Introduction

In Computational Fluid Dynamics we study fluid in motion. In our world not all flows are ideal. These ideal flows are characterized as laminar flows where, there are no disruptions of velocities of the flow due to external sources such as converging flows or obstacles in the way of the flow. Therefore there is a need for a more realistic modeling of flows as most flows that are studied are not laminar. Rather, they are turbulent flows. Turbulent flow have an erratic velocity contour that is not as predictable as laminar flow. Figure 1 shows examples of turbulence of a flow when there is a cylinder in the way of the flow.

Figure 1 : Schematic picture of fluid flow around a cylinder Turbulence shows certain characteristics in which is evident in most cases. Table 1 lists the characteristics of turbulent flows.

Table 1 : Characteristics of turbulent flow and their description Randomness Disorder and no repetatability Vorticality High concentration and intensity of vorticity Non-Linearity and 3-Dimensional Continuity of Eddy Structure Reflected in continuous spectrym of fluctuations over a range of frequencies Energy cascade, irreversibility and dissipativeness Intermittency Occupies only parts of the flow domain High diffusivity Diffusivity of momentum, energy, species is high Self-preservation and self-similarity Turbulence structure depends only in local environment (for simple flows) Turbulence is characterized by higher diffusion rates: increased drag, mixing, energy diffusion. In engineering machinery, this is sometimes welcome and sometimes detrimental to the performance. Laminar-turbulent transition is a process where laminar flow naturally and without external influence becomes turbulent. Example: instability of free shear flows

Objective To obtain the Temperature Contour Plot base upon different turbulent models

Theory Turbulence is essentially a random process. The need to replicate this random process in any CFD analysis is essential to study the flow. Therefore to replicate the turbulence we use Turbulence Models that each have a certain characteristics to model the turbulent flows. The model will represent a certain characteristic of the turbulent flow that will be applied to the CFD case, however there are many turbulence models to choose from. There is no turbulence model that is applicable to all cases for CFD, therefore proper selection of the turbulence model is essential for obtaining the best results. Turbulence models are readily classified according to the governing approaches they apply to. There are 3 main approaches in turbulence modeling. The three main approaches are; Direct Numerical Simulation; It is technically possible to resolve every fluctuating motion in the flow. However the grid must be very fine, and the timestep very small. These demands increase with the Reynolds number. The reality is that this is only a research tool for lower Reynolds-number flows restricted to supercomputer applications. Reynolds-Average Navier Stokes Equation; This is the main tool used by engineers. Equations are solved for timeaveraged flow behaviour and the magnitude of turbulent fluctuations. Large Eddy Simulation; In terms of computational demand LES lies between DNS and RANS. Like DNS, a 3D simulation is performed over many timesteps. However only the larger eddies are resolved. The grid can be coarser and timesteps larger than DNS because the smaller fluid motions are represented by a sub-gridscale (SGS) model.

Most of the turbulence models found in Fluent are based on the Reynoldsaverage Navier Stokes Equation approach. This family of turbulence models is then differentiated by the number of additional transport equation. Table 2 shows the different models according to their Reynolds averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) models.

Table 2 : RANS Turbulence Models One Equation Model Spalart-Allmaras Two Equation Model Standard k-epsilon RNG k-epsilon Realizable k-epsilon Three Equation Model Standard k-omega SST k-omega Four Equation Model 4-Equation v2f Reynolds Stress Model k-kl-omega Transiotional Model

The difference between these equation models as stated above is in the number of transport equations. Not listed above is the Algebraic (Zero-Equation) Model, which are the simples and least demanding models among the others. This zero equation model do not need to solve any additional transport equation in order to predict the contribution of the turbulence. Next is the One Equation Models such as the Spalart Allmaras. This equation solves a single transport equation for a quantity which is used to obtain the turbulent viscosity. This model has been shown to give acceptable results for a wide variety of situations and is known for its stability. There do exist Other one-equation models that are not available in ANSYS Fluent, which are the Baldwin-Barth model and the Goldberg pointwise model. The two equation models, as their name implies, require the solution of two additional governing equations in order to compute the contribution of turbulence to the mean flow. The two equation models are the most used models in CFD in particular is the k-epsilon model which is used in regions far from walls. The kepsilon model would more properly be called a family of models. Specialized version have been developed for so many specific flow configurations that there are now almost as many different k-epsilon models as there are CFD practitioners trying to use them. Some of the more common variants include the Standard, Realizable, and RNG k-epsilon models. The three equations models like the previous models differ in the number of transport equations that require to be solved for result. The most common method used is the SST k-omega model which is blend of a k-omega model, which is used near walls, and a k-epsilon model, which is used in regions far from walls. This model is fairly robust and generally does a good job near solid boundaries. It also is often found to do a better job at capturing recirculation regions than other models.

Other higher number equation models are available. With greater computer resources becoming available, there are more effort in creating turbulence models. These models are often quite computationally expensive, compared to a conventional one- or two-equation model, but under the right flow conditions, they have been shown to provide improved results. As that can be deduced, the higher the number of transport equations required to be solved, the greater the computer resources to be able to compute the results. For this lab session, three turbulence models were used to see the difference of the models. The three models that were used are Spalart Allmaras, Realizable kepsilon, and SST k-omega. The table below briefly describes the methods used. Table 3 : Turbulence methods and their descriptions Spalart- Allmaras is a low-cost RANS model solving a transport equation for a modified eddy viscosity Mainly intended for aerodynamic/turbomachinery applications with mild separation, such as supersonic/transonic flows over airfoils, boundarylayer flows, etc. Embodies a relatively new class of one-equation models where it is not necessary to calculate a length scale related to the local shear layer thickness Designed specifically for aerospace applications involving wall-bounded flows Has been shown to give good results for boundary layers subjected to adverse pressure gradients. Gaining popularity for turbomachinery applications. Limitations: No claim is made regarding its applicability to all types of complex engineering flows. Cannot be relied upon to predict the decay of homogeneous, isotropic turbulence. Realizable Dissipation rate () equation is derived from the mean-square vorticity k-epsilon fluctuation, which is fundamentally different from the SKE. Several realizability conditions are enforced for Reynolds stresses. Benefits: Accurately predicts the spreading rate of both planar and round

