Goodarz Ahmadi
Department of Mechanical and Aeronautical Engineering
Clarkson University
Potsdam, NY 13699-5725
Outline
Viscous Fluid
Turbulence
One-Equation Models
Material-Frame Indifference
Continuum Approach
Rate-Dependent Model
ME637 1 G. Ahmadi
VISCOUS FLOW
Mass
+ ( u ) = 0
t
Momentum
du
= f + t
dt
Angular Momentum
tT =t
Energy
e& = t : u + q + h
Entropy Inequality
q h
& ( ) >0
T T
Constitutive Equation
Experimental evidence shows that for a viscous fluid, the stress is a function of
velocity gradient. That is
kl = p kl + G kl (u i , j )
u i , j = d ij + ij
where d ij is the deformation rate tensor and ij is the spin tensor. These are given as
1 1
d kl = (u k ,l + u l, k ), kl = (u k, l u l, k )
2 2
ME637 2 G. Ahmadi
The principle of Material Frame-Indifference of continuum mechanics implies that the
stress is generated only by the deformation rate of media and the spin has no effect. This
is because both stress and deformation rate tensors are frame-indifferent while spin is not.
Thus, the general form of the constitutive equation is given as
kl = p kl + Fkl (d ij )
kl = ( p + u i ,i ) kl + 2d kl
The entropy inequality imposed the following restrictions on the coefficient of viscosity:
3 + 2 > 0 , > 0 ,
Using the constitutive equation in the balance of momentum leads to the celebrated
Navier-Stokes equation. For an incompressible fluid the Navier-Stokes and the
continuity equations are given as
u i u i p 2ui
( + uj )= + ,
t x j x i x j x j
u i
=0
xi
TURBULENT FLOW
In turbulent flows the field properties become random functions of space and
time. Thus
u i = U i + u i u i = Ui , u i = 0
p = P + p p = P , p = 0
Substituting the decomposition into the Navier-Stokes equation and averaging leads to
the Reynolds equation.
ME637 3 G. Ahmadi
Reynolds Equation
U i U i 1 P 2 U i u i u j
+ Uj = +
t x j x i x j x j x j
Here
dU
T21 = u v = T
dy
Tij U i U j 1
= u i u j = T ( + ) u k u k ij
x j x i 3
U U
T21 = l 2m | |
y y
U T T
T = l 2m | |, T v =
y T y
Kolmogorov-Prandtl Expression
Eddy Viscosity
Let
U U
u ~ lm | |, l = l m T = l 2m | |
y y
ME637 4 G. Ahmadi
l m ~ cl 0 ( l 0 = half width)
Close to a wall
Local Equilibrium
U
When = 0 T = 0
y
Lack of transport of scales of turbulence
Reattachment Point
U
At the reattachment point = 0 which leads to vanishing eddy diffusivity and
y
thus negligible heat flux. Experiments, however, show that the heat flux is maximum at
the reattachment point.
ME637 5 G. Ahmadi
One-Equation Models
Eddy Viscosity
1
T = c k 1/ 2 l , k= u i u i = Turbulence Kinetic Energy
2
Exact k-equation
d u i u i u u P U i u u i 2 u i u i
= u k ( i i + ) u i u j i +
dt
1
424 23 14 x k4424 2 443 x j x j x j x j x j 2
Convective
1424 3 142 43 142 4 43 4
TurbulenceDiffusion Pr oduction Dissipation Viscous Diffusion
Transport
where
d u i u i d
= convective transport, = +Uj
dt 2 dt t x j
u u P
u k ( i i + ) = turbulence diffusion
x k 2
U i
u i u j = production
x j
u i u i
= , = dissipation
x j x j
2 u i u i
= viscous diffusion
x j x j 2
Modeled k-equation
dk T k U U j U i k 3/ 2
= ( ) + T ( i + ) cD ,
dt x j k x j x j x i x j l
where
T k
( ) = turbulence diffusion, k 1 (turbulence Prandlt number)
x j k x j
U i U j U i
T ( + ) = production,
x j x i x j
ME637 6 G. Ahmadi
k 3/ 2
cD = = dissipation.
