Você está na página 1de 88

Chapter 11.

Modeling Turbulence

This chapter provides details about the turbulence models available in FLUENT. Information is presented in the following sections:

Section 11.1: Introduction

Section 11.2: Choosing a Turbulence Model

Section 11.3: The Spalart-Allmaras Model

Section 11.4: The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

Section 11.5: The Standard and SST k-ω Models

Section 11.6: The Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)

Section 11.7: The Large Eddy Simulation (LES) Model

Section 11.8: The Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) Model

Section 11.9: Near-Wall Treatments for Wall-Bounded Turbulent Flows

Section 11.10: Grid Considerations for Turbulent Flow Simulations

Section 11.11: Problem Setup for Turbulent Flows

Section 11.12: Solution Strategies for Turbulent Flow Simulations

Section 11.13: Postprocessing for Turbulent Flows

Modeling Turbulence

11.1 Introduction

Turbulent flows are characterized by fluctuating velocity fields. These fluctuations mix transported quantities such as momentum, energy, and species concentration, and cause the transported quantities to fluctuate as well. Since these fluctuations can be of small scale and high frequency, they are too computationally expensive to simulate directly in practical engineering calculations. Instead, the instantaneous (exact) governing equations can be time-averaged, ensemble-averaged, or otherwise manipulated to remove the small scales, resulting in a modified set of equations that are computationally less expensive to solve. However, the modified equations contain additional unknown variables, and turbulence models are needed to determine these variables in terms of known quantities.

FLUENT provides the following choices of turbulence models:

Spalart-Allmaras model

k- models

Standard k- model

Renormalization-group (RNG) k- model

Realizable k- model

k-ω models

Standard k-ω model

Shear-stress transport (SST) k-ω model

v 2 -f model

Reynolds stress model (RSM)

Detached eddy simulation (DES) model

Large eddy simulation (LES) model

11.2 Choosing a Turbulence Model

It is an unfortunate fact that no single turbulence model is universally accepted as be- ing superior for all classes of problems. The choice of turbulence model will depend on considerations such as the physics encompassed in the flow, the established practice for a specific class of problem, the level of accuracy required, the available computational resources, and the amount of time available for the simulation. To make the most ap- propriate choice of model for your application, you need to understand the capabilities and limitations of the various options.

The purpose of this section is to give an overview of issues related to the turbulence models provided in FLUENT. The computational effort and cost in terms of CPU time and

11.2 Choosing a Turbulence Model

memory of the individual models is discussed. While it is impossible to state categorically which model is best for a specific application, general guidelines are presented to help you choose the appropriate turbulence model for the flow you want to model.

11.2.1 Reynolds-Averaged Approach vs. LES

Time-dependent solutions of the Navier-Stokes equations for high Reynolds-number tur- bulent flows in complex geometries which set out to resolve all the way down to the smallest scales of the motions are unlikely to be attainable for some time to come. Two alternative methods can be employed to render the Navier-Stokes equations tractable so that the small-scale turbulent fluctuations do not have to be directly simulated:

Reynolds-averaging (or ensemble-averaging) and filtering. Both methods introduce ad- ditional terms in the governing equations that need to be modeled in order to achieve a “closure” for the unknowns.

The Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations govern the transport of the aver- aged flow quantities, with the whole range of the scales of turbulence being modeled. The RANS-based modeling approach therefore greatly reduces the required computational ef- fort and resources, and is widely adopted for practical engineering applications. An entire hierarchy of closure models are available in FLUENTincluding Spalart-Allmaras, k- and its variants, k-ω and its variants, and the RSM. The RANS equations are often used to compute time-dependent flows, whose unsteadiness may be externally imposed (e.g., time-dependent boundary conditions or sources) or self-sustained (e.g., vortex-shedding, flow instabilities).

LES provides an alternative approach in which large eddies are explicitly computed (re- solved) in a time-dependent simulation using the “filtered” Navier-Stokes equations. The rationale behind LES is that by modeling less of turbulence (and resolving more), the error introduced by turbulence modeling can be reduced. It is also believed to be easier to find a “universal” model for the small scales, since they tend to be more isotropic and less affected by the macroscopic features like boundary conditions, than the large eddies. Filtering is essentially a mathematical manipulation of the exact Navier-Stokes equations to remove the eddies that are smaller than the size of the filter, which is usually taken as the mesh size when spatial filtering is employed as in FLUENT. Like Reynolds-averaging, the filtering process creates additional unknown terms that must be modeled to achieve closure. Statistics of the time-varying flow-fields such as time-averages and r.m.s. val- ues of the solution variables, which are generally of most engineering interest, can be collected during the time-dependent simulation.

LES for high Reynolds number industrial flows requires a significant amount of compute resources. This is mainly because of the need to accurately resolve the energy-containing turbulent eddies in both space and time domains, which becomes most acute in near-wall regions where the scales to be resolved become increasingly smaller. Wall functions in combination with a coarse near wall mesh can be employed, often with some success, to reduce the cost of LES for wall-bounded flows. However, one needs to carefully consider

Modeling Turbulence

the ramification of using wall functions for the flow in question. For the same reason (to accurately resolve the eddies), LES also requires highly accurate spatial and temporal discretizations.

LES/RANS Coupling: Detached Eddy Simulation (DES) Model

The detached eddy simulation (DES) model in FLUENT is based on a modified version of the Spalart-Allmaras model and can be considered a more practical alternative to LES for predicting the flow around high-Reynolds-number, high-lift airfoils. The DES approach combines an unsteady RANS version of the Spalart-Allmaras model with a filtered version of the same model to create two separate regions inside the flow domain: one that is LES-based and another that is close to the wall where the modeling is dominated by the RANS-based approach. The LES region is normally associated with the high-Re core turbulent region where large turbulence scales play a dominant role. In this region, the DES model recovers the pure LES model based on a one-equation sub-grid model. Close to the wall, where viscous effects prevail, the standard RANS model is recovered.

