Isothermal turbulent round jet optimization

Dragos Isvoranu, Mircea Marinescu, Dorin Stanciu

Dept. of Thermodynamics
University Politehnica of Bucharest
313, Spl. Independentei, sect.6
77206 - Bucharest, ROMANIA
Tel: 40-1-410.04.00/339
E-mail: dragos@mdd.combustion.pub.ro

Abstract.The paper deals with optimization of k-eps turbulence model constants. The
entropy generation rate for viscous isothermal round jet flow is averaged in the terms of the
proposed turbulence model. Considering a homogenous turbulence flow it is obvious that
the entropy production term will depend on the 5 model constants. We have proved through
numerical simulation that these constants could be very well chosen on the basis of
Prigogine theorem for steady states for which the entropy generation rate is minimum.
Comparison with experiments as well as with the standard k-eps solution for the round jet is
available. The proposed method could enable any researcher with a strong tool in order to
make numerical turbulent steady flow simulation agree with experiments on a theoretic
base.

Nomenclature
σ = entropy source term (W/m3.K)
T = temperature (K)
Π = viscous stress tensor (kg/m2.s2)
V = velocity vector (m/s)
δ = thickness of layer (m)
l = characteristic length (m)
p = pressure (Pa)
µ = dynamic viscosity (kg/m.s)
U = axial velocity (m/s)
K , E , F self-similar representations of k , ε and velocity
k = turbulent kinetic energy (J/kg)
ε = turbulent dissipation rate (W/kg)
r = jet radius (m)
Re = Reynolds number
ϕ = generic transport quantity
υ = kinematic viscosity (m2/s)
η ,ξ = non-dimensional coordinates
κ = von Karman constant

1. Introduction
The following dissertation will take into account only the processes of steady homogenous
turbulent flows. First step is to define the concept of steady state, which is that state far from
thermodynamic equilibrium characterized by canceling the time derivatives of all state
parameters. From this point of view it becomes obvious that the steady regime engenders a
finite source of entropy that will cancel only at thermodynamic equilibrium. Following
Glansdorf and Prigogine demonstration [1], [2], the steady state could be associated with an
extreme value of a certain state parameter or function and even more, this regime is stable
against local perturbations. As they pointed out, for all steady states the source of entropy
passes through a minimum, this principle being valid both for linear and non-linear
phenomena. The simplest demonstration of this principle takes into account the case of
thermodynamic systems in which the Onsager relations are valid and there is a linear
correlation between generalized forces and fluxes, that means constant phenomenological
coefficients. Based on this principle, we tried to figure out what might happen for a steady
homogenous turbulent flow. Shouldn’t perhaps entropy generation rate be minimum? As it
is well known any turbulence model needs a closure model which comprises more or less
numerous empirical constants to comply with the necessity for simplicity and accuracy.
Most of them are experimentally fitted, but anyway they can not cover all possible cases,
not to mention those that are determined by numerical simulations. Taking for example the
standard k − ε model there are five characteristic constants commonly involved for any
computation. Wouldn’t these constants depend, for example, on the boundary conditions, as
usually all steady states do? Or, to put in another words, as these constants have a
tremendous influence on the final solution, as I personally found out, shouldn’t they comply
to a certain principle intimately connected to reaching the steady state? Of course, this
means that these constants are different from one case to another. The case to be analyzed,
that is a free round isothermal jet, can easily be circumvented in the domain of linear
irreversible thermodynamics.
The equation for entropy source for isothermal nonreactive flows as commonly
found in literature, Feidt [3], is:
1
σ = − Π : gradV (1)
T
where:
2
( (
Π = µ L divV − µ L gradV + gradV
3
))
T
(2)

is the viscous pressure tensor and V is the velocity vector.

2. TSL approximation of the round jet

For a free round isothermal turbulent jet, the system of equations in the thin shear layer
hypothesis (TSL), is given in Bradshaw [4] and Wilcox [5]. This system of equations is the
result of Reynolds average of turbulent quantities. The diffusion terms implying the laminar
viscosity are usually neglected. As Bradshaw points out, the neglected terms especially in
the x-direction are of order δ l times the retained ones, whereas in laminar flow the ratio is
(δ l ) 2
. On the other hand, the relative thickness of turbulent layer is greater than in the
laminar case, which restricts the use of TSL equations only to δ l << 1 situations. Note that
pressure is no longer a variable but has been absorbed into the boundary conditions as
∂p ∂y is zero and ∂p ∂x could be replaced by the value at the surface or in the free stream
where Bernoulli’s equation applies ( dp dx = − ρU e dU e dx ). All this introspection has the
only purpose to underline that TSL equations are not very accurate but for reason of
mathematical and computational simplicity they represent a strong temptation. Therefore,
we shall use them, always bearing in mind that possible errors could be generated by the
intrinsic nature of the approximation hypothesized. Considering a self-similar representation
of the solutions given by:
J 0. 5 J 1. 5
U (x , r ) = F (η ) ; k (x, r ) = 2 K (η ) ; ε (x, r ) = 4 E (η ) ; η =
J r
(3)
x x x x
where J = mU / ρ is the specific impulse, N = C µ K 2 E and :
η

ϑ (η ) = − F (η ′)η ′dη ′
1
(4)
η 0

An additional transformation has been used to improve numerical accuracy:

dη d d
dξ = or =N (5)
N dξ dη
so that the equations assume the following form:
dF 1 d dF
ϑ = η + NF 2
dξ η dξ dξ
2
dK 1 d 1 dK dF
ϑ = η + NFK + − Cµ K 2 (6)
dξ η dξ σ k dξ dξ
2
dE 1 d 1 dE E dF
ϑ = η + 4 NFE + C1ε − C µ C 2ε KE
dξ η dξ σ ε dξ K dξ
On another hand, it is easily seen that:
µ 2
= (7)
ρJ 0.5 Re π
From the definition of the instantaneous strain rate tensor:
1 ∂v i ∂v j
s ij = + (8)
2 ∂x j ∂x i
in combination with equations (1) and (2), the instantaneous entropy generation rate for
isothermal flow will look like:
µ
σ = L 2 s ij s ij − (v i ,i )
2 2
(9)
T 3
Operating a Reynolds average on equation (9), the mean entropy production will be:
σ =
µL
(2S S ) + υ ρ (2s′ s′ )
ij ij
L
ij ij
(10)
T T
where S ij and s′ij means the Reynolds average and respectively the fluctuation of the strain
rate tensor component. Taking into account the turbulent dissipation definition:
( )
ε = υ L s ij′ s ij′ (11)
like in Mohammadi [6], the nullity of velocity divergence for incompressible flows and the
observation that the main contribution to the first term in (10), in the case of TSL
approximation, is given by (∂U ∂r ) , we will get the following expression for the global
2

turbulent entropy production rate on unit length for the round jet:
δ 2
2πρJ 1.5 2 1 dF
Σ′ = ηN + E dξ W/m.K (12)
x 4T 0 Re π N 2
dξ
More details regarding this final equation can be found in the Ph.D thesis of Isvoranu [7].

3. Numerical approach
In order to solve system (6) with the following boundary conditions:
K ′(0) = E ′(0) = F ′(0) = 0
(13)
K = E = F = 0 ;η → ∞
it is best to use a Crank-Nickolson implicit method as presented by Ferziger [8]. This type
of discretization scheme is second order accurate in space and first order in time. For
example, considering the 1D generic transport equation:
∂ϕ ∂ϕ Γ ∂ 2ϕ
= −u + + Sϕ (14)
∂t ∂x ρ ∂x 2
results the following discretized relation:
APϕ in +1 + AEϕ in++11 + AWϕ in−+11 = S∆t (ψϕ in + (1 − ψ )ϕ in +1 ) − AEϕ in+1 − AW ϕ in−1 (15)
where superscript n is related to time step, subscript i to space step and the coefficients
have the following expressions:
ρu∆t Γ∆t ρu∆t Γ∆t
AE = − ; AW = − −
4 ∆x 2(∆x ) 4∆x 2(∆x )
2 2

(16.a)
ρ
AP = ρ − ∆t ( AE + AW ) ; S = AE + AW +
∆t
Sϕ in +1 for S < 0 0 for S < 0
Sϕ = ψ = (16.b)
Sϕ i
n
for S > 0 1 for S > 0
u∆t
where λ = is the Courant-Friedrichs-Lewy (CFL) number and Γ is the specific
4 ∆x
diffusion coefficient. System (15) is solved by three diagonal matrix algorithm (TDMA),
taking the CFL number equal to 1 and 101 spatial nodes of discretization.