l
Bradshaws Model
Modeled k-equation
dk U k 3/ 2
= (Bk Max ) + ak cD
dt y y l
where
U
ak = production
y
k3/2
cD = dissipation
l
Max y y
B= g( ) , l = f ( )
v 0
2
z-Equation
dz T z U k
= ( ) + z[c1 T ( ) 2 c 2 ] + Sz
dt y z y k y T
where
ME637 7 G. Ahmadi
T z
( ) = diffusion
y z y
U
c1 T ( ) 2 = production
k y
k
c2 = destruction,
T
S z = secondary source
Choices for z
-Equation (exact):
d u i u i u k 2 u i 2 u i
= (u j ') 2 2
dt x j x k x l x l x k x l x k x l
1424 3 1442443 144 42444 3
Diffusion Generation by Viscous destruction
vortexstretching
Note that
k 3/ 2 k 3/ 2 E(k) Universal Equilibrium
~ , l~
l
Thus ,
2
k ,
T ~ k l ~
ME637 8 G. Ahmadi
Two-Equation Models
The k Model
c k 2 U i U j 2
T = , u i u j = T ( + ) k ij
x j x i 3
k-equation
dk T k U U j U i
= ( ) + T ( i + )
dt x j k x j x j x i x j 123
144244 3 144424443 dissipation
Diffusion Pr oduction
-equation
d T k U i U j U i 2
= ( ) + c 1 T ( + ) c2 ,
dt x j x j k x j x i x j 123 k
144244 3 14444244443 Distruction
Diffusion Generation
where
Momentum
dU i 1 P
= u iu j
dt x i x j
Mass
U i
=0
x i
Kolmogorov Model
dk 1 k k
= 2 T S ij Sij k 2 + A ( )
dt 1 424 31 4224 3 x j x j
Pr oduction
Dissipation
1442443
Diffusion
ME637 9 G. Ahmadi
dw 7 k k
= 2 + 2 A ( )
dt 10 x j x j
Ak 1 U U j
T = , S ij = ( i + )
2 x j x i
In this section comparisons of the predictions of the mixing length and one and
two-equation models with the experimental data for simple turbulent shear flows are
presented.
It is seen that the k model captures the features of the flow more accurately
when compared with the one-equation and mixing length model.
ME637 10 G. Ahmadi
Turbulent Recirculating Flow (Durst and Rastogi, 1979)
b) Velocity profiles
The k model predictions for a square cavity are shown in this section.
ME637 11 G. Ahmadi
Free-Stream Turbulence
The free stream turbulence affects the skin friction coefficient. The mixing length
model can not predict such effects. The k model does a reasonable job in predicting
the increase of skin friction coefficient with the free stream turbulence.
Closed Channel
Flow
ME637 12 G. Ahmadi
Open Channel
Flow
1
U E 0
For a jet, = U ( U U E )dy = Excess momentum thickness
ME637 13 G. Ahmadi
Shortcomings of the k Model
U i U j 2
u i u j = T ( + ) k ij
x j x i 3
u i u i 1 p 2 u i U i
+ Uk = + + u i u k (u i u k ) u k (1)
t x k x i x k x k x k x k x k
u j u j
1 p' 2 u j U j
+ Uk = + + u j u k (u j u k ) u k (2)
t x k x j x k x k x k x k x k
Multiplying Equation (1) by u j , and Equation (2) by u i , adding the resulting equations
and averaging leads to the exact stress transport equation:
U j U i u u j p' u i u j
( + Uk )u i u j = [u i u k + u j u k ] 2 i + ( + )
t x x x k x k x k x j x i
144424k 44 3 14444k244443 142 43 144244 3
Convection Pr oduction Dissipation Pr essure strain
,
p'
[u i u j u k + ( u i jk + u j ik ) u i u j ]
x k x k
1444444442444444443
Diffusion
where
U j U i
[ u i u k + u j u k ] = production,
x k x k
ME637 14 G. Ahmadi
u i u j
2 = dissipation,
x k x k
p ' u i u j
( + ) = pressure strain
x j x i
p'
[ u i u j u k + (u i jk + u j ik ) u i u j ] = diffusion.