SpalartAllmaras

jets Also likely to provide superior performance compared with the standard k-epsilon model for flows involving rotation, boundary layers under strong adverse pressure gradients, separation, and recirculation SST k- The SST k model uses a blending function to gradually transition omega from the standard k model near the wall to a high-Reynolds-number version of the k model in the outer portion of the boundary layer. Contains a modified turbulent viscosity formulation to account for the transport effects of the principal turbulent shear stress. SST model generally gives accurate prediction of the onset and the size of separation under adverse pressure gradient.

Result Spalart-Allmaras

Figure 2 : Contour profile for Spalart-Allmaras model

Figure 2, shows the contour profile of the fluid flow in regards to the temperature region. As can be seen, the profile is seen fairly normal. The high temperature region is seen to be a short region extending from inlet 2, and the subsequent regions (lower temperatures) having the same prominent shape as the highest temperature regions. Although it has fairly the same shape, yet it is seen to be longer than the initial high temperature region. This turbulence model looks fairly normal to the simplified turbulence modeling with the flow just shaped like the figure below. The basic shape is fairly linear no variation with any curves.

Figure 3 : Basic profile of the linear flow similar to Spalart-Allmaras model

Realizable Standard k-epsilon

Figure 4: Contour profile for Realizable Standard k-epsilon model

Figure 4, shows the contour profile of the fluid flow in regards to the temperature region. This profile shows that the turbulence model is fairly similar to Spalart-Allmaras model, with the main difference seen at the length and size of the regions. The highest temperature region is comparably larger than the SpalartAllmaras model. However, the other regions seem to be shorter that the previous model.

SST k-omega

Figure 5: Contour profile for SST k-omega

Figure 5, shows the contour profile of the fluid flow in regards to the temperature region. This turbulence model has a very random profile. The shape is less prominent as seen above. Figure 6 shows the possible profile of the turbulence flow.

Figure 6 : Basic profile of the linear flow similar to SST k-omega model

Discussion As seen from the results of the laboratory session, different turbulence models each have their different flow characteristics. The turbulence flow for SpalartAllmaras behaves very normal, as the regions are all pronounced and has a long linear length. The flow of this turbulence model may be moving at a fast velocity thus the long region length. For the realizable standard k-epsilon model, the flow behaves close to the spalart-allmaras model except to the exceptions noted in result section. The flow could be enduring turbulence that causes the flow to travel slower compared to spalart-allmaras. Hence, the larger region sizes and the shorter region length. Lastly for SST k-omega turbulence model, the flow characterization is very erratic. There is no concurrent shape of the region as most of the region is very random. The erratic figure is could be due to the turbulence model having a low pressure point after the mixing section that causes the high-pressure fluid to mix with the high temperature flow. As mentioned in the introduction section, the turbulent models each differ due to the number of transport equation. The greater the number of transport equation in the model, the more complicated the turbulence flow becomes. The three models used in this laboratory is a representative of each number of transport equation. Spalartallmaras has zero transport equation, realizable standard k-epsilon has one transport equation and SST k-omega has two transport equation. As seen from the contour profile in the result section of the laboratory work, the region characteristics of the models are very much different with the number of transport equation. Spalartallmaras has the very basic shape and realizable standard k-epsilon has the similar shape with a bit of difference in certain aspects. However as the number of transport equations become 2, the flow region characteristics become nearly unpredictable. The transport equation will make the flow more erratic as it increases. The abundance of turbulence models in CFD nowadays creates an altogether new problem. To analyze the case properly we need to choose the correct and most relevant turbulence model. Also in some instances, there is no need for such an intricate turbulence model, as the turbulence flow might not have any effect to the outcome of the analysis. In the analysis of aerodynamics, a high transport function turbulence model may be needed as to account to all possible factors that are related with the aerodynamics. If used on a simple flow in pipe, it may be considered overkill as the pipe system may not have as much parameters that could affect it compared to the aerodynamics system.

Conclusion The different types of turbulence model are due to the type of governing equation that it is derived from and the number of transport equation that it incorporated in the model. The greater the number of transport equations, the more complicated the turbulence flow profile will be. The complexity of the turbulence model creates a more erratic turbulence flow that tries to replicate the real life situations. Because there is now a number of turbulence models available proper selection of the turbulence model is important in computational fluid dynamics. In the last decade CFD has become a major tool in engineering. Due to the progress in computer technology CFD seems now able to deal with industrial applications at moderate costs and turnaround times. The future relevance of CFD will therefore depend on how accurate complex flows can be calculated. Since many flows of engineering interest are turbulent, the appropriate treatment of turbulence will be crucial to the success of CFD.

Reference Turbulence model notes, from Innovative CFD website. Retrieved on 23rd May 2013 at http://www.innovative-cfd.com/turbulence-model.html. Tennekes and Lumley: First Course in Turbulence Tony Saad, Turbulence Modeling for Beginers, University of Tennessee Space Institute. Jurij SODJA, Turbulence Model in CFD (2007). Department of Physics, Faculty for Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana.