Simulation and Modelling of

Turbulent Fluid Flows & Heat

Convection with TransAT

Sep. 2014
ASCOMP
www.ascomp.ch
lakehal@ascomp.ch
 Turbulence modelling
RANS equations & models →
RANS Modelling: Equations

Reynolds averaged NS. Equations (RANS)

 

t x j
 
uj  0

  p 
t
 
 ui 
x j

 ui u j   
xi x j
 
 ij  u 'i u ' j  Fb

 (  CpT )   T 
t

 .  CpT u j   
x j  x j
  ' u ' j   Q "'

(  C )    C 
t

 .  C u j  
x j  Sc x j
 c ' u ' j   C "'


Includes tensor & scalar vector/flux unknowns

Linear Eddy viscosity Models (EVM)

EVM basic closure for RANS

u 'i u ' j  2 / 3k ij  2 t Sij

t T
 'u'j  
Prt x j
t  C k t
 t  k /  ; C k / l

Dk / dt  ... P  
D / dt  ...
The Two-Layer (TLK/TLV) models in TransAT:

t  C  k l ;   k 3/2 / l

  Ry 25   TLK variant (k-based)

l   C yn 1  exp 
3/4

 
  
A A  (Norris & Reynolds)
 C 3/4 yn
l 
1  C / ( Ry C 3/4 )

t   v '2 l , ;   v '2 k / l ,
TLV variant (v’-based)
1.33 yn
l ,  0.33 yn ; l , 
1  2.12 /  v ' yn
2
 (Rodi, Mansour)

v ' 2 / k  A R y 2  B R y ; R y  k yn / 
Non-linear (EASM) stress-strain relations

Non-linear or Explicit Algebraic Stress closure

4
2
𝑢′𝑖 𝑢′𝑗 = 𝑘𝛿𝑖𝑗 − 2𝜇𝑡 𝑆𝑖𝑗 + 𝐶 𝑛 𝑇𝑖𝑗𝑛 𝑆𝑖𝑗 , Ω𝑖𝑗
3
𝑛=1

1
𝑇𝑖𝑗 = 𝑆𝑖𝑘 𝑆𝑘𝑗 − 𝑆𝑙𝑘 𝑆𝑘𝑙 𝛿𝑖𝑗
1 3
𝑇𝑖𝑗 2 = Ω𝑖𝑘 𝑆𝑘𝑗 + Ω𝑗𝑘 𝑆𝑘𝑖

1
𝑇𝑖𝑗 = Ω Ω
𝑖𝑘 𝑘𝑗 − Ω Ω 𝛿
3 3 𝑙𝑘 𝑘𝑙 𝑖𝑗
2
𝑇𝑖𝑗 = S𝑘𝑖 Ω𝑙𝑗 + S𝑘𝑗 Ω𝑙𝑖 − 𝑆𝑘𝑚 Ω𝑙𝑚 𝛿𝑖𝑗 𝑆𝑘𝑙
4 3

𝑇𝑖𝑗 = S𝑖𝑗 S𝑘𝑙 S𝑘𝑙 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑇𝑖𝑗 = − S𝑖𝑗 Ω𝑘𝑙 Ω𝑘𝑙

6 7
Non-linear (EASM) stress-strain relations

• Shih, Zhu and Lumely, 2001  quadratic

• Shih, Zhu and Lumely, 2008  cubic

• Gatski and Speziale, 1998  quadratic

• Craft, Launder & Suga, 1999  cubic

• Wallin & Johanson, 2000  quartic

Non-linear stress-strain + GGDH & WET

Ready to use (Launder, 1999)

 4

u 'i u ' j  2 / 3k ij  2 t  Sij   C Tij ( Sij , ij ) 
n n

 n 1 

k T
 ' u 'i  C1 u 'i u 'k  GGDH
 xk
k T u 
 ' u 'i  C1  u 'i u 'k  C2  ' u 'k i   WET
 xk xk 
EASM & GGDH, WET and Full AFM

According to Hanjalic (Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech., 2002)

 
 
4
k
u 'i u ' j  2 / 3k ij  2 t  Sij   C Tij ( Sij , ij )   C  gi  u j  g j  ui
n n

 n 1  

 t T
 ' u 'i   EVM
Prt xi
k T
 ' u 'i  C1 u 'i u 'k  GGDH Or SGDH if EASM terms are not active
 xk
k T  ui 
 ' u 'i  C1  u 'i u 'k  C2  ' u 'k   WET
 xk xk 
k T u 
 ' u 'i  C1  u 'i u 'k  C2  ' u 'k i  C3 gi  2   i   Full AFM
 xk xk 
The simplified AFM, with algebraic eq

𝑘 𝜕𝑇 𝜕𝑈
𝜃𝑢𝑖 = −𝐶 𝜃 𝑢𝑖 𝑢𝑗 𝜕𝑥 + 𝜉𝜃𝑢𝑗 𝜕𝑥 𝑖 + 𝜂𝛽𝑔𝑖 𝜃 2 + 𝜀𝜃𝑖
𝜀 𝑗 𝑗

𝐷𝜃′2 𝜕 𝛼𝜃 𝜕𝜃′2 𝜕𝑇
= 𝛼+ − 2𝑢′𝑗 θ′ − 2𝜀𝜃
𝐷𝑡 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜎ℎ 𝜕𝑥𝑗 𝜕𝑥𝑗

1 𝜀
𝜀𝜃 = 𝜃′2
ℛ 𝑢′𝑖 𝑢′𝑖

Note: In TransAT, the AFM is implemented in low-Re (Abe-Kondo-Nagano; Lam-

Bremhorst) or the two-layer approach (TLK &TLV; see Rodi & Lakehal, 1998)
 Turbulence modelling
Validation examples →
EVM of the flow past a bridge

• Inflow-outflow
• Re= 12.000
• a =-6,-3,0,3,6
deg.
• Exp: CSTB (1992)
• k- model & WF‘s
Global forces results
EASM Models: Flow recirculation in BFS

PTV data of Kasagi et al., (1995)

EASM Models: Flow recirculation in BFS
EASM Models: Sec. Flow in Square Duct

PTV data of Sata et al., (1994)

Both Quadratic & Cubic models predict Sec. Flow

EASM Models: Swirling Flows

Hadef & Lenze (2005); DLR; S=0.9

6
0
0
15
0
11
0

44
7
7
6
5

52

10
7
EASM (TransAT) vs. RSM results (FLUENT):
RANS & EASM results (TransAT):
EASM models: Turbulent pipe flow

Re=31000
EASM models: Turbulent pipe flow

Re=5300
EASM models: Rotating pipe flow

Re=1000
 Turbulence modelling
RANS heat transfer examples →
TLV Models: Impinging Jet on a hot surface

CFX t=0.33s

TransAT t=0.33s
TLV Models: Impinging Jet on a hot surface

CFX t=0.33s TransAT t=0.33s

Experiment
TLV Models: Impinging Jet on a hot surface
EASM/GGDH Models: Open & closed cavities

The tilt of the cavity is

identified by the angle
α between hot wall and
the vertical axis, with
α taken positive in the
clockwise direction.
EASM/GGDH Models: Closed cavity at #Ra
Ra=106 Ra=108

TransAT; Ra=108 Henkes & Hoogendoorn; Ra=108

EASM/GGDH Models: Tilted open cavity at #α
transAT Hinojosa et al. [9]
100 40
35
80
30
60 25
Nu

Nu
20
40
15
20 10
5
0
0
1,E+05 1,E+06 1,E+07 1,E+08 1,E+09 -60 -40 -20 0 20

Ra α

transAT Hinojosa et al. [9] Extended domain

Ra=108;α=-45ο Ra=108;α=0ο Ra=108;α=+45ο

AFM models: Heated cavity at #Ra
Hanjalic et al., IJHMT, 1996

From Hanjalic et al. (HKD) 1996

AFM for various Ra (TransAT)

Validation note: The AFM in TransAT captures well the TH boundary layer for turbulent
flow conditions (Ra=107 and 108) as compared to Hanjalic et al., 1996, though it returns
a laminarized solution for (Ra=106), probably due to the choice of the low-Re model.
AFM models: Heated cavity at #Ra
Hanjalic et al., IJHMT, 1996

Ra=106
A sort of re-laminarized solution,
probably due to (1) the choice of the
low-Re model, or (2) the value of R.

Ra=107 Ra=108
AFM models: Heated cavity at #Ra
Hanjalic et al., IJHMT, 1996

Conclusion: Only the AFM (with GGGD & WET) returns a turbulent solution. The turbulent transport occurs
due to the gradients of q2 mainly; the GGDH and WET don’t make differences alone in this context. This
conclusion may be different for shear-dominated flows, with heat transfer though (e.g. heated channel
flow)
Turbulence simulation
LES, VLES & DES →
RANS v.s LES & V-LES

• To make practical turbulence computationally tractable, use can be made of:

– RANS & U-RANS, or Reynolds/Favre average (over time or ensembles)

– LES, or Large Eddy Simulation (captures scales > the grid size) , Re ~104-5
– V-LES, or Very-Large Eddy Simulation (captures scales > a specific length
scale of the flow; e.g. pipe D); Re > 105-7

LES RANS V-LES

3D, unsteady Steady / unsteady 3D, unsteady
Explicit (CFL ~ 0.1) Implicit (CFL ~ 1)
LES vs. V-LES

• LES: model SGS (with a zero-Equation

model; e.g. Smagorinsky) V-LES cut-off: k1 ~ L
• V-LES: model SS (with 2-Equation
turbulence model; k-eps.)