The application of DES, however, may still require significant CPU resources and there- fore, as a general guideline, it is recommended that the conventional turbulence models employing the Reynolds-averaged approach be used for practical calculations. The LES approach, described further in Section 11.7: The Large Eddy Simulation (LES) Model, has been made available for you to try if you have the computational resources and are willing to invest the effort. The rest of this section will deal with the choice of models using the Reynolds-averaged approach.

11.2.2 Reynolds (Ensemble) Averaging

In Reynolds averaging, the solution variables in the instantaneous (exact) Navier-Stokes equations are decomposed into the mean (ensemble-averaged or time-averaged) and fluc- tuating components. For the velocity components:

u i = u¯ i + u i

where u¯ i and u i are the mean and fluctuating velocity components (i = 1, 2, 3).

Likewise, for pressure and other scalar quantities:

¯

φ = φ + φ

(11.2-1)

(11.2-2)

where φ denotes a scalar such as pressure, energy, or species concentration.

Substituting expressions of this form for the flow variables into the instantaneous conti- nuity and momentum equations and taking a time (or ensemble) average (and dropping

11.2 Choosing a Turbulence Model

the overbar on the mean velocity, u¯) yields the ensemble-averaged momentum equations. They can be written in Cartesian tensor form as:

∂ρ

∂t

+

x i (ρu i ) = 0

(11.2-3)

t (ρu i ) + x j (ρu i u j ) = p

∂x i

+

∂u i

∂x j µ ∂x j

+ ∂u j ∂x i

2

3 δ ij

∂u

l

∂x

l

+

x j (ρu

i u j )

(11.2-4)

Equations 11.2-3 and 11.2-4 are called Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equa- tions. They have the same general form as the instantaneous Navier-Stokes equations,

with the velocities and other solution variables now representing ensemble-averaged (or

time-averaged) values.

j , must be modeled in order to close Equa-

tion 11.2-4.

For variable-density flows, Equations 11.2-3 and 11.2-4 can be interpreted as Favre- averaged Navier-Stokes equations [131], with the velocities representing mass-averaged values. As such, Equations 11.2-3 and 11.2-4 can be applied to density-varying flows.

bulence.

Additional terms now appear that represent the effects of tur-

These Reynolds stresses, ρu

i u

11.2.3 Boussinesq Approach vs. Reynolds Stress Transport Models

The Reynolds-averaged approach to turbulence modeling requires that the Reynolds stresses in Equation 11.2-4 be appropriately modeled. A common method employs the Boussinesq hypothesis [131] to relate the Reynolds stresses to the mean velocity gradients:

j = µ t

i u

ρu

∂u i

∂x j

+ ∂u j ∂x i

3 ρk + µ t

2

∂u

i

∂x

i

δ ij

(11.2-5)

The Boussinesq hypothesis is used in the Spalart-Allmaras model, the k- models, and the k-ω models. The advantage of this approach is the relatively low computational cost associated with the computation of the turbulent viscosity, µ t . In the case of the Spalart-Allmaras model, only one additional transport equation (representing turbulent viscosity) is solved. In the case of the k- and k-ω models, two additional transport equations (for the turbulence kinetic energy, k, and either the turbulence dissipation rate, , or the specific dissipation rate, ω) are solved, and µ t is computed as a function of k and . The disadvantage of the Boussinesq hypothesis as presented is that it assumes µ t is an isotropic scalar quantity, which is not strictly true.

The alternative approach, embodied in the RSM, is to solve transport equations for each of the terms in the Reynolds stress tensor. An additional scale-determining equation (normally for ) is also required. This means that five additional transport equations are required in 2D flows and seven additional transport equations must be solved in 3D.

Modeling Turbulence

In many cases, models based on the Boussinesq hypothesis perform very well, and the additional computational expense of the Reynolds stress model is not justified. However, the RSM is clearly superior for situations in which the anisotropy of turbulence has a dominant effect on the mean flow. Such cases include highly swirling flows and stress- driven secondary flows.

11.2.4 The Spalart-Allmaras Model

The Spalart-Allmaras model is a relatively simple one-equation model that solves a mod- eled transport equation for the kinematic eddy (turbulent) viscosity. This embodies a relatively new class of one-equation models in which it is not necessary to calculate a length scale related to the local shear layer thickness. The Spalart-Allmaras model was designed specifically for aerospace applications involving wall-bounded flows and has been shown to give good results for boundary layers subjected to adverse pressure gradients. It is also gaining popularity for turbomachinery applications.

In its original form, the Spalart-Allmaras model is effectively a low-Reynolds-number model, requiring the viscous-affected region of the boundary layer to be properly resolved. In FLUENT, however, the Spalart-Allmaras model has been implemented to use wall functions when the mesh resolution is not sufficiently fine. This might make it the best choice for relatively crude simulations on coarse meshes where accurate turbulent flow computations are not critical. Furthermore, the near-wall gradients of the transported variable in the model are much smaller than the gradients of the transported variables in the k- or k-ω models. This might make the model less sensitive to numerical error when non-layered meshes are used near walls. See Section 6.1.3: Numerical Diffusion for further discussion of numerical error.

On a cautionary note, however, the Spalart-Allmaras model is still relatively new, and no claim is made regarding its suitability to all types of complex engineering flows. For instance, it cannot be relied on to predict the decay of homogeneous, isotropic turbu- lence. Furthermore, one-equation models are often criticized for their inability to rapidly accommodate changes in length scale, such as might be necessary when the flow changes abruptly from a wall-bounded to a free shear flow.

11.2.5 The Standard k- Model

The simplest “complete models” of turbulence are two-equation models in which the so- lution of two separate transport equations allows the turbulent velocity and length scales to be independently determined. The standard k- model in FLUENT falls within this class of turbulence model and has become the workhorse of practical engineering flow calculations in the time since it was proposed by Launder and Spalding [183]. Robust- ness, economy, and reasonable accuracy for a wide range of turbulent flows explain its popularity in industrial flow and heat transfer simulations. It is a semi-empirical model, and the derivation of the model equations relies on phenomenological considerations and empiricism.

