Modeling turbulent diffusion in a rotating cylindrical pipe flow

Kurbatskii, A. F.; Poroseva, Svetlana V.

doi:10.1016/s0142-727x(99)00009-0

Cited by 19 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The SSG model gives very good estimates for φ 12 and φ 23 while the SHL model give the best estimate for φ 11 and φ 13 . All models predict the right trend for φ 22 and φ 33 but all of them give the wrong magnitude. Furthermore, the disagreement between the experimental and model estimates for φ 33 extends all the way to the outer layer when the flow is highly three-dimensional.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The model shows mild improvements over the original model. Kurbatskii and Poroseva [22], modeled turbulent diffusion in a rotating cylindrical pipe flow. The model was differential where the triple velocity correlation transport equations were simplified and solved.…”

Section: Discussion Of Turbulent Transport Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The (JH) model produces higher values of 22 . For 12 , the (P N ) model doesn't seem to give the right values for profile P 10, since it is giving a positive value and the DNS data and the other models show negative estimates.…”

Section: Dissipation Rate Tensor Anisotropy Modelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Kurbatskii and Poroseva, [22], tested the Daly-Harlow and Hanjalić-Launder models in a rotating pipe flow. None was capable of reproducing the experimental data for the entire flow for different swirl rates.…”

Section: Turbulent Diffusion Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Basic Three-Dimensional Turbulent Boundary Layer Experiment to Test Second-Moment Closure Models

Sadek

2010

48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this work, a three-dimensional turbulent boundary layer experiment was set up with alternating stream-wise and span-wise pressure gradients. The pressure gradients are generated as a result of the test section wavy side wall shape. Each side had six sine waves with a trough to peak magnitude to wavelength ratio of 0.25. Boundary layer control was used so that the flow over the side walls remains attached. The mean flow velocity components, static and total pressures were measured at six plane along the stream-wise direction. The alternating mean span-wise and stream-wise pressure gradients created alternating stream-wise and span-wise vorticity fluxes, respectively, along the test section. As the flow developed downstream the vorticity created at the tunnel floor and ceiling diffused away from the wall.The vorticity components in the stream-wise and span-wise directions are strengthened due to stretching and tilting terms in the vorticity transport equaitons. The positivez half of the test section contains large areas that generate positive vorticity flux in the trough region and smaller areas generating negative vorticity around the wave peak. The opposite is true for the negative-z half of the test-section. This results in a large positive stream-wise vorticity in the positive-z half and negative stream-wise vorticity in the negative-z half of the test-section. The smaller regions of opposite sign vorticity in each half tend to mix the flow such that as they diffuse away from the wall, the turbulent stresses are more uniform.Turbulent fluctuating velocity components were measured using Laser Doppler Velocimetery. Mean velocities as well as Reynolds stresses and triple velocity component correlations were measured at thirty stations along the last wave in the test section. Profiles at the center of the test section showed three dimensionality, but exhibited high turbulence intensities in the outer layer.Profiles off the test section centerline are highly three dimensional with multiple peaks in the normal stress profiles. The flow also reaches a state where all the normal stresses have equal magnitudes while the shear stresses are non-zero. A turbulent kinetic energy transport budget is performed for all profiles and the turbulence kinetic energy dissipation rate is estimated. Spectral measurements were also made and an independent estimate of the kinetic energy dissipation rate is made. These estimates agree very well with those estimates made by balancing the turbulence kinetic energy transport equation.Multiple turbulent diffusion models are compared to measured quantities. The models varied in agreement with experimental data. However, fair agreement with turbulence kinetic energy turbulent diffusion is observed. A model for the dissipation rate tensor anisotropy is used to extract estimates of the pressure-strain tensor from the Reynolds stress transport equations. The pressure-strain estimates are compared with some of the models in the literature. The comparison showed poor agreement with estimated pr...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussion Of Turbulent Transport Modelingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Dissipation Rate Tensor Anisotropy Modelsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Turbulent Diffusion Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Basic Three-Dimensional Turbulent Boundary Layer Experiment to Test Second-Moment Closure Models

Sadek

2010

48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the differences between the two models for the turbulent diffusion, Launder (1989) stated that the turbulent diffusion is less important than the pressure-strain or energy dissipation equations. Kurbatskii and Poroseva (1999) have also reported that the development of the mean velocities in swirling flow is influenced more by the form of the pressure-strain correlation, than by the turbulent diffusion model.…”

Section: Fluent V6012mentioning

confidence: 99%