x k x k
Modeling Diffusion:
k u u u u u i u j
u i u j u k = c s (u i u l i k + u j u l k i + u k u l )
x l x l x l
Pressure diffusion 0
Viscous diffusion 0
Modeling Dissipation
u i u j 2
2 = ij
x k x k 3
Modeling Pressure-Strain
p' u i u j u u m u i u j
( + ) = dx1 G (x, x1 ){ ( l )1 ( + )
x j x i x x x x
x1
1444444 4m244 l
444 j
44 3i
(ij1 )
U u u u j
+ 2( l )1 ( m )1 ( i + ) }
x m x l x j x i
14444244443
(ij2 ) + (ji2 )
where
2
(ij1) = c 1 ( )(u i u j ij k ) (Return to isotropy)
k 3
2
(ij2) + (ji2) = (Pij P ij ) (Rapid term)
3
Here
U j U i
Pij = ( u i u k + u i u k )
x k x k
ME637 15 G. Ahmadi
Pressure-Strain Correlation
p' u i u j
Modeling the pressure-strain correlation, ( + ) , is critical to the stress
x j x i
transport equations.
Navier-Stokes Equation
u i u i 1 p 2 ui
+ uk = + (1)
t x k x i x j x j
2uiuk 1 2p
= , (2)
x i x k x i x i
or
p 2u i u k
2 = . (3)
x i x k
p 2 U i U k 2 u i u k
2
= . (4)
x i x k x i x k
p' U u k u i u k u i u k
2 = 2 i + . (5)
x k x i x k x i x k x i
Introducing the Green function G (x, x 1 ) for the Poisson equation. i.e.,
2 G(x, x 1 ) = (x x 1 ) , (6)
ME637 16 G. Ahmadi
U i u k u i u k u i u k
p' = G (x, x 1 )[2 + ]dx 1 (7)
x1
x k x i x k x i x k x i
p' u i u j u u k u i u j U u u u j
( + ) = G( x, x 1 )[( l )1 ( + ) + 2( l )1 ( k )1 ( i + )]dx 1
x j x i x1
x k x l x j x i x k x l x j x i
(8)
or
p' u i u j
( + ) = ij(1) + ( (ij2 ) + (ji2 ) ) (9)
x j x i
Note that for unbounded regions
1 1
G(x, x 1 ) = . (10)
4 | x x 1 |
U i U j 2
( + Uk )u iu j = [u j u k + u i u k ] ij
t x k x k x k 323
1
144 424 44 3 1444 424444 3 Dissipatio n
Convection Pr oduction
2
c1 (u i u j ij k ) + ( (ij2 ) + (ji2 ) ) + ( (ijw ) + (jiw) )
14k 4444 342444444 3 142 4 43 4
Wall effects
Pr essure strain
k u j u k u u u i u j
+ cs { [ u i u l + u j u l k i + u k u l ]}
x k x l x l x l
1444444444 424444444444 3
Diffusion
where
U i U j
[ u j u k + u i u k ] = production
x k x k
2
ij = dissipation,
3
2
c1 (u i u j ij k ) = pressure-strain
k 3
k u j u k u u u i u j
cs { [u i u l + u j u l k i + u k u l ]} = diffusion.
x k x l x l x l
ME637 17 G. Ahmadi
Dissipation Equation
k U i 2
( + Uk ) = c ( u k u i ) c 1 u i u k c 2 ,
t x k x k x i k x k 123 k
1442443 144424443 14 4244 3 Destruction
Convection Diffusion Generation
where
k
c ( u k u l ) = diffusion,
x k x k
U i
c 1 u i u k = generation
k x k
2
c2 = destruction.
k
Reynolds Equation
1 P
( + Uj )U i = u i u j
t x j x i x j
Continuity Equation
U i
=0
xi
Closure
ME637 18 G. Ahmadi
Comparison of Model Predictions
In this section comparisons of the predictions of the stress transport model with
the experimental data for simple turbulent shear flows are presented.