11.2 Choosing a Turbulence Model

As the strengths and weaknesses of the standard k- model have become known, improve- ments have been made to the model to improve its performance. Two of these variants are available in FLUENT: the RNG k- model [383] and the realizable k- model [306].

11.2.6 The RNG k- Model

The RNG k- model was derived using a rigorous statistical technique (called renormal- ization group theory). It is similar in form to the standard k- model, but includes the following refinements:

The RNG model has an additional term in its equation that significantly improves the accuracy for rapidly strained flows.

The effect of swirl on turbulence is included in the RNG model, enhancing accuracy for swirling flows.

The RNG theory provides an analytical formula for turbulent Prandtl numbers, while the standard k- model uses user-specified, constant values.

While the standard k- model is a high-Reynolds-number model, the RNG theory provides an analytically-derived differential formula for effective viscosity that ac- counts for low-Reynolds-number effects. Effective use of this feature does, however, depend on an appropriate treatment of the near-wall region.

These features make the RNG k- model more accurate and reliable for a wider class of flows than the standard k- model.

11.2.7 The Realizable k- Model

The realizable k- model is a relatively recent development and differs from the standard k- model in two important ways:

The realizable k- model contains a new formulation for the turbulent viscosity.

A new transport equation for the dissipation rate, , has been derived from an exact equation for the transport of the mean-square vorticity fluctuation.

The term “realizable” means that the model satisfies certain mathematical constraints on the Reynolds stresses, consistent with the physics of turbulent flows. Neither the standard k- model nor the RNG k- model is realizable.

An immediate benefit of the realizable k- model is that it more accurately predicts

the spreading rate of both planar and round jets.

It is also likely to provide superior

Modeling Turbulence

performance for flows involving rotation, boundary layers under strong adverse pressure gradients, separation, and recirculation.

Both the realizable and RNG k- models have shown substantial improvements over the standard k- model where the flow features include strong streamline curvature, vortices, and rotation. Since the model is still relatively new, it is not clear in exactly which instances the realizable k- model consistently outperforms the RNG model. However, initial studies have shown that the realizable model provides the best performance of all the k- model versions for several validations of separated flows and flows with complex secondary flow features.

One limitation of the realizable k- model is that it produces non-physical turbulent viscosities in situations when the computational domain contains both rotating and sta- tionary fluid zones (e.g., multiple reference frames, rotating sliding meshes). This is due to the fact that the realizable k- model includes the effects of mean rotation in the definition of the turbulent viscosity (see Equations 11.4-1711.4-19). This extra rotation effect has been tested on single rotating reference frame systems and showed superior be- havior over the standard k- model. However, due to the nature of this modification, its application to multiple reference frame systems should be taken with some caution. See Section 11.4.3: Modeling the Turbulent Viscosity for information about how to include or exclude this term from the model.

11.2.8 The Standard k-ω Model

The standard k-ω model in FLUENT is based on the Wilcox k-ω model [378], which incorporates modifications for low-Reynolds-number effects, compressibility, and shear flow spreading. The Wilcox model predicts free shear flow spreading rates that are in close agreement with measurements for far wakes, mixing layers, and plane, round, and radial jets, and is thus applicable to wall-bounded flows and free shear flows. A variation of the standard k-ω model called the SST k-ω model is also available in FLUENT, and is described in Section 11.2.9: The Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k-ω Model.

11.2.9 The Shear-Stress Transport (SST) k-ω Model

The shear-stress transport (SST) k-ω model was developed by Menter [221] to effectively blend the robust and accurate formulation of the k-ω model in the near-wall region with the free-stream independence of the k - model in the far field. To achieve this, the k - model is converted into a k-ω formulation. The SST k-ω model is similar to the standard k-ω model, but includes the following refinements:

The standard k-ω model and the transformed k- model are both multiplied by a blending function and both models are added together. The blending function is designed to be one in the near-wall region, which activates the standard k-ω model, and zero away from the surface, which activates the transformed k- model.

11.2 Choosing a Turbulence Model

The SST model incorporates a damped cross-diffusion derivative term in the ω equation.

The definition of the turbulent viscosity is modified to account for the transport of the turbulent shear stress.

The modeling constants are different.

These features make the SST k-ω model more accurate and reliable for a wider class of flows (e.g., adverse pressure gradient flows, airfoils, transonic shock waves) than the standard k-ω model.

11.2.10 The v 2 -f Model

The v 2 -f model is similar to the standard k- model, but incorporates near-wall turbu- lence anisotropy and non-local pressure-strain effects. A limitation of the v 2 -f model is that it cannot be used to solve Eulerian multiphase problems, whereas the k- model is typically used in such applications. The v 2 -f model is a general low-Reynolds-number turbulence model that is valid all the way up to solid walls, and therefore does not need to make use of wall functions. Although the model was originally developed for attached or mildly separated boundary layers [84], it also accurately simulates flows dominated by separation [27].

The distinguishing feature of the v 2 -f model is its use of the velocity scale, v 2 , instead

of the turbulent kinetic energy, k, for evaluating the eddy viscosity. v 2 , which can be thought of as the velocity fluctuation normal to the streamlines, has shown to provide the right scaling in representing the damping of turbulent transport close to the wall, a feature that k does not provide.

For more information about the theoretical background and usage of the v 2 -f model, please visit the Fluent User Services Center (www.fluentusers.com).

11.2.11 The Reynolds Stress Model (RSM)

The Reynolds stress model (RSM) is the most elaborate turbulence model that FLU- ENT provides. Abandoning the isotropic eddy-viscosity hypothesis, the RSM closes the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes equations by solving transport equations for the Reynolds stresses, together with an equation for the dissipation rate. This means that five additional transport equations are required in 2D flows and seven additional trans- port equations must be solved in 3D.

