Tur bul enc e and Fl uent

Tur bul enc e and Fl uent

Turbulence Modeling
What i s Tur bul enc e?
We do not really know
3D, unsteady, irregular motion in which transported quantities
fluctuate in time and space.
Turbulent eddies (spatial structures).
Diffusive (mixing).
Self-sustaining if a mean shear exist.
Entrainment.
Energy cascade.
Energy is added at the large eddies.
Energy is dissipated at the small eddies.
Tur bul ent Fl ow s
Larger
Structures
Smaller
Structures
Comput at i onal Appr oac hes
DNS (Direct Numerical Simulation)
Solves the Navier-Stokes (N-S) equations. No turbulence modeling required.
Not practical for industrial flows (requires Low Re and simple geometries).
LES (Large Eddy Simulation)
Solves a filtered version of the N-S equations.
Less expensive than DNS, but still too expensive for most applications.
RANS (Reynolds-Averaged N-S)
Solve the ensemble-averaged N-S equations. All turbulence is modeled.
The most widely used approach for calculating industrial flows.
There is not yet a single turbulence model that can reliably predict all
turbulent flows found in industrial applications with sufficient accuracy.
Comput at i onal Appr oac hes(2)
LES, DNS
RANS
RANS Model i ng
Reynolds decomposition:
The Reynolds-averaged momentum equations are as follows:
where is called the Reynolds stresses. The Reynolds stresses
must be modeled to close the equations.
j
ij
j
i
j i k
i
k
i
x
R
x
U
x x
p
x
U
U
t
U

j i ij
u u R

=
( ) ( ) ( ) t x u t x U t x u
i i i
, , ,
r r r

+ =
Turbulent
fluctuation
Mean
u'
i
U
i
u
i
time
u
The Cl osur e Pr obl em
Reynolds equations does not contain enough equations to solve for all the
uknown variables. Thus, the Reynolds stresses must be modeled.
Modeling approaches
Eddy-Viscosity Models (EVM):
Boussinesq hypothesis: Reynolds stresses are modeled using an eddy (or
turbulent) viscosity
t
. Assumes Isotropic turbulence.
Reynolds-Stress Models (RSM):
solves transport equations for all individual Reynolds stresses.
Require modeling for many terms in the Reynolds stress equations.
Does NOT assume isotropic turbulence.
ij ij
k
k
i
j
j
i
j i ij
k
x
U
x
U
x
U
u u R
3
2
3
2
t t

=

=
Model i ng t he Eddy Vi sc osi t y
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
Commonly used scales
is the turbulent kinetic energy [L
2
/T
2
]
is the turbulence dissipation rate [L
2
/T
3
]
is the specific dissipation rate [1/T]
Models classified in terms of number of transport equations solved,
zero-equation models
one-equation models
two-equation models
Spal ar t -Al l mar as
A one-equation RANS model
A low-cost model solving an equation for the modified eddy viscosity
Eddy-viscosity is obtained from
Mainly for aerodynamic/turbo-machinery applications with mild separation
(supersonic/transonic flows over airfoils, boundary-layer flows, etc).
( )
( )
3
1
3
3
1 1
/
~
/
~
,
~
v
v v t
C
f f
+
=

~
St andar d k - (SKE)
A two-equation RANS model
Transport equations for k and :
The most widely-used engineering turbulence model for industrial
applications
Robust
Performs poorly for flows with strong separation, large streamline
curvature, and large pressure gradient.
( )
( )
k
C G
k
C
x x Dt
D
G
x
k
x
k
Dt
D
k e
j
t
j
k
j k
t
j
2
2 1

=
+

=
3 . 1 , 0 . 1 , 92 . 1 , 44 . 1 , 09 . 0
2 1
= = = = =


k
C C C where
Real i zabl e k - (RKE)
Realizable k- (RKE)
Positivity of normal stresses
Schwarz inequality for Reynolds shear-stresses
Good performance for flows with axisymmetric jets.
RNG k - (RNG)
Constants in the k- equations are derived using the Renormalization
Group theory.
RNGs sub-models include:
Differential viscosity model to account for low-Re effects
Analytically derived algebraic formula for turbulent Prandtl/Schmidt
number
Swirl modification
Performs better than SKE for more complex shear flows, and flows with
high strain rates, swirl, and separation.
k - model s

=
=
j
t
j j
i
ij
j k
t
j j
i
ij
t
x x
f
x
U
k Dt
D
x
k
x
k f
x
U
Dt
Dk
k

2
*
*
*

1

k
specific dissipation rate:
Two-equation RANS models
Fluent supports the standard k- model by Wilcox (1998), and Menters SST k-
model (1994).
k- models are inherently low-Re models:
Can be integrated to the wall without using any damping functions
Accurate and robust for a wide range of boundary layer flows with pressure
gradient
Most widely adopted in the aerospace and turbo-machinery communities.
Several sub-models/options of k- : compressibility effects, transitional flows
and shear-flow corrections.
Reynol ds-St r ess Model (RSM)
( ) ( )
ij ij
T
ij ij ij j i k
k
j i
D F P u u U
x
u u
t
+ + + =

Turbulent diffusion
Stress-production
Rotation-production
Pressure strain
Dissipation
Modeling required for these terms
Attempts to address the deficiencies of the EVM.
Anisotropy, history effects of Reynolds stresses.
RSM requires more modeling (the pressure-strain is most critical and difficult
one among them).
More expensive and harder to converge.
Most suitable for complex 3-D flows with strong streamline curvature, swirl and
rotation.
Near Wall Modeling
The St r uc t ur e of Near -Wal l
Fl ow s
The structure of turbulent boundary layers in the near-wall region:
Near -Wal l Model i ng
Wall Functions Wall Integration
Accurate near-wall modeling is
important to correctly predict frictional
drag, pressure drop, separation, heat
transfer etc.
Near -Wal l Model i ng Opt i ons
Wall functions provide boundary conditions for momentum, energy, species
and turbulent quantities.
The Standard and Non-equilibrium Wall Functions
(SWF and NWF) use the law of the wall.
Enhanced Wall Treatment
Combines the use of blended law-of-the wall and a
two-layer zonal model.
Suitable for low-Re flows or flows with complex
near-wall phenomena.
Turbulence models are modified for the inner layer.
Generally requires a fine near-wall mesh capable of
resolving the viscous sub-layer (more than 10 cells
within the inner layer)
inner layer
outer layer
Pl ac ement of The Fi r st Gr i d
Poi nt
For standard or non-equilibriumwall functions, each wall-adjacent
cells centroid should be located within:
For the enhanced wall treatment (EWT), each wall-adjacent cells
centroid should be located:
Within the viscous sublayer, , for the two-layer zonal model:
Preferably within for the blended wall function
How to estimate the size of wall-adjacent cells before creating the grid:
,
The skin friction coefficient can be estimated from empirical
correlations:
2 / /
f e w
c U u =

300 30
+
p
y
1
+
p
y

u y y u y y
p p p p
/ /
+ +

300 30
+
p
y
Near -Wal l Model i ng:
Rec ommended St r at egy
Use SWF or NWF in high Re applications (Re > 10
6
) where you
cannot afford to resolve the viscous sub-layer.
Use NWF for mildly separating, reattaching, or impinging flows.
You may consider using EWT if:
Near wall characteristics are important.
The physics and near-wall mesh of the case is such that y
+
is
likely to vary significantly over a wide portion of the wall region.
Try to make the mesh either coarse or fine enough to avoid placing
the wall-adjacent cells in the buffer layer (y
+
= 5 ~ 30).
Enhanc ed Wal l Tr eat ment
Fully-Developed Channel Flow (Re
t
= 590)
For fixed pressure drop cross periodic boundaries, different near-
wall mesh resolutions yielded different volume flux as follows
The enhanced near-wall treatment gives a much smaller variation
for different near-wall mesh resolutions compared to the variations
found using standard wall functions.
y
+
= 1 y
+
= 4 y
+
= 8 y
+
= 16
Std. Wall fn. 12.68 13.77 16.77 19.08
EWT 18.31 17.58 17.70 18.48
I nl et /Out l et Condi t i ons
Boundary conditions for k, , w and/or must be specified.
Direct or indirect specification of turbulence parameters:
Explicitly input k, , w, or
This method allows for profile definition.
Turbulence intensity and length scale
For boundary layer flows: l 0.4d
99
For flows downstream of grid: l opening size
Turbulence intensity and hydraulic diameter
Internal flows
Turbulence intensity and turbulent viscosity ratio
For external flows: 1 < m
t
/m< 10
j i
u u
j i
u u
Choosing Models
I s t he Fl ow Tur bul ent ?
External Flows
Internal Flows
5
10 5
x
Re
along a surface
around an obstacle
,300 2
h
D
Re