ME637 19 G. Ahmadi
Asymmetric Channel Flow (Launder, Reece and Rodi, 1975)
Turbulence Intensities
ME637 20 G. Ahmadi
Algebraic Stress Transport Model (Rodi, ZAMM 56, 1976)
d k U j U i
u i u j = c s ( u k u m u u ) u i u k u j u k
dt x k x m i j x k x
14 444244 44 3 1444 24443k
Diffusion Pr oduction
, (1)
2 2 2
c1 (u i u j ij k ) (Pij ij P) ij
14k 44444 32444444 3 3 1323
Pr essure Strain Dissipation
where
k
D ij = ( u k u l u i u j ) = diffusion,
x k x l
U j U i
Pij = u iu k u j u k = production,
x k x k
2 2
c1 (u i u j ij k) ( Pij ij P ) = pressure-strain,
k 3 3
2
ij = dissipation.
3
1
Here, P = Pii is the production rate of turbulent kinetic energy. Contracting
2
Equation (1), we find the transport equation for k:
dk k k U k
= cs ( u k u m ) u k u m
{ , (2)
dt x k x m x m Dissipation
14442444 3 14243
Diffusion Pr oduction
where
k k
D= ( u k u l ) =diffusion
x k x l
U k
P = u k u l = production
x l
d u iu j dk u i u j
u i u j D ij = ( D) = ( P ) , (3)
dt k dt k
ME637 21 G. Ahmadi
Using (3) in (1) and rearranging, the result is:
Pij 2 P
2 ij
1 3
u i u j = k ij + . (4)
3 c1
1 + ( 1)
1 P
c1
For simple shear flows, it may be shown that equation (4) reduces to the
Kolmogorov-Prandtl hypothesis with
k2
T = c (5)
and
1 P
[1 (1 )]
2 (1 ) c1
c = with = 0.6 and c1 = 1.8 2.2 . (6)
3 c1 [1 1 ( P 1)]2
+
c1
Available models can predict the mean flow properties with reasonable accuracy.
Small adjustments of parameters are sometimes necessary!
First-order modeling gives reasonable results only when a single length and velocity
scale characterizes turbulence.
The k model gives relatively accurate results when a scalar eddy viscosity is
sufficient to characterize the flow. That is there is no preferred direction for example
through the action of a body force.
The stress transport models have the potential to most accurately represent the mean
turbulent flow fields.
ME637 22 G. Ahmadi
For example, the transport equations for u ' 2 , v '2 , w '2 must always lead to positive
values of these quantities. In addition, the transport equations for the cross terms
must also lead to cross correlations that satisfy Schwarts inequalities. i.e.,
2
u 2 v' 2 u v ' > 0.
ME637 23 G. Ahmadi
Anisotropic Rate-Dependent Model
Mass
v i ,i = 0
Linear Momentum
v& i = t ji , j + t Tji , j + f i
Thermal Energy
e& = q i ,i + q iT,i + t ij v j ,i + + r
Fluctuation Energy
Clausius-Duhem Inequality
T
=e , T = k T
R Ti = q Ti
S Ti = K i T E i
Qi = q i + q Ti
ME637 24 G. Ahmadi
Clausius-Duhem Inequality
& 1
& 2 Q i ,i + t ij v j,i +
T 1 T&T
1
+ T
& T 2 T K i T,i + T + t Tij v j,i > 0
( ) E i ,i
Constitutive Equations
Stress
t ij = p ij + 2d ij
2
t Tij = k ij +
T Dd ij
( 1
)
+ T 2 + 2 d kl d kl d ij + d kl d kl ij d ik d kj
3 Dt 3
Jaumann Derivative
Dd ij
= d& ij + d ik kj + d jk ki
Dt
d ij =
1
(vi, j + v j,i ) , ij =
1
( v i , j v j ,i ) ,
1
= d ij d ij
2 2 2
Heat Flux
T
Q i = + C ,i
T k
K i = + k k ,i ,i
Heat Capacity
2
C =
2
ME637 25 G. Ahmadi
Thermodynamic Constraints
T = C k
o
= k ln
T
+ C 2 + C 0
k
Turbulence Stress
2 D 1
t Tij = kij + T 2d ij + d ij + 2 d lk d kl d ij + d lk d kl ij d ik d kj