Since the RSM accounts for the effects of streamline curvature, swirl, rotation, and rapid changes in strain rate in a more rigorous manner than one-equation and two-equation models, it has greater potential to give accurate predictions for complex flows. However, the fidelity of RSM predictions is still limited by the closure assumptions employed to

Modeling Turbulence

model various terms in the exact transport equations for the Reynolds stresses. The modeling of the pressure-strain and dissipation-rate terms is particularly challenging, and often considered to be responsible for compromising the accuracy of RSM predictions.

The RSM might not always yield results that are clearly superior to the simpler models in all classes of flows to warrant the additional computational expense. However, use of the RSM is a must when the flow features of interest are the result of anisotropy in the Reynolds stresses. Among the examples are cyclone flows, highly swirling flows in combustors, rotating flow passages, and the stress-induced secondary flows in ducts.

11.2.12 Computational Effort: CPU Time and Solution Behavior

In terms of computation, the Spalart-Allmaras model is the least expensive turbulence model of the options provided in FLUENT, since only one turbulence transport equation is solved.

The standard k- model clearly requires more computational effort than the Spalart- Allmaras model since an additional transport equation is solved. The realizable k- model requires only slightly more computational effort than the standard k- model. However, due to the extra terms and functions in the governing equations and a greater degree of non-linearity, computations with the RNG k- model tend to take 10–15% more CPU time than with the standard k- model. Like the k- models, the k-ω models are also two-equation models, and thus require about the same computational effort.

Compared with the k- and k-ω models, the RSM requires additional memory and CPU time due to the increased number of the transport equations for Reynolds stresses. How- ever, efficient programming in FLUENT has reduced the CPU time per iteration signifi- cantly. On average, the RSM in FLUENT requires 50–60% more CPU time per iteration compared to the k- and k-ω models. Furthermore, 15–20% more memory is needed.

Aside from the time per iteration, the choice of turbulence model can affect the ability of FLUENT to obtain a converged solution. For example, the standard k- model is known to be slightly over-diffusive in certain situations, while the RNG k- model is designed such that the turbulent viscosity is reduced in response to high rates of strain. Since diffusion has a stabilizing effect on the numerics, the RNG model is more likely to be susceptible to instability in steady-state solutions. However, this should not necessarily be seen as a disadvantage of the RNG model, since these characteristics make it more responsive to important physical instabilities such as time-dependent turbulent vortex shedding.

Similarly, the RSM may take more iterations to converge than the k- and k-ω models due to the strong coupling between the Reynolds stresses and the mean flow.

11.3 The Spalart-Allmaras Model

11.3 The Spalart-Allmaras Model

In turbulence models that employ the Boussinesq approach, the central issue is how the eddy viscosity is computed. The model proposed by Spalart and Allmaras [325] solves a transport equation for a quantity that is a modified form of the turbulent kinematic viscosity.

11.3.1 Transport Equation for the Spalart-Allmaras Model

The transported variable in the Spalart-Allmaras model, ν˜, is identical to the turbu- lent kinematic viscosity except in the near-wall (viscous-affected) region. The transport equation for ν˜ is

t (ρν˜)+ x i (ρνu˜ i ) = G ν + 1

σ

ν˜

x j (µ + ρν˜)

∂ν˜

j + C b2 ρ

∂x

∂ν˜

∂x

j

2

Y ν +S ν˜ (11.3-1)

where G ν is the production of turbulent viscosity and Y ν is the destruction of turbulent viscosity that occurs in the near-wall region due to wall blocking and viscous damping. σ ν˜ and C b2 are constants and ν is the molecular kinematic viscosity. S ν˜ is a user-defined source term. Note that since the turbulence kinetic energy k is not calculated in the Spalart-Allmaras model, the last term in Equation 11.2-5 is ignored when estimating the Reynolds stresses.

11.3.2 Modeling the Turbulent Viscosity

The turbulent viscosity, µ t , is computed from

µ t = ρνf˜ v1

(11.3-2)

where the viscous damping function, f v1 , is given by

and

f v1 =

χ 3

3

v1

χ 3 + C

χ ν˜ ν

(11.3-3)

(11.3-4)

Modeling Turbulence

11.3.3 Modeling the Turbulent Production

The production term, G ν , is modeled as

where

and

˜

G ν = C b1 ρ Sν˜

˜

S S +

f v2 = 1

ν˜

d 2 f v2

κ

2

χ χf v1

1 +

(11.3-5)

(11.3-6)

(11.3-7)

C b1 and κ are constants, d is the distance from the wall, and S is a scalar measure of the deformation tensor. By default in FLUENT, as in the original model proposed by Spalart and Allmaras, S is based on the magnitude of the vorticity:

S

2Ω ij ij

(11.3-8)

where Ω ij is the mean rate-of-rotation tensor and is defined by

ij =

1

∂u i ∂x j

2

∂u j ∂x i

(11.3-9)

The justification for the default expression for S is that, for the wall-bounded flows that were of most interest when the model was formulated, turbulence is found only where vorticity is generated near walls. However, it has since been acknowledged that one should also take into account the effect of mean strain on the turbulence production, and a modification to the model has been proposed [67] and incorporated into FLUENT.

This modification combines measures of both rotation and strain tensors in the definition of S:

where

S ≡ |ij | + C prod min (0, |S ij | − |ij |)

C prod = 2.0, |ij | ≡ 2Ω ij ij , |S ij | ≡ 2S ij S ij

(11.3-10)

11.3 The Spalart-Allmaras Model

with the mean strain rate, S ij , defined as

S ij =

1 ∂u j

∂x i

2

+

∂u

i

j

∂x

(11.3-11)

Including both the rotation and strain tensors reduces the production of eddy viscosity and consequently reduces the eddy viscosity itself in regions where the measure of vortic- ity exceeds that of strain rate. One such example can be found in vortical flows, i.e., flow near the core of a vortex subjected to a pure rotation where turbulence is known to be suppressed. Including both the rotation and strain tensors more correctly accounts for the effects of rotation on turbulence. The default option (including the rotation tensor only) tends to overpredict the production of eddy viscosity and hence overpredicts the eddy viscosity itself in certain circumstances.

You can select the modified form for calculating production in the Viscous Model panel.

11.3.4 Modeling the Turbulent Destruction

The destruction term is modeled as

where

Y ν = C w1 ρf w ν˜ d 2

f w = g

1 + C g 6 + C

w3

w3 1/6

6

6

g = r + C w2 r 6 r

(11.3-12)

(11.3-13)

(11.3-14)

r

ν˜

˜

2 d 2

(11.3-15)

˜

Note that the

modification described above to include the effects of mean strain on S will also affect

C w1 , C w2 , and C w3 are constants, and

S is given by Equation 11.3-6.

˜

the value of S used to compute r.

Modeling Turbulence

11.3.5 Model Constants

The model constants C b1 , C b2 , σ ν˜ , C v1 , C w1 , C w2 , C w3 , and κ have the following default values [325]:

C b1 = 0.1355,

C b2 = 0.622,

σ ν˜ =

2

3 ,

C v1 = 7.1

C w1 =

C b1

κ 2

+ (1 + C b2 )

σ ν˜

,

C w2 = 0.3,

C w3 = 2.0,

κ = 0.4187

11.3.6 Wall Boundary Conditions

At walls, the modified turbulent kinematic viscosity, ν˜, is set to zero.

When the mesh is fine enough to resolve the laminar sublayer, the wall shear stress is obtained from the laminar stress-strain relationship:

u

u

τ

ρu τ y

=

µ

(11.3-16)

If the mesh is too coarse to resolve the laminar sublayer, it is assumed that the centroid of the wall-adjacent cell falls within the logarithmic region of the boundary layer, and the law-of-the-wall is employed:

u

u

τ

=

1

κ

ln E ρu τ y

µ

(11.3-17)

where u is the velocity parallel to the wall, u τ is the shear velocity, y is the distance from the wall, κ is the von K´arm´an constant (0.4187), and E = 9.793.

11.3.7 Convective Heat and Mass Transfer Modeling

In FLUENT, turbulent heat transport is modeled using the concept of Reynolds’ analogy to turbulent momentum transfer. The “modeled” energy equation is thus given by the following:

t (ρE) + x i [u i (ρE + p)] =

∂x j k + c p µ t

Pr t

∂T

j + u i (τ ij ) e + S h

∂x

(11.3-18)

where k, in this case, is the thermal conductivity, E is the total energy, and (τ ij ) e is the deviatoric stress tensor, defined as

11.4 The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

(τ ij ) eff = µ eff u ∂x j i

+

∂u

∂x

j

i

2

3 µ eff

∂u

i

∂x

i

δ

ij

The term involving (τ ij ) e represents the viscous heating, and is always computed in the coupled solvers. It is not computed by default in the segregated solver, but it can be enabled in the Viscous Model panel. The default value of the turbulent Prandtl number is 0.85. You can change the value of Pr t in the Viscous Model panel.

Turbulent mass transfer is treated similarly, with a default turbulent Schmidt number of 0.7. This default value can be changed in the Viscous Model panel.

Wall boundary conditions for scalar transport are handled analogously to momentum, using the appropriate “law-of-the-wall”.

11.4 The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

This section presents the standard, RNG, and realizable k- models. All three models have similar forms, with transport equations for k and . The major differences in the models are as follows:

the method of calculating turbulent viscosity

the turbulent Prandtl numbers governing the turbulent diffusion of k and

the generation and destruction terms in the equation

The transport equations, methods of calculating turbulent viscosity, and model constants are presented separately for each model. The features that are essentially common to all models follow, including turbulent production, generation due to buoyancy, accounting for the effects of compressibility, and modeling heat and mass transfer.

11.4.1 The Standard k- Model

The standard k- model [183] is a semi-empirical model based on model transport equa- tions for the turbulence kinetic energy (k) and its dissipation rate ( ). The model trans- port equation for k is derived from the exact equation, while the model transport equation for was obtained using physical reasoning and bears little resemblance to its mathe- matically exact counterpart.

In the derivation of the k- model, it was assumed that the flow is fully turbulent, and the effects of molecular viscosity are negligible. The standard k- model is therefore valid only for fully turbulent flows.

Modeling Turbulence

Transport Equations for the Standard k- Model

The turbulence kinetic energy, k, and its rate of dissipation, , are obtained from the following transport equations:

and

t (ρk) + x i (ρku i ) =

∂x j µ + µ

σ

k

t

∂k

j + G k + G b ρ Y M + S k

∂x

(11.4-1)

t (ρ ) + x i (ρ u i ) =

∂x j µ + µ t

σ

j + C 1

∂x

k

2

(G k + C 3 G b ) C 2 ρ k + S (11.4-2)

In these equations, G k represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients, calculated as described in Section 11.4.4: Modeling Turbulent Production in the k- Models. G b is the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy, calculated as described in Section 11.4.5: Effects of Buoyancy on Turbu- lence in the k- Models. Y M represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate, calculated as described in Sec- tion 11.4.6: Effects of Compressibility on Turbulence in the k- Models. C 1 , C 2 , and C 3 are constants. σ k and σ are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and , respectively. S k and S are user-defined source terms.

Modeling the Turbulent Viscosity

The turbulent (or eddy) viscosity, µ t , is computed by combining k and as follows:

µ t = ρC µ

k

2

(11.4-3)

where C µ is a constant.