UL
Re
L
where
L =x, D, D
h
, etc.
20,000
D
Re
Other factors such as free-stream
turbulence, surface conditions, and
disturbances may cause earlier
transition to turbulent flow.
Natural Convection

3
TL g
Ra

where
10 8
10 10 Ra
Tur bul enc e Model s i n Fl uent
Zero-Equation Models
One-Equation Models
Spalart-Allmaras
Two-Equation Models
Standard k-
RNG k-
Realizable k-
Standard k-
SST k-
V2F Model
Reynolds-Stress Model
Detached Eddy Simulation
Large-Eddy Simulation
Direct Numerical Simulation
Increase in
Computational
Cost
Per Iteration
Available
in FLUENT
RANS
models
Near-wall options
Customization
Auxiliary Models
Standard wall functions
Non-equilibrium wall
functions
Enhanced wall treatment
Buoyancy effects
Compressibility effects
Low Re effects
Pressure gradient effects
Turbulent viscosity
Source terms
Turbulence transport
equations
GUI f or Tur bul enc e Model s
Define Models Viscous...
Turbulence Model options
Near Wall Treatments
Inviscid, Laminar, or Turbulent
Additional Turbulence options
RANS Tur bul enc e Model
Behavi or and Usage
Model Behavior and Usage
Spalart-
Allmaras
Standard k-

RNG k-

Realizable k-

Standard k-

SST k-

RSM
Economical for large meshes
Performs poorly for 3D flows, free shear flows, flows with strong separation
Suitable for mildycomplex (quasi-2D) flows (turbo, wings, fuselages, missilies)
Robust, but performs poorly for complex flows
Suitable for initial conditions, fast design screening and parametric studies
Suitable for complex shear flows involving rapid strain, moderate swirl, vortices,
locally transitional flows (e.g. b.l. Separation, massive separation, vortex shedding)
Similar benefits and applications as the RNG model
Possibly more accurate and easier to converge
Superior for wall-bounded, free shear, and low-Re flows
Suitable for complex b.l flows (e.g. external aero, turbomachinery, vortex shedding)
Can predict transition (usually predict to early transition, though)
Similar benefits as SKO, less sensitive to outer disturbances
Suitable for wall bounded flows, less suited for free shear flows
The most physically sound RANS model (handelsanisotrophy)
Computationally expensive and harder to converge
Suitable for complex 3D flows with strong streamline curvature, strong swirl
(e.g. Curved duct, swirl combustors, cyclones)
Examples
Heat Tr ansf er Behi nd a 2D
Bac k st ep
Heat transfer predictions along the bottom
Measured by Vogel and Eaton (1980)
SKE, RNG, and RKE models are employed with standard wall
functions.
Fac t or s af f ec t i ng
ac c ur ac y
The accuracy of turbulent flow predictions can be
affected by user decisions involving
Turbulence model
Boundary conditions
Grid resolution and near wall modeling
Grid quality
I mpac t of Tur bul enc e Model
k- Results
I mpac t of Boundar y Condi t i ons
Run
X-Velocity
B.C.
Thermal
B.C.
Turbulence B.C.
1 Profile Uniform
Uniform
Uniform
Profile
2 Uniform
Intensity & Hydraulic
Diameter
3 Profile k=1, =1
I mpac t of Gr i d Qual i t y
Structured
Tri w b/l
Quad Pave
Tri
I mpac t of Near Wal l Model i ng
y+ values must be appropriate for selected near wall treatment
Realizable k- with SWF
St r eam Func t i on Cont our s f or
180 Degr ee Bend
Spalart-Allmaras Standard k-
RNG k- RSM
Rot at i ng Fl ow i n a Cyc l one
0.2 m
0.97 m
0.1 m

U
in
= 20 m/s
0.12 m
Highly swirling flows (W
max
= 1.8 U
in
)
High-order discretization on
40,000 cell hexahedral
mesh
Computed using a family of
k- models (SKE, RNG,
RKE), k- models (Wilcox,
SST) and RSM models
Cyc l one Vel oc i t y Pr of i l es