Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.

2002, 41, 6393-6401 6393

A Reinterpretation of the Turbulent Prandtl Number†

Stuart W. Churchill‡
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, 311A Towne Building, 220 South 33rd
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104

The eddy viscosity at any location in fully developed turbulent flow in a round pipe is shown by
an exact analysis to be simply the ratio of the shear stress due to the time-averaged turbulent
fluctuations in the velocity to that due to the molecular motion and thus independent of its
heuristic diffusional origin. The eddy conductivity in fully developed turbulent convection is
similarly shown to be simply the ratio of the corresponding contributions to the radial heat flux
density. However, while providing a quantitative physical rationale for the eddy viscosity and
the eddy conductivity, the analysis that leads to this insight at the same time eliminates their
conceptual value except in a historical sense. On the other hand, the turbulent Prandtl number,
as redefined directly in terms of the time-averaged fluctuations, remains an essential parametric
variable. The local fraction of the radial heat flux density due to turbulence (the replacement
for the eddy conductivity as a variable) appears, on the basis of both experimental evidence and
asymptotic analyses, to be independent of geometry and the thermal boundary condition(s) and
thereby a universal function only of the molecular Prandtl number and the local fraction of the
shear stress due to the turbulence. It follows that the turbulent Prandtl number shares this
restricted functionality. Although the functional and numerical behavior of the turbulent Prandtl
number remains to this day incompletely defined either experimentally or theoretically, the
rate of heat transfer, as represented by the Nusselt number, is fortuitously insensitive to these
uncertainties.

Introduction have a lesser variance and could be more readily

The time-averaged once-integrated differential rep- predicted or more simply correlated than -Fu′v′ itself.
resentation for the conservation of momentum in the The corresponding expressions for the transport of
radial direction for fully developed turbulent flow of a energy in the negative radial direction, with the ad-
fluid with invariant physical properties in a round tube ditional postulate of negligible viscous dissipation, are
may be expressed as
∂T
j ) -k + FcT′v′ (3)
du ∂y
τ)µ - Fu′v′ (1)
dy
and

( )
The new terms such as -Fu′v′ that arise from time
averaging are sometimes called the Reynolds stresses ∂T kt ∂T
j ) -(k + kt) or -k 1 + or
because Reynolds1 was the first to space average the ∂y k ∂y
partial differential equations of conservation in order ∂T
to obtain a more tractable representation. In one- -kT (4)
∂y
dimensional flows, the contribution of the turbulent
fluctuations to the local shear stress (the rate of Equation 4 has generally been reexpressed as
momentum transfer in the negative radial direction),
namely, Fu′v′, has generally been modeled in terms of
an eddy viscosity µt, or a total viscosity µT, thereby [ ( )( ) ]
j ) -k 1 +
cµ kt µt ∂T
k cµt µ ∂y
or

[ ( )( ) ]
converting eq 1 to
Pr µt ∂T

( )
-k 1 + (5)
du µt du du Prt µ ∂y
τ ) (µ + µt) or µ 1+ or µT
dy µ dy dy
(2) or as

This model was proposed more than a century ago by

Boussinesq2 with the hope and expectation that µt would
j ) -k ( )( )( )
kT cµ µT ∂T
cµT k µ ∂y
or -k ( )( )
Pr µT ∂T
PrT µ ∂y
(6)