: better treated with a complete 2-Eq. model:

Eu,ET the scales are no longer isotropic & depend on BC

K or f(Hz)
LES cut-off: kD ~ Dx
: can be treated with a 0-Eq. model
LES: Filtered NS Equations




 
 u   .   u u    p  .     

i i j
t
SGS tensor
(  CpT ) 
    CpT u     T  q  
j
"
t
t
SGS flux 

 ij    ui u j  ui u j 


qt"   Cp Tu j  T u j 
LES: SGS modelling basics

Unresolved scales (SGS)


SGS models:   ij    Rij  L ij  Cij  ; R ij   ui
'u'
j

 R  2  S  1 / 3 R
1. Smagorinsky model  ij sgs ij ij ll

2. Dynamic procedure 
3. Wale model  sgs  f  (Cs D )2  2 Sij Sij

4.
5.
VMS procedure
One-equation (DES) Cs ~ 0.1, or, (Cs D)  f Sij  
 "
Near-wall models:
 qt   Cp  R j  L j  C j  ; R j   u ' '
j
1. Werner-Wengle WF’s u'  '  a T / x
2. Schumann WF’s  j  j
3. Van Driest damping 
4. Su & Schumann a  sgs / Prt , or, a  (C D )2 T

 
damping
 Prt ~ 1, or, a  f Sij , T , j
LES: SGS Modelling (Dynamic Flow & Heat)
DSM SGS model extended to heat transfer for Pr> 1 & <1 flows
 sgs  ( CsD )2  2 Sij Sij


a  sgs / Prt , or, a  (C D )2 T

  
(Cs D )2   1 ij L M L M
;(C D )2  
ij j j
 
 2 M M M M
 ij ij j j

  2 
D
Lij  2(Cs D )2   S Sij  S Sij  ; M ij  S Sij  S Sij
 D  
 
  2 
 D  T  T  T T
Lj  (C D )2   S S ; M j  S S

 D  x j x j  x j x j
 
  2 
D  T  T
Prt  (Cs D )2   S S T

 D  x j x j 
 
 Turbulence simulation
LES & VLES examples →
LES & V-LES of flow across a fuel bundle

• classical BFC grid

• IST grid

• Fully periodic
• Re= 10.000
• Exp. Data: Baracouda & Simonin (1997)
LES & V-LES of flow across a fuel bundle
LES & V-LES of flow across a fuel bundle

LES: u’ v’ w’

VLES: u’ v’ w’
LES vs. V-LES & Experiment
LES of flow past an array of cubes

• Periodic in x & y
• Re= 4.000
• Exp. Data: Meinders &
Hanjalic (1999)
LES of flow past an array of cubes
LES of Thermal stipping in a T-junction

Flow visualization test in the Vattenfall T-junction test facility

(Courtesy from Älvkarleby Laboratory, Vattenfall R&D).
• LDV meas. (Westin et al.)
• Re = 1.9E5
• DT= 15 Deg.
LES of Thermal stipping in a T-junction

BFC grid (1.600.000

nodes)
LES of Thermal stipping in a T-junction
LES of Thermal stipping in a T-junction

Time signals results

LES of Thermal stipping in a T-junction

• Time-averaged velocities: LES versus experiment

Horizontal profile, L/D=1.6 Horizontal profile, L/D=3.6

Vertical profile, L/D=1.6 Vertical profile, L/D=3.6

LES of Thermal stipping in a T-junction

• Reynolds stresses: LES versus experiment

Horizontal profile, L/D=1.6 Horizontal profile, L/D=3.6

Vertical profile, L/D=1.6 Vertical profile, L/D=3.6

LES of Thermal stipping in a T-junction

• Mean temperatures and RMS temperatures

Angle of 0° (Top of the pipe) Angle of 180° (Bottom of the pipe)

Angle of 90° Angle of 270°

LES of Thermal stipping in a channel junction
Schematic diagram of the test channel Hirota et al. (2010)
LES of Thermal stipping in a channel junction

Time average velocity profiles at various locations of the horizontal channel (X/B=0, 1 and 2)

R.M.S. profiles at various locations of the channel (X/B=0, 1 and 2)

LES of Thermal stipping in a channel junction

Time average and R.M.S. temperature profiles at various locations of the channel (X/B=0, 1 and 2)
LES of the flow past a finite cylinder

• Exp. Barré & Barnaud (IJWEIA, 57, 1995)

• Turbulence Is=2%; Re = 106
LES of the flow past a finite cylinder
LES of flow past two cylinders in tandem

• Exp. Lockard (NASA, 2009)

• Turbulence Is=2%; Re = 1.66E5
LES of flow past two cylinders in tandem