Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
I. INTRODUCTION
769
A. Governing Equations
In the present study steady RANS equations for turbulent
incompressible fluid flow with constant properties are used.
The governing flow field equations are the continuity and the
Reynolds averaged Navier-Stokes equations, which are given
by:
u i
= 0.0
x j
u i u j
x j
(1)
1 p
S ij u iu j
+
x i x j
2 x j x i
(2)
(3)
B. Turbulence Modeling
Several turbulence models available are employed to
predict the flow behavior in a planer asymmetric diffuser.
Most of these models are derived from standard k model
and vary in complexity and robustness from two equation
turbulence models to more elaborated turbulence model. Five
of the used turbulence models are based on the Boussinesq
assumption. In which the Reynolds stress tensor is computed
from the effective viscosity formulation, which is a direct
extension of the laminar deformation law. It is given by:
2
ij = k ij 2 t S ij
(4)
3
770
eff k
(5)
( u j k ) =
+ G D
x j
x j k x j
Where, the turbulent production rate is
u
u j u i
(6)
G = eff i +
x
j x i x j
The dissipation rate, , equation for the standard and the
low-Re k- models reads
eff
( u j ) =
x j
x j x j
(7)
+ (C 1f 1G C 2 f 2 )
v 2
v 2
uj
= kf 6v 2 +
( + t )
k x j
x j
x j
L2
v 2 and f can
2f
1
v 2 2
G
f = (C 1 6)
(C 1 1) C 2
2
T
k
3
k
x j
T = max , 6
1/ 4
k 3/ 2
3
L = C L max
,C
The model constants are taken as given in [15]
+E
k
The models constants C1 and C2, the damping functions f1,
f2 and f, and the extra source terms D and E for the low-Re k
model can be found in [6, 7].
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
C. Wall Functions
In the region near the wall, the gradient of quantities is
considerably high and requires fine grids close to the wall to
capture the changes of quantities. For complex flows where
separation flow and reattachment occur, the conventional
logarithmic wall-function proposed by Launder and Spalding
[6] becomes less reliable. The non-equilibrium wall-function
proposed by Kim and Choudhury is proven to give better
predictions due to the fact that it accounts for the effects of
pressure gradient and departure from equilibrium [17]. The
standard k- model and the RSM model employ the nonequilibrium wall-function is applied to the wall-adjacent cells,
while the low-Re k- model uses damping functions instead of
the wall-function. The v2-f model treats the near-wall
turbulence without the use of exponential damping or wall
functions. For the standard and SST k- models, if the
771
E. Boundary Conditions
There are three faces bounding the calculation domain
namely: the inlet boundary, the wall boundary and the outlet
boundary. No-slip boundary conditions are applied along the
solid walls and wall functions were used as described earlier.
At the outlet, 60H downstream the diffuser exit, the boundary
was adjusted as a pressure outlet boundary condition. At the
inlet, 74H upstream the diffuser entrance, flat velocity and
turbulent quantities profiles are specified.
Y+ =
y p u
1
u = w / ; w = C f U b2
2
The variation of the dimensionless wall distance, Y+, for
the lower wall adjacent cell is presented in Fig. 4. It can be
seen from this figure that Y+ drops in the tail duct to
approximately one-third its value in the upstream entrance
region. In addition,
Where,
772
4
y/H 2
0
-60
-40
-20
x/H
20
40
60
80
773
2.0
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
LRNKE
1.5
Y+
1.0
0.5
0.0
-20
20
40
60
x/H
20
0.9
15
0.6
Y+
10
0.3
5
0
-20
Cp
0.0
20
40
-0.3
-20
60
x/H
20
Experimental
LES, Ref.[19]
[ ]
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
LRNKE
40
60
40
60
x/H
a- upper wall
0.9
40
0.6
30
Cp
Y+
0.3
20
0.0
10
0
-20
-0.3
-20
20
40
20
x/H
60
b- lower wall
x/H
774
predict the turbulent kinetic energy better than the RSM, the
latter predicts the Reynolds stresses better than other models.
This can be attributed to the solution of separate transport
equation for each component of the Reynolds stresses in the
RSM model while they are calculated from the Boussinesq
assumption in the other models.