†
This paper is dedicated to William R. Schowalter not only with the hope and expectation that the eddy conductivity
in recognition of his technical and educational contributions kt or the total conductivity kT will be better behaved than
but also in appreciation of his leadership in the National
Academy of Engineering and the American Institute of Chemi- FcT′v′ and, in turn, that the turbulent Prandtl number,
cal Engineers. His presence in those councils was reassuring cµt/kt, and/or the total Prandtl number, cµT/kT, will be
at critical junctures. even better behaved in terms of variance, prediction,
‡
Tel.: 215-898-5579. Fax: 215-573-2093. E-mail: Churchil@ and correlation. The expectations and hopes relative to
seas.upenn.edu. the behavior of µt, µT, kt, kT, Prt, and PrT are generally
10.1021/ie011021k CCC: $22.00 © 2002 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 07/30/2002
6394 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002
accepted as being fulfilled, as attested by their continued
usage to this day, although some purists have cast scorn
on this entire heuristic diffusional concept because of
its lack of a mechanistic rationale.
Until recently, the modeling of fully developed tur-
bulent flow has generally been based on eq 2 with an
empirical correlating equation for µt. The experimental
values of µt upon which such a correlating equation is
based are subject to considerable uncertainty because
of their determination from (-dp/dx)(r/2)/(du/dy) - µ and
in particular the determination of du/dy from measured
values of u{y}. The modeling of fully developed turbu-
lent convection has correspondingly been based on eq 5
with an additional correlating equation or constant
value for Prt and often the additional postulate of a
constant value or a linear variation of the heat flux
density with radius. The experimental values of kt upon
which a correlating equation for Prt is based are subject
to even greater uncertainty than those of µt because of
2
their determination from j/(-∂T/∂y) - k ) [(Fc/r)∫r0 u
(∂T/∂x) dr ]/(-∂T/∂y) - k and in particular the determi-
2
nation of ∂T/∂x from T{x,y}. The turbulent Prandtl
number, as determined from the ratio of experimental
values of µt and kt, is obviously subject to even greater
uncertainty, particularly for large values of Pr, for which
the temperature profile develops very near the wall, and
for small values of Pr, for which kt is very small relative
to k.
Theoretical results, experimental results, and cor-
relating equations for Prt were recently reviewed ob-
jectively and in considerable detail by Kays,3 and to
avoid duplication, that review will be accepted with only
one minor reservation as a point of reference with
respect to the state of the art. Furthermore, the primary
objective of the analysis presented here is to reinterpret
the results reviewed by Kays rather than to reevaluate
them.
A New Representation for Turbulent Flow and
Convection. Prompted by the appearance of essentially
exact computed values of the turbulent shear stress by
direct numerical simulation (DNS), Churchill and Chan4
readdressed the question of the merits in terms of
modeling, prediction, and correlation of the introduction
of the eddy viscosity in eq 1 and were surprised to
discover, on the favorable side, that this quantity could
be expressed directly in terms of the time average of
the fluctuating velocities without recourse to a diffusive
mechanism involving a gradient of the time-averaged
velocity, while, on the unfavorable side, that this
quantity served no unique useful function for flow in a
round tube or between parallel plates and was singular
at one radial position and negative over an adjacent
finite range of the radius in circular concentric annuli.
Accordingly, they suggested abandoning the eddy vis-
cosity concept and simply expressing eq 1 in “wall”
units, namely, as
y+ du+
1- ) + (u′v′)+ (7)
a+ dy+
where (u′v′)+ ) -Fu′v′/τw. They further devised a gen-
eralized correlating equation for (u′v′)+ as a function of
y+ and a+. Churchill5 subsequently concluded that
(u′v′)++ ≡ -Fu′v′/τ, namely, the local fraction of the
shear stress due to fluctuations in velocity, was an even
better dimensionless variable for the modeling of tur-
bulent flow. Equation 1 then takes the form
(1-
y+
a )
+
du+
[1 - (u′v′)++] ) +
dy
(8)
If τ were a dependent variable, the expression (u′v′)++
) -Fu′v′/τ might appear to be the equivalent of a
similarity transformation. However, for fully developed
flow in a round tube, τ bears a known linear relationship
to the independent variable τw. The term -pu′v′/τ is
simply a convenient representation for -Fu′v′/τw(1 -
y/a).
Equation 8 may be integrated formally in terms of R
) 1 - y+/a+ to obtain the following expression for the
velocity distribution:
a+
u+ )
2
∫R1 [1 - (u′v′)++] dR2
2 (9)
This integral expression may, in turn, be integrated over
the cross section and then reduced by means of integra-
tion by parts to obtain the following single integral for
the mixed-mean velocity and the Fanning friction factor,
namely, f ≡ 2τw/Fum2:
+
2 1/2
()
f
) um+ ≡ ∫01u+ dR2 ) a4 ∫01[1 - (u′v′)++] dR4
(10)
The “unity” term of the integrand of eqs 9 and 10 can,
of course, be integrated analytically, but that does not
constitute a significant simplification.
These integral expressions are only marginally sim-
pler than their counterparts in terms of µt, but the
reduction to a single integral for um+ does not follow so
directly or obviously in terms of µt. More importantly,
eliminating the derivative between eqs 1 and 2 reveals
that
µt -Fu′v′ (u′v′)++
) ) (11)
µ τ + Fu′v′ 1 - (u′v′)++
This is a very significant result because of the revelation
that µt/µ is simply the ratio of the contributions of the
turbulent fluctuations and the molecular motions to the
transport of momentum and thereby completely inde-
pendent of its heuristic diffusional origin involving the
time-mean velocity gradient. As a consequence of eqs
9-11, there does not appear to be any future role for
the eddy viscosity except in a historical sense. It should
not be inferred from eq 11 that µt is proportional to µ
because (u′v′)++ will, in general, be an implicit function
of µ. The analogue of (u′v′)++ for the transport of
energy is (T′v′)++ ) FcT′v′/j, namely, the local fraction
of the radial heat flux density due to the turbulent
fluctuations. Introduction of this dimensionless quantity
as well as the less familiar counterpart of u+, namely,
T+ ≡ k(τwF)1/2(Tw - T)/µjw, into eq 3 results in
j dT+
[1 - (T′v′)++] ) (12)
jw dy
Then from eqs 4 and 12 and the definition of T+, it
follows that
 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002 6395