4. Results and comparison with experiments

Based on the numerical algorithm described above, a great number of turbulent round jet
solutions have been computed, solutions depending on the set of constants C µ , Cε 1 , C ε 2 ,
σ k , σ ε and generating particular values of the entropy production rate. For a quite large
range of constants’ values, the turbulent viscous dissipation has been plotted in order to
observe the appearance of the alleged minimum value that would have lead us to choose the
set of constants related to reaching the steady state. We have encountered several major
difficulties in pursuing this purpose as not all sets of constants lead us to viable solutions for
the round jet (TSL hypothesis was violated) or simply the system of equations had no
solutions forcing us to discard them. Having to deal with so many constants to optimize, we
have undertaken this enterprise gradually, considering at first that σ ε may be determined
from the log-layer equations (Wilcox [5]) as:
σ ε = κ 2 (Cε 2 − Cε 1 ) Cµ (17)
where k is the Karman constant (0.4328 in the standard k − ε model) and that for C µ and
σ k we may retain the standard values of 0.09 and 1.0, respectively. In this case, the non-
dimensional entropy production rate:
TΣ′x 4
Σ′ = (18)
2πρJ 1.5
will depend only on Cε 1 , C ε 2 and Reynolds number. The distribution of Σ′ for the range
C ε 1 ∈ [0.15,2.0] , C ε 2 ∈ [0.6,2.20] and various Reynolds numbers ranging from 15000 and
100000 shown a prominent valley close to the first bisector characterized by 30 to 40 local
minimum entropy generation rate values. Figure 1 presents a glimpse of this domain for
Re = 15000 , showing a relative minimum localized at Cε 1 = 1.31 and Cε 2 = 1.62 .

Figure 1

Table 1 illustrates the distribution of some of these relative minimum values of the entropy
generation rate together with the corresponding pairs of turbulence model constants. Of
course, the idea of steady state should be related to a global or absolute minimum for
turbulent viscous dissipation, which, unfortunately, is not so obviously displayed by the
solutions obtained.
Table 1.
 Local minimum Cε 1 Cε 2 Σ′min
index
9 0.59 1.06 3.5782
13 0.76 1.19 3.6049
15 0.85 1.26 3.6125
17 0.94 1.33 3.6197
19 1.03 1.40 3.6257
22 1.17 1.51 3.6233
25 1.31 1.62 3.6106

In order to discriminate between this set of minimum values the one value which represents
the true steady state, we have checked if the choice made over the other three constants C µ ,
σ k , σ ε , has been properly done, that is if those values minimize the entropy production
rate, also.

Figure 2

Hence, considering this time that the values of Cε 1 and C ε 2 are constant and equal with
those resulted from the previous minimization, we have analyzed the entropy generation rate
dependence on C µ , figure 2, σ k , figure 3 and on σ ε , figure 4. Figure 2 clearly shows that
for all points selected (in a Cε 1 , C ε 2 coordinate system), the value 0.09 initially chosen for
C µ is the one that ensures minimum entropy production rate. In the case of the point
defined by Cε 1 = 1.44 , Cε 2 = 1.92 , hence corresponding to the standard model, no
minimum entropy generation resulted. A somehow different conclusion can be drawn
analyzing figure 3. Turbulent viscous dissipation presents an obvious minimum value for all
points selected but also, for points outside the valley presented in figure 1, like for example,
the one corresponding to the standard model.

