean strain rate tensor (@U i =@x j @U j =@x i )=2 S Ã ij dimensionless strain rate tensor S ij (k=å) 193 The MS was

show abstract

Section: B Ijmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Reynolds Stress Closurementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Turbulent rotating flow calculations: An assessment of two-equation anisotropic and Reynolds stress models

Yuan

1998

Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G:

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As noted, the formulation applied here does not include any wall 901 refelction effects, even if they did have a decisive influence on the accuracy of both the linear 902 models, GL and NR. Efforts have been made in the past to include wall reflection effects in 903 near-wall closures for the SSG model, which have not been considered here (So et al, 1994). 904…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiphase turbulence in bubbly flows: RANS simulations

Colombo

Fairweather

2015

International Journal of Multiphase Flow

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Basically, the near-wall effects are treated as lowRe number effect. Nevertheless, near-wall effects are different from low-Re number effects due to wall blocking that is absent in the case of unbounded turbulence [1]. This wall blocking effect gives rise to increased anisotropy of the turbulence as the wall is approached [2].…”

Section: List Of Symbolsmentioning

confidence: 94%