kt FcT′v′ (T′v′)++ (u′v′)++ and (T′v′)++. It is remarkable that the critics

) )
k j - FcT′v′ 1 - (T′v′)++
and, in turn, from eqs 5 and 6 that
(13) who were scornful of the eddy viscosity, eddy conductiv-
ity, and turbulent Prandtl number concepts because of
their lack of a mechanistic rational did not appear to
recognize this simple justification. On the other hand,

[ ] ( )
the many analysts who applied these concepts without
Prt (u′v′)++ 1 - (T′v′)++ -u′v′ j - FcT′v′ apology may be given the benefit of the doubt.
) ) (14) Having said the above, the eddy viscosity and eddy
Pr (T′v′)++ 1 - (u′v′)++ cT′v′ τ + Fu′v′ conductivity, although shown retroactively to be valid
concepts, are inferior to the fractions of the shear stress
and
and the radial heat flux density due to turbulence as

[ ]
PrT 1 - (T′v′)++ τ j - FcT′v′
) )
Pr 1 - (u′v′)++ j τ + Fu′v′
Eliminating (T′v′)++ between eqs 14 and 15 indicates
that
++
1 (u′v′) 1 - (u′v′)++
) +
PrT Prt Pr
and provides for interchangeability between Prt and PrT.
Equations 13-15 are very significant results in the
same sense as eq 11 in that kt/k, Prt/Pr, and PrT/Pr are
revealed to be simple functions of (u′v′)++ and (T′v′)++
and thereby independent of their heuristic diffusive
origin. Thus, the eddy conductivity, as well as the eddy
viscosity, no longer appears to have any essential role
except possibly in a historical sense. On the other hand,
the turbulent Prandtl number and the total Prandtl
operative variables in three respects. First, the momen-
tum and energy balances in terms of the fluctuating
(15)
quantities are more transparent and understandable
because of the absence of heuristic quantities. Second,
the eddy viscosity is singular and negative in all
channels with unequal shear stresses on two bounding
surfaces, such as in a concentric circular annulus or in
a parallel-plate channel with surfaces of unequal rough-
(16) ness. The quantity (u′v′)++ is also inapplicable in this
case, but (u′v′)+ is well behaved. Third, the formal
integral solutions for the velocity distribution and the
friction factor, as illustrated by eqs 9 and 10, and for
the temperature distribution and Nusselt number, as
illustrated subsequently, are much simpler in terms of
the fractions of the shear stress and the radial heat flux
density than in terms of the eddy viscosity and eddy
conductivity.
Implementation of the New Model for Convec-
tion. Substituting for (T′v′)++ in eq 12 from eq 14
results in

[ ( )]
number, as redefined by eqs 14 and 15, respectively,
have continued essential utility even if their diffusion- ++
j Pr (u′v′) dT+
ally based names are misleading. The total Prandtl ) 1+ (17)
number divided by the Prandtl number is seen from eq jw Prt 1 - (u′v′)++ dy+
15 to be equal to the fractional transport of energy by
molecular motion divided by its counterpart for the Although eq 17 incorporates two parametric variables,
transport of momentum, while the turbulent Prandtl namely, Prt/Pr and (u′v′)++ as compared to one in eq
number divided by the Prandtl number is seen from eq 12, namely, (T′v′)++, it is more tractable with respect
14 to be equal to the ratio of the radial transport of to numerical and functional evaluations because of the
momentum due to the turbulent fluctuations to that due
well-documented functionality of (u′v′)++ and the very
to the molecular motion divided by the corresponding
constrained variance of Prt/Pr except in regimes and
ratio for the radial transport of energy. Again, it should
regions in which it has a very limited influence.
not be inferred from eq 13 that kt is proportional to k or
For reasons that are not related to the turbulent
from eqs 14 and 15 that Prt and PrT are proportional to
Prandtl number, it is convenient, following Reichardt,6
Pr because the right-hand side of these expressions will
to introduce into eq 17 the perturbation-like quantity γ
generally be a function of Pr as well (u′v′)+.
defined by
An Alternative but Slightly Inferior Interpreta-