Model Constants

The model constants C 1 , C 2 , C µ , σ k , and σ have the following default values [183]:

C 1 = 1.44,

C 2 = 1.92,

C µ = 0.09,

σ k = 1.0,

σ = 1.3

These default values have been determined from experiments with air and water for funda- mental turbulent shear flows including homogeneous shear flows and decaying isotropic grid turbulence. They have been found to work fairly well for a wide range of wall- bounded and free shear flows.

11.4 The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

Although the default values of the model constants are the standard ones most widely accepted, you can change them (if needed) in the Viscous Model panel.

11.4.2 The RNG k- Model

The RNG-based k- turbulence model is derived from the instantaneous Navier-Stokes equations, using a mathematical technique called “renormalization group” (RNG) meth- ods. The analytical derivation results in a model with constants different from those in the standard k- model, and additional terms and functions in the transport equations for k and . A more comprehensive description of RNG theory and its application to turbulence can be found in [54].

Transport Equations for the RNG k- Model

The RNG k- model has a similar form to the standard k- model:

and

t (ρk) + x i (ρku i ) =

x j α k µ eff

∂k

j + G k + G b ρ Y M + S k

∂x

(11.4-4)

t (ρ )+ x i (ρ u i ) =

x j α µ eff

j +C 1

∂x

k

(G

k

2

+ C 3 G b )C 2 ρ k R +S (11.4-5)

In these equations, G k represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients, calculated as described in Section 11.4.4: Modeling Turbulent Production in the k- Models. G b is the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy, calculated as described in Section 11.4.5: Effects of Buoyancy on Turbu- lence in the k- Models. Y M represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate, calculated as described in Sec- tion 11.4.6: Effects of Compressibility on Turbulence in the k- Models. The quantities α k and α are the inverse effective Prandtl numbers for k and , respectively. S k and S are user-defined source terms.

Modeling the Effective Viscosity

The scale elimination procedure in RNG theory results in a differential equation for turbulent viscosity:

d

µ = 1.72

ρ 2 k

νˆ νˆ 3 1 + C ν

ˆ

(11.4-6)

Modeling Turbulence

where

νˆ

C ν

=

µ e

100

Equation 11.4-6 is integrated to obtain an accurate description of how the effective tur- bulent transport varies with the effective Reynolds number (or eddy scale), allowing the model to better handle low-Reynolds-number and near-wall flows.

In the high-Reynolds-number limit, Equation 11.4-6 gives

µ t = ρC µ

k

2

(11.4-7)

with C µ = 0.0845, derived using RNG theory. It is interesting to note that this value of C µ is very close to the empirically-determined value of 0.09 used in the standard k- model.

In FLUENT, by default, the effective viscosity is computed using the high-Reynolds- number form in Equation 11.4-7. However, there is an option available that allows you to use the differential relation given in Equation 11.4-6 when you need to include low- Reynolds-number effects.

RNG Swirl Modification

Turbulence, in general, is affected by rotation or swirl in the mean flow. The RNG model in FLUENT provides an option to account for the effects of swirl or rotation by modifying the turbulent viscosity appropriately. The modification takes the following functional form:

µ t = µ t0

f

α s , , k

(11.4-8)

where µ t0 is the value of turbulent viscosity calculated without the swirl modification using either Equation 11.4-6 or Equation 11.4-7. Ω is a characteristic swirl number eval- uated within FLUENT, and α s is a swirl constant that assumes different values depending on whether the flow is swirl-dominated or only mildly swirling. This swirl modification always takes effect for axisymmetric, swirling flows and three-dimensional flows when the RNG model is selected. For mildly swirling flows (the default in FLUENT), α s is set to 0.05 and cannot be modified. For strongly swirling flows, however, a higher value of α s can be used.

11.4 The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

Calculating the Inverse Effective Prandtl Numbers

The inverse effective Prandtl numbers, α k and α , are computed using the following formula derived analytically by the RNG theory:

α 1.3929 α 0 1.3929

0.6321

α + 2.3929 α 0 + 2.3929

0.3679 = µ mol

µ

eff

(11.4-9)

where α 0 = 1.0. In the high-Reynolds-number limit (µ mol e 1), α k = α 1.393.

The R Term in the Equation

The main difference between the RNG and standard k- models lies in the additional term in the equation given by

2

R = C µ ρη 3 (1 η/η 0 )

1 + βη 3

k

(11.4-10)

where η Sk/ , η 0 = 4.38, β = 0.012.

The effects of this term in the RNG equation can be seen more clearly by rearranging Equation 11.4-5. Using Equation 11.4-10, the third and fourth terms on the right-hand side of Equation 11.4-5 can be merged, and the resulting equation can be rewritten as

t (ρ ) + x i (ρ u i ) =

x j α µ eff

j + C 1

∂x

2

k (G k + C 3 G b ) C 2 ρ k

(11.4-11)

where C is given by

2

2

C

C 2 + C µ η 3 (1 η/η 0 )

1 + βη 3

(11.4-12)

In regions where η < η 0 , the R term makes a positive contribution, and C becomes larger than C 2 . In the logarithmic layer, for instance, it can be shown that η 3.0, giving C 2.0, which is close in magnitude to the value of C 2 in the standard k- model (1.92). As a result, for weakly to moderately strained flows, the RNG model tends to give results largely comparable to the standard k- model.

In regions of large strain rate (η > η 0 ), however, the R term makes a negative contribu- tion, making the value of C less than C 2 . In comparison with the standard k- model, the smaller destruction of augments , reducing k and, eventually, the effective viscosity. As a result, in rapidly strained flows, the RNG model yields a lower turbulent viscosity than the standard k- model.

2

2

2

Modeling Turbulence

Thus, the RNG model is more responsive to the effects of rapid strain and streamline curvature than the standard k- model, which explains the superior performance of the RNG model for certain classes of flows.