Figure 3

In both cases the value for σ k that minimizes the entropy production is 1.01, very close to
the standard one. It is also true that in the last case the minimum is not so pronounced.
Further analysis has been carried on, regarding the influence of σ ε on entropy production
(figure 4). It became clear now that for all points along the specified valley, that is for
certain pairs of Cε 1 and C ε 2 , the turbulent viscous dissipation attains an apparent minimum
value, the first function drop, around 1.2 to 1.55, and a true minimum value, second drop,
around 1.7 to 2.1. The standard value of σ ε is 1.3, which fits quite well with first apparent
minimum. On the other hand, for the standard pair of Cε 1 and C ε 2 , the entropy production
rate not only has no minimum value but it is a convex function. Next step in our
optimization process is to compare the σ ε values that ensure minimum entropy production
(figure 4) with those given by equation (17) that sets von Karman parameter κ to the
standard theoretical value of 0.4328. We have to admit that upon this quantity there lies a
slight controversy as most former experiments give 0.41 while recent ones (Bradshaw, [4])
stand for 0.44, more close to the theoretical value 0.4328.
 Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 5 illustrates clearly that the standard von Karman constant is obtained at the
intersection of the two curves which happens only for local minimum number 25, that is for
the optimized set of constants:
C µ = 0.09 ; C ε 1 = 1.31 ; C ε 2 = 1.62 ; σ k = 1.01 ; σ ε = 2.03 (19)
The final test consists in the comparison between the experimental and optimized non-
dimensional axial velocity profile U U 0 ( U 0 is the centerline axial velocity) against the
non-dimensional coordinate η . The result is shown in figure 6 along with the velocity
profile resulted from the standard k − ε model constants, reflecting a better agreement of
the optimized model with Bradbury's measurements (Wilcox, [5]).

Figure 6

The same conclusion can be drawn from the analysis of the spreading rate
parameter δl δx , (the ratio r x for which U U 0 = 0.5 ), in the three cases mentioned
before (table 2).

Table 2.

Optimized set Standard set Experiment

δl δx 0,073 0.122 0.085-0.095
Relative error 14-23% 28.5-43% -------

5. Conclusions
A new approach of the turbulent incompressible round jet flow has been set forth in this
paper. It has been clearly shown the methodology of determining the values of the five
constants currently involved in the k − ε turbulence model on the basis of minimum
entropy production characterizing steady states. The solution obtained, free from any
Reynolds number influence, is in better agreement with experiments than the one emerging
from the standard model. The discrepancies that still remain may easily come from the
limitations of the TSL approximation mentioned before. Although only a theoretical
exercise, needing to be backed up on a comprehensive survey of other types of flows, we
consider it fully expressive in what the Second Law of Thermodynamics may offer related
to numerical simulation of flows and in the possibilities of connecting some physical
constants to commonly accepted laws of Physics.

Acknowledgements
I would like to thank prof. K. Hanjalic, head of the Department of Thermofluids at
TU Delft, The Netherlands, for his pertinent remarks during the first stages in setting up this
material.

References
1. Glansdorff, P., Prigogine, I. Physica, 20, 773, 1954.
2. Glansdorff, P., Prigogine, I. Thermodynamic theory of structure, stability and fluctuation,
Wiley-Interscience, London, New York, Sydney, Toronto, 1976.
3. Feidt, M. Thermodinamique et Optimisation energetique des Systemes et Procedes
Technique et Documetation Lavoisier, 1987.
4. Bradshaw, P. Introduction to Turbulence. Lecture Notes for short course. Burgers
Certrum / TU Delft, 1996.
5. Wilcox, D.C. Turbulence Models for CFD. DCW Industries, Inc., La Canada, CA,
1993.
6. Mohammadi, B., Pironneau, O. Analysis of the K-Epsilon Turbulence Model. Ed. John
Willey&Sons, 1994.
7. Isvoranu, D. Contributions to chemical reacting flows optimization. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ.
Politehnica of Bucharest, 1999.
8. Ferziger, J.H., Peric, M. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Ed. Springer,
1995.
9. Bejan, A. Thermodynamics of an ‘isothermal’ flow: two dimensional turbulent jet’,
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 34, 1991, pp. 407-413.
10. Bejan, A. Entropy Generation Minimization, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1996.