3 Dt 3
Basic Equations
v i ,i = 0
2 Dd ij 1
v& i = p + k + 2( + T )d ij + T [ + ( d lk d kl ij d ik d kj ) + 2 d lk d kl d ij ] + f i
3 ,i Dt 3 , j
T
C & = ( + C ) ,i + 2d ij d ij + + r
,i
T k Dd ij
k& = ( + k )(k ,i ,i ) + P + T d ij
,i Dt
P = T [ 2d ij d ij d ik d kjd ij + 2 (d ij d ji ) 2 ]
ME637 26 G. Ahmadi
Scale Transport Equations
T T k k
& = ( + T ) ,i + C 1 P + C 3 + k 2 [k , i ,i ][k ,i ,i ]
,i k k
T 2C
+ + T [ 2
]( 2 ) ,i ,i C 2 C D
0 + 2C
1 1 1
> C 1 > 0 , C 2 > , > C 3 > 0 , 0 > 0
0m 0 0m
0 m max .( 0 + 2C 2 )
k
= CD
T T k k
& = ( + ) ,i + C 1 P + C 3 + k 2 [k ,i ,i ][k ,i , i ]
,i k k
T 2 C k2 2 2
2
+ + [ ]( ) C C
2
,i ,i
k2 k
0 + 2C 2
k2 k
= C
T
, =
2
> , = 0.005
48
ME637 27 G. Ahmadi
Comparison with the Experimental Data for Duct Flow
In this section the rate-dependent model predictions are compared with the
experimental data of Kreplin and Eckelmann, DNS of Kim et al. and the k- model
predictions
ME637 28 G. Ahmadi
Comparison of turbulence shear stress with the experimental data of
Kreplin and Eckelmann, and DNS of Kim et al.
Comparison with Experimental the Data for Backward Facing Step Flows
In the section the rate-dependent model predictions are compared with the
experimental data of Kim et al. and the algebraic model of Srinivasan et al.
ME637 29 G. Ahmadi
Comparison of the mean velocity profiles with the data of Kim et al. (1978).
(Dashed lines are the model predictions of Srinivasan et al. (1983).
Comparison of the turbulence kinetic energy profiles with the data of Kim et al. (1978).
(Dashed lines are the model predictions of Srinivasan et al. (1983).
ME637 30 G. Ahmadi
Comparison of the turbulence dissipation profiles.
(Dashed lines are the model predictions of Srinivasan et al. (1983).
Comparison of the axial turbulence intensity profiles with the data of Kim et al. (1978).
(Dashed lines are the model predictions of Srinivasan et al. (1983).
ME637 31 G. Ahmadi
Comparison of the vertical turbulence intensity profiles with the data of Kim et al.
(1978). (Dashed lines are the model predictions of Srinivasan et al. (1983).
Comparison of the turbulence shear stress profiles with the data of Kim et al. (1978).
(Dashed lines are the model predictions of Srinivasan et al. (1983).
ME637 32 G. Ahmadi
Schematics of the flow in an axisymmetric pipe expansion.
Comparison of the mean velocity profiles with the data of Junjua et al. (1982) and
Chaturvedi (1963). (Dashed lines are the model predictions of
Srinivasan et al. (1983))
Comparison of the axial turbulence intensity profiles with the data of Junjua et al. (1982)
and Chaturvedi (1963). (Dashed lines are the model predictions of
Srinivasan et al. (1983))
ME637 33 G. Ahmadi
Comparison of the vertical turbulence intensity profiles with the data of Junjua et al.
(1982) and Chaturvedi (1963). (Dashed lines are the model predictions of
Srinivasan et al. (1983))
Comparison of the turbulence shear stress profiles with the data of Junjua et al. (1982)
and Chaturvedi (1963). (Dashed lines are the model predictions of
Srinivasan et al. (1983))
ME637 34 G. Ahmadi