Model Constants

The model constants C 1 and C 2 in Equation 11.4-5 have values derived analytically by the RNG theory. These values, used by default in FLUENT, are

C 1 = 1.42,

C 2 = 1.68

11.4.3 The Realizable k- Model

In addition to the standard and RNG-based k- models described in Sections 11.4.1 and 11.4.2, FLUENT also provides the so-called realizable k- model [306]. The term “real- izable” means that the model satisfies certain mathematical constraints on the normal stresses, consistent with the physics of turbulent flows. To understand this, consider combining the Boussinesq relationship (Equation 11.2-5) and the eddy viscosity defini- tion (Equation 11.4-3) to obtain the following expression for the normal Reynolds stress in an incompressible strained mean flow:

u 2 =

2

3 k 2 ν t x

∂U

(11.4-13)

Using Equation 11.4-3 for ν t µ t , one obtains the result that the normal stress, u 2 , which by definition is a positive quantity, becomes negative, i.e., “non-realizable”, when the strain is large enough to satisfy

k ∂U

∂x

>

1

3C µ

3.7

(11.4-14)

Similarly, it can also be shown that the Schwarz inequality for shear stresses (u α u β 2

u α u

The most straightforward way to ensure the realizability (positivity of normal stresses

and Schwarz inequality for shear stresses) is to make C µ variable by sensitizing it to the mean flow (mean deformation) and the turbulence (k, ). The notion of variable C µ is suggested by many modelers including Reynolds [279], and is well substantiated by experimental evidence. For example, C µ is found to be around 0.09 in the inertial sublayer of equilibrium boundary layers, and 0.05 in a strong homogeneous shear flow.

β 2 ; no summation over α and β) can be violated when the mean strain rate is large.

2

Another weakness of the standard k- model or other traditional k- models lies with the modeled equation for the dissipation rate ( ). The well-known round-jet anomaly (named based on the finding that the spreading rate in planar jets is predicted reasonably well, but

11.4 The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

prediction of the spreading rate for axisymmetric jets is unexpectedly poor) is considered to be mainly due to the modeled dissipation equation.

The realizable k- model proposed by Shih et al. [306] was intended to address these deficiencies of traditional k- models by adopting the following:

a new eddy-viscosity formula involving a variable C µ originally proposed by Reynolds [279].

a new model equation for dissipation ( ) based on the dynamic equation of the mean-square vorticity fluctuation.

Transport Equations for the Realizable k- Model

The modeled transport equations for k and in the realizable k- model are

and

t (ρk) +

x j (ρku j ) =

∂x j µ + σ µ

k

t

∂k

j + G k + G b ρ Y M + S k

∂x

t (ρ ) + x j (ρ u j ) =

∂x j µ + µ t

σ

j + ρ C 1 S ρ C 2

∂x

2

k + ν + C 1

where

C 1 = max 0.43, η + 5 ,

η

η = S k ,

S = 2S ij S ij

(11.4-15)

k C 3 G b + S

(11.4-16)

In these equations, G k represents the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to the mean velocity gradients, calculated as described in Section 11.4.4: Modeling Turbulent Production in the k- Models. G b is the generation of turbulence kinetic energy due to buoyancy, calculated as described in Section 11.4.5: Effects of Buoyancy on Turbu- lence in the k- Models. Y M represents the contribution of the fluctuating dilatation in compressible turbulence to the overall dissipation rate, calculated as described in Sec- tion 11.4.6: Effects of Compressibility on Turbulence in the k- Models. C 2 and C 1 are constants. σ k and σ are the turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and , respectively. S k and S are user-defined source terms.

Note that the k equation (Equation 11.4-15) is the same as that in the standard k- model (Equation 11.4-1) and the RNG k- model (Equation 11.4-4), except for the

Modeling Turbulence

model constants. However, the form of the equation is quite different from those in the standard and RNG-based k- models (Equations 11.4-2 and 11.4-5). One of the noteworthy features is that the production term in the equation (the second term on the right-hand side of Equation 11.4-16) does not involve the production of k; i.e., it does not contain the same G k term as the other k- models. It is believed that the present form better represents the spectral energy transfer. Another desirable feature is that the destruction term (the next to last term on the right-hand side of Equation 11.4-16) does not have any singularity; i.e., its denominator never vanishes, even if k vanishes or becomes smaller than zero. This feature is contrasted with traditional k- models, which have a singularity due to k in the denominator.

This model has been extensively validated for a wide range of flows [171, 306], including rotating homogeneous shear flows, free flows including jets and mixing layers, channel and boundary layer flows, and separated flows. For all these cases, the performance of the model has been found to be substantially better than that of the standard k- model. Especially noteworthy is the fact that the realizable k- model resolves the round-jet anomaly; i.e., it predicts the spreading rate for axisymmetric jets as well as that for planar jets.

Modeling the Turbulent Viscosity

As in other k- models, the eddy viscosity is computed from

k

2

µ t = ρC µ

(11.4-17)

The difference between the realizable k- model and the standard and RNG k- models is that C µ is no longer constant. It is computed from

where

and

1

C µ =

 

kU

 
 

A 0 + A s

U S ij S ij +

˜

˜

 

ij

ij

˜

ij

= Ω ij 2 ijk ω k

ij

=

ij ijk ω k

 

(11.4-18)

(11.4-19)

11.4 The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

where Ω ij is the mean rate-of-rotation tensor viewed in a rotating reference frame with the angular velocity ω k . The model constants A 0 and A s are given by

where

φ = 1 3 cos 1 ( 6W),

W

A 0 = 4.04,

= S ij S jk S ki

˜

S 3

A s = 6 cos φ

,

˜

S

= S ij S ij , S ij =

1 ∂u j

∂x i

2

+

∂u

i

j

∂x

It can be seen that C µ is a function of the mean strain and rotation rates, the angular ve- locity of the system rotation, and the turbulence fields (k and ). C µ in Equation 11.4-17 can be shown to recover the standard value of 0.09 for an inertial sublayer in an equilib- rium boundary layer.

i
i

In FLUENT, the term 2 ijk ω k

calculation of

patible with cases involving sliding meshes or multiple reference frames. If you want to include this term in the model, you can enable it by using the define/models/viscous/turbulence-expert/rke-cmu-rotation-term? text command and entering yes at the prompt.

is,

by default, not included in the

˜

ij .

This is an extra rotation term that is not com-

Model Constants

The model constants C 2 , σ k , and σ have been established to ensure that the model performs well for certain canonical flows. The model constants are

C 1 = 1.44,

C 2 = 1.9,

σ k = 1.0,

σ = 1.2

11.4.4 Modeling Turbulent Production in the k- Models

The term G k , representing the production of turbulence kinetic energy, is modeled iden- tically for the standard, RNG, and realizable k- models. From the exact equation for the transport of k, this term may be defined as

j ∂u j ∂x i G k = −ρu i u
j ∂u j
∂x i
G k = −ρu
i u

(11.4-20)

To evaluate G k in a manner consistent with the Boussinesq hypothesis,

G k = µ t S 2

(11.4-21)

Modeling Turbulence

where S is the modulus of the mean rate-of-strain tensor, defined as

i
i

S

2S ij S ij

(11.4-22)

When using the high-Reynolds number k- versions, µ e is used in lieu of µ t in Equation 11.4-21.

11.4.5 Effects of Buoyancy on Turbulence in the k- Models

When a non-zero gravity field and temperature gradient are present simultaneously, the k- models in FLUENT account for the generation of k due to buoyancy (G b in Equa- tions 11.4-1, 11.4-4, and 11.4-15), and the corresponding contribution to the production of in Equations 11.4-2, 11.4-5, and 11.4-16.

The generation of turbulence due to buoyancy is given by

G b = βg i

µ t

∂T

Pr t ∂x

i

(11.4-23)

where Pr t is the turbulent Prandtl number for energy and g i is the component of the gravitational vector in the ith direction. For the standard and realizable k- models, the default value of Pr t is 0.85. In the case of the RNG k- model, Pr t = 1, where α is given by Equation 11.4-9, but with α 0 = 1/Pr = k/µc p . The coefficient of thermal expansion, β, is defined as

β =

1

∂ρ ∂T p

ρ

For ideal gases, Equation 11.4-23 reduces to

G b = g i

µ t

∂ρ

ρPr t ∂x

i

(11.4-24)

(11.4-25)

It can be seen from the transport equations for k (Equations 11.4-1, 11.4-4, and 11.4-15) that turbulence kinetic energy tends to be augmented (G b > 0) in unstable stratification. For stable stratification, buoyancy tends to suppress the turbulence (G b < 0). In FLU- ENT, the effects of buoyancy on the generation of k are always included when you have both a non-zero gravity field and a non-zero temperature (or density) gradient.

While the buoyancy effects on the generation of k are relatively well understood, the effect on is less clear. In FLUENT, by default, the buoyancy effects on are neglected simply by setting G b to zero in the transport equation for (Equation 11.4-2, 11.4-5, or

11.4-16).

11.4 The Standard, RNG, and Realizable k- Models

However, you can include the buoyancy effects on in the Viscous Model panel. In this case, the value of G b given by Equation 11.4-25 is used in the transport equation for (Equation 11.4-2, 11.4-5, or 11.4-16).

The degree to which is affected by the buoyancy is determined by the constant C 3 . In FLUENT, C 3 is not specified, but is instead calculated according to the following relation [129]:

C 3 = tanh

v

u

(11.4-26)

where v is the component of the flow velocity parallel to the gravitational vector and u is the component of the flow velocity perpendicular to the gravitational vector. In this way, C 3 will become 1 for buoyant shear layers for which the main flow direction is aligned with the direction of gravity. For buoyant shear layers that are perpendicular to the gravitational vector, C 3 will become zero.

11.4.6 Effects of Compressibility on Turbulence in the k- Models

For high-Mach-number flows, compressibility affects turbulence through so-called “di- latation dissipation”, which is normally neglected in the modeling of incompressible flows [378]. Neglecting the dilatation dissipation fails to predict the observed decrease in spreading rate with increasing Mach number for compressible mixing and other free shear layers. To account for these effects in the k - models in FLUENT, the dilatation dissipation term, Y M , is included in the k equation. This term is modeled according to a proposal by Sarkar [291]:

Y M = 2ρ M

2

t

(11.4-27)

where M t is the turbulent Mach number, defined as

M t =

k

a

2

(11.4-28)

where a ( γRT ) is the speed of sound.

This compressibility modification always takes effect when the compressible form of the ideal gas law is used.

c

Fluent Inc. January 11, 2005

11-25

Modeling Turbulence

11.4.7 Convective Heat and Mass Transfer Modeling in the k- Models

In FLUENT, turbulent heat transport is modeled using the concept of Reynolds’ analogy to turbulent momentum transfer. The “modeled” energy equation is thus given by the following:

t (ρE) + x i [u i (ρE + p)] =

∂x j k e ∂x

∂T

j + u i (τ ij ) e + S h

(11.4-29)

where E is the total energy, k e is the effective thermal conductivity, and

(τ ij ) e is the deviatoric stress tensor, defined as

(τ ij ) eff = µ eff u ∂x j i

+

∂u

∂x

j

i

2

3 µ eff

∂u

i

∂x

i

δ

ij

The term involving (τ ij ) e represents the viscous heating, and is always computed in the coupled solvers. It is not computed by default in the segregated solver, but it can be enabled in the Viscous Model panel.

Additional terms may appear in the energy equation, depending on the physical models you are using. See Section 12.2.1: Theory for more details.

For the standard and realizable k- models, the effective thermal conductivity is given by

k e = k + c Pr p µ t t

where k, in this case, is the thermal conductivity. The default value of the turbulent Prandtl number is 0.85. You can change the value of the turbulent Prandtl number in the Viscous Model panel.

For the RNG k-