1 / 32

Turbulence Modelling of Buoyancy-Affected Flows

Turbulence Modelling of Buoyancy-Affected Flows. Brian Launder UMIST, Manchester, UK. Aims of Lecture. To give an impression of what level of RANS modelling is needed to predict different types of gravity-affected shear flow phenomena

bill
Download Presentation

Turbulence Modelling of Buoyancy-Affected Flows

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Turbulence Modelling of Buoyancy-Affected Flows Brian Launder UMIST, Manchester, UK Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  2. Aims of Lecture • To give an impression of what level of RANS modelling is needed to predict different types of gravity-affected shear flow phenomena • To show some illustrative predictions of buoyant and stratified flow ______________________________ • Even if buoyant/stratified flows are of no interest, much of the lecture has parallels with other agencies modifying turbulence, e.g. system rotation Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  3. An important distinction • A buoyant flow is one where the main effects of the gravitational vector are on the mean motion. • A stratifiedflow is one where the main effects of the g vector are on the fluctuating motion and thus, after Rey-nolds averaging, on the 2nd moments • Vertical flows are usually “buoyant”; ….horizontal flows usually “stratified”. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  4. A modelling consequence • Buoyant flows can often be computed with simple eddy viscosity models… at least close to a wall. • Stratified flows always require at least some form of 2nd-moment closure (perhaps truncated) and maybe even 3rd-moment or U-RANS modelling to capture the flow behaviour sufficiently closely Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  5. Refinements to k-εEVM for (mainly) vertical, buoyant flows near walls • In many simple flows NO refinement needed because shear generation of k (and ε) much larger than buoyant generation. • Note buoyant k-generation is: <ρ’ui>gi/ρ or G = - β<uiθ>gi; β  Vol. exp’n coeff • If x2 is vertically up: gi = [0, -g, 0]; Θ = Θ(x1); U=U(x1) • G = + βg<u2θ> = 0 with SGD but … = - cθcμβ(k3/ε2)Θ/x1U2/x1 with GGDH ie.horizontal temp. gradients cause buoyant effects. • This refinement brings (usually minor) improve-ments to vertical flows (e.g. Ince & Launder, 1989) Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  6. A problem with flow near walls • If source of buoyancy arises through heat transfer through a wall, the wall sub-layer region is principally affected. • Flow is then far from local equilibrium • But equally, for an industrial flow simulation, one needs to avoid using a fine-grid “low-Reynolds-number” model. • Two new wall-function approaches have been developed to remove these problems: PhD’s and papers by Gerasimov and Gant Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  7. Gerasimov’s analytical wall functions – a recap • Based on a simplified analytical solution of wall-parallel momentum equation assuming a linear eddy viscosity variation over wall cell. • Gravitational term appears in momentum equation and thus affects the form of the wall function. • Vital to include the effects of thickening and thinning of the viscous sublayer. • Reduces computing budget by at least by factor 10 compared the ‘low-Reynolds-number’ treatments. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  8. Application to up-flow in a heated pipe with k-ε EVM; Gerasimov(2003) Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  9. Downward flow in an annulus with core tube heated; Gerasimov (2003) Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  10. How to extend linear EVM’s to stratified flows? • When a linear EVM is applied to horizontal or recirc-ulating flows, the model is often made sensitive to gravitational influencesthrough the ε-equation. • Typically: Gravitational Source = Cε3Gε/k • Different values taken for Cε3according to whether the flow is horizontal or vertical; stable or unstable… • Others have made Cε3 ~ tanh (vvert/vhoriz) [Fluent] • These approaches are NOT recommended unless extensive calibration against experiments similar to those to be predicted has been made! Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  11. Some guidelines in computing stratified flows • Don’t use a linear EVM. • Incorporate primary gravitational effects through constitutive equations for stresses and heat flux • Give the shear and gravitational terms equal weight in the ε equation … unless you are considering just a single flow type and are confident to tune Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  12. Where does buoyancy enter the turbulence equations? • In the second-moment equations (by way of the Navier Stokes equations): <φDui /Dt> = ….<φρ'>gi /ρ (where ui is turbulent velocity and  denotes uj , θ, etc) … and in the pressure-strain term (see later) • In the length scale or ε equation?? • Our recommended practice is to handle G identically to P in thescale equation… though this matter is not entirely settled. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  13. Second moment equations with buoyant terms Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  14. Why a simple ε-equation fix doesn’t work • Consider a simple shear flow with x1 the flow direction and x2 that of velocity/temp gradient. • If x1 is horizontal, x2 vertical the g vector acts as in upper diagram • If x1is vertical, x2 horiz-ontal, the lower figure shows the g impacts. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  15. Features of the transport equations • ‘Invisible’ gravitational effects also act on the pressure fluctuations • Possible effects also in the ε equation • Note <θ2> contains no pressure fluctuations …but εθθhard to model. Usually we assume thermal time scale <θ2>/εθθ is linked to the dynamic time scale… though somewhat affected by anisotropy of the heat flux Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  16. Buoyant effects on pressure correlations: 1 –Basic Model • The IP model for shear assumes: ij2 = -c2[Pij- ⅔ijP] with c2  0.6 (exact for isotropic turb.) • By analogy we take: ij3 = -c3 [Gij - ⅔ijG] • Now c3 = 0.3 in isotropic turbulence but suggest optimum value in the range 0.5  0.6. • Pressure fluctuations in heat flux equations: i = - c3Gi • Isotropic turbulence suggests c3=⅓ but it is usually taken equal to c3. • Wall-reflection effects must be added but calibration has been done only for an infinite plane wall. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  17. Buoyant effects on pressure correlations: 2 – TCL Model • Application of two-component-limit principles to buoyant parts of pressure fluctuations produces forms with NO empirical constants. • The TCL form of ij3 is very long (see Craft & Launder, 2002 in “Closure Strategies” book, p. 411) • i3 = ⅓βgi<2> - βgkaik • Note both ij3 and i3 satisfy isotropic and 2-component limits. • NO wall corrections beyond viscosity affected sublayer Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  18. Handling the dissipation rates • Standard equation for  but with c3 = c1 • For TCL version c1 = 1.0 and c2 = 1.92/(1.+0.7AA2½) where A2  aijaji ,A3  aijajkaki and A  1 - (9/8)[A2 – A3] • Local isotropy and “proportional timescales” for scalars and their fluxes Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  19. Modelling the transport terms • Diffusive transport usually handled by GGDH: <uk> = - c<ujuk>(k/)<>/xj • …or it may be simplified to give an algebraic set of equations, e.g Rodi (1971): conv.- diff’n of <> = [conv. - diff’n of k]×{<>/k} = [P - ] <>/k • But situations also arise where transport is very important and then 3rd-moment closure may be necessary. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  20. Comparison of spreading rates for plumes Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  21. Application 1: Downwards directed warm jet into cool “pool” • In practice “pool” moves slowly vertically up to give a steady flow. • Profiles of mean velocity (c) and shear stress (b) better represented by TCL scheme (solid line) than basic model (broken line). • From Cresswell et al (1989) Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  22. Applications 2: 3D surface jet • Not a stratified flow but clearly related. • Note BasicModel shows too strong asymmetry in spreading rates; TCL scheme approximately correct • From Craft, Kidger & Launder (2000) Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  23. Applications 3: The downwards directed buoyant wall jet • Downward directed warm wall jet collides with slow-moving up-flow which causes jet to turn around. • Buoyant effects important. • LES data of Laurence et al(2003) extend exp’ts by Prof. Jackson’s team. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  24. Penetration depth with k- and TCL models versus LES for isothermal flow Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  25. Turbulence energy using 2nd moment closure – buoyant case • Basic 2nd moment closure no better than k-ε EVM • TCL model mimics turbulence energy levels much better Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  26. k- prediction of temperature field • Too little mixing predicted by all forms so high temperatures (red) remain longer. • Again “standard” WF’s far different from “low-Re” result even though no heat transfer through the wall Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  27. 2nd moment closure predictions of thermal field • “Basic model shows too little mixing and too deep penetration with St. WF • TCL-AWF gives most rapid mixing, closest to experiment Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  28. Application 4:Stably stratified mixing layerNB:k- EVM creates far too much mixing but the two 2nd moment closures exhibit unphysical over- and under-shoots due to inadequate diffusion model Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  29. Stratified mixing layer -2 • Kidger (1999) developed 3rd moment closure for components containing the density fluctuations, e.g. • P1, P2, G: generation by 1st, 2ndmoments and gravitational effects.  pressure interactions, etc. • For further details of modelling see Launder & Sandham (2002) pp 417 - 418 Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  30. Stratified mixing layer - 3:TCL 2nd and 3rd moment closures compared Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  31. Conclusions -1 • Different levels of modelling are needed for buoyant and stratified flows. • Low-Rek- modelling successful for buoyant up- and down-flow in pipes and channels (but make sure Ret k2/ not yk½/) • Gerasimov’s analytical wall functions perform well in such flows, saving typically 90% of the computer time compared with low-Re model. • Buoyantly modified vertical free shear flows (plumes) not well modelled at this level Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

  32. Conclusions -2 • The TCL model mimics observed behaviour in stratified flows (consistent with non-buoyant results). • No new empirical coefficients introduced and no wall-reflection requirements. • Treat P and G identically in  equation. • In strongly stratified flows one may need to go to 3rd-moment closure for triple moments containing density fluctuations. • Unsteady RANS approach also powerful for stratified flows – see lecture by Prof Hanjalić. Singapore Turbulence Colloquium

More Related