0.9
0.6
Cp
Experimental
LES, Ref. [[19]]
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
0.3
0.0
-0.3
-20
1.5
1.2
U
C p + max
Ub
U max
Ub
0.9
0
20
40
60
x/H
a-
0.6
upper wall
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.0
0
Cp
0.3
10
15
x/H
20
25
30
0.0
-0.3
-20
20
40
60
x/H
b- lower wall
Fig. 6 Comparison between present predictions, LES results of [19]
and experimental results of [17, 18] in terms of pressure recovery, Cp
for Y+ =15 (closed symbols Obi et al. data [17], open symbols BuiceEaton data [18])
775
4
y/H
2
Experimental
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
LRNKE
0
-5
10
15
20
x/H+10u/Ub
25
30
35
Fig. 8 Development of axial velocity profile through the diffuser for the tested turbulence models compared with and experimental results of
Buice-Eaton data [18]
4
y/H
2
Experimental
V2F
SST
SKW
0
0
RSM
SKE
LRNKE
10
15
20
25
30
x/H+500 k/Uc
Fig. 9 Development of turbulent kinetic energy profiles through the diffuser for the tested turbulence models compared and experimental
results of Obi et al. data [17]
776
4
y/H
2
Experimental
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
LRNKE
0
-5
10
15
20
- 2
x/H+300 u`u`/U b
25
30
35
a- u u
4
y/H
2
Experimental
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
LRNKE
0
-5
10
15
20
- 2
x/H+300v`v`/U b
25
30
35
b- v v
4
y/H
2
Experimental
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
LRNKE
0
-5
10
15
20
- 2
x/H+300u`v`/Ub
25
30
35
c- u v
Fig. 10 Development of Reynolds stresses profile through the diffuser for the tested turbulence models compared with experimental of BuiceEaton data [18]
777
the RSM requires about 77% grater time than that of V2F due
to the strong coupling between equations and the high degree
of non linearity when the RSM is used.
0.009
Experimental
LES, Ref [ ]
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
Cf
0.006
0.003
0.000
-20
20
40
60
0.009
Experimental
LES, Ref [19]
V2F
SST
SKW
RSM
SKE
Cf
0.006
0.003
80
x/H
0.000
-20
a - upper wall
20
40
60
80
x/H
0.012
a - upper wall
0.009
0.009
Cf
0.0
0.006
0.003
20
0.006
40
Cf
0.003
0.000
-20
0.0
20
x/H
40
60
80
20
40
0.000
b - lower wall
-20
20
40
60
80
x/H
b - lower wall
Fig. 12 Comparison between present predictions, LES results [19]
and experimental results of [17, 18] in terms of skin friction
coefficient Cp for Y+ = 15 (closed symbols Obi et al. data [17], open
symbols Buice-Eaton data [18])
IV. CONCLUSION
The turbulent flow through a planer asymmetric diffuser
was investigated numerically using the commercial CFD code
FLUENT 6.3.26. The performance of six different turbulence
models is compared with published experimental and LES
results. The standard k-, low-Re k-, standard k-, SST k-
and RSM models are available as standard features in the
code, while the v2-f model was implemented through the User
Defined Functions in the code. The simulations was carried
out on three grids having different spacing for the near wall
points and different resolutions. The comparisons showed that
V2F turbulence model indicates the best agreement with
experimental data followed by the SKW and SST turbulence
models. The SKE and LRNKE turbulence model give very
poor results. Also, the RSM model gives unexpected poor
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
778
TABLE I
COMPARISONS BETWEEN PRESENT PREDICTED SEPARATION AND REATTACHMENT POINTS USING DIFFERENT MODELS AND EXPERIMENTAL DATA
Grid
Y+ 1.0
(42179)
Y+ 15.0
(42141)
Y+ 30.0
(42141)
Separation (x/H)
Reattachment (x/H)
Separation (x/H)
Reattachment (x/H)
Separation (x/H)
Reattachment (x/H)
Exp.
7.4
29.2
7.4
29.2
7.4
29.2
SKW
2.91
28.95
3.51
30.05
3.62
28.92
0.006
Lower wall
FLUENT
WIND
Cf
0.004
0.002
0.000
-0.002
-20
20
x/H
40
60
80
a - SST Model
0.014
Upper wall
Experimental
0.012
0.010
Lower wall
FLUENT
WIND
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.000
-0.002
-20
20
x/H
40
60
V2F
6.34
29.25
5.32
30.42
5.44
30.72
SKE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LRNKE
N/A
N/A
RSM
N/A
N/A
17.04
20.13
18.97
20.25
0.008
Upper wall
Experimental
SST
2.05
30.15
3.38
29.71
2.94
29.53
80
b - SKE model
y/H
[6]
SST
SKW
V2F
RSM
0
0
10
x/H
a - Y+ =1.0
779
20
30
y/H
y/H
2
10
x/H
20
30
10 x/H
b- Y+ =30.0
4
y/H
2
0
10
a-
x/H
20
30
Y+ =1.0
TABLE II
NUMBER OF ITERATIONS AND CPU TIME NORMALIZED BY THOSE OF STANDARD K- MODEL
No. of iterations
CPU time
CPU time/iteration
SKE
1
1
1
30
b- Y+ =30.0
20
LRNKE
1.03
1.09
1.06
780
SKW
1.07
1.13
1.06
SST
1.26
1.42
1.13
V2F
1.2
1.75
1.46
RSM
2.06
3.11
1.51