() ( )
tion. Rather than avoiding the eddy viscosity on the
j τw j y+
basis of eq 8 or eliminating it from existing models for 1+γ) ) / 1- + (18)
flow on the basis of eq 11, the latter expression could jw τ jw a
equally well be interpreted as a confirmation of the
intuition of Boussinesq in recognizing or postulating thereby obtaining

( )[ ( )]
that the transport of momentum by the turbulent ++
fluctuations is a diffusive process in terms of the radial y+ Pr (u′v′) dT+
(1 + γ) 1 - ) 1 + (19)
gradient of the time-averaged velocity even though he a+ Prt 1 - (u′v′)++ dy+
had no idea that the effective diffusivity might be
expressed exactly and completely in terms of a well- Equation 19 may be integrated formally in terms of R
defined physical property, namely, -Fu′v′/τ. The same to obtain the following analogue of eq 9:
argument applies to the eddy conductivity by virtue of
eqs 12 and 13. It then follows that the turbulent Prandtl a+ (1 + γ) dR2
∫R
( )
1
number is indeed analogous to the true Prandtl number T+ ) 2 (20)
2 ++
with the diffusional coefficients for the turbulent fluc- Pr (u′v′)
1+
tuations substituted for the molecular ones and thereby Prt 1 - (u′v′)++
properly named. Furthermore, eqs 9 and 10 as well as
all of the ensuing analysis herein could be expressed and in turn T+, weighted by u+/um+, can be integrated
with equal validity in terms of µt and kt rather than of over the cross section to obtain
6396 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002

2a+
( )
+
a+ the wall where (u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++] can be approxi-
) Tm+ ≡ ∫01T+ uu + dR2 ) ∫01 mated by 0.7 (y+/10)3 and γ can be set equal to zero.

[ ]] (
Nu 2
Then, insofar as Prt approaches a finite value Prt*as y+

)
m
(1 + γ) dR2 u+
∫R f 0, eq 19 can be integrated in closed form to obtain an

[
1
dR2 (21) algebraic expression for T+, from which it follows that
u m+
2
++
Pr (u′v′)
1+
Prt 1 - (u′v′)++

Equation 20 is more complex than its analogue, eq 9,

Nu f 0.076343 ( ) ()
Pr
Prt*
1/3
Re
f
2
1/2
(25)

by virtue of 1 + γ and Prt/Pr, and eq 21 relative to eq
10 by virtue of u+/um+ as well, a mathematical reflection
of the greater physical complexity of convection as
compared to flow. It may be noted that the temperature
distribution, as given by eq 20, is not directly analogous
to the velocity distribution as given by eq 9 for Pr ) 1,
as has often been postulated, nor even for Pr ) Prt,
owing to the nonlinear heat flux density distribution as
represented by γ.
Implementation of eq 21 to obtain numerical values
of Nu, as described by Bo et al.7 and others, is beyond
the scope and objective of this analysis, but the exami-
nation of eq 21 itself is within that objective because it
helps to identity the role of the function labeled Prt in
The existence of these three special solutions for Nu is
very fortuitous in view of the considerable uncertainty
concerning Prt, both functionally and numerically in a
general sense, as documented by Kays.3 Surprisingly,
a significant reduction in that uncertainty has not
occurred in the intervening 7 years since his review,
except possibly in the followup by Weigand et al.8 It
should be noted, as implied above, that these several
conclusions regarding the dependence of Nu on Pr and
Prt could also have been drawn if µt/µ were substituted
for (u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++] in eqs 17, 19-21, and 23.
Equations 19-21 and 23 may be reexpressed in terms
of PrT rather than Prt as follows:

( ) ( )
the prediction of Nu. For the special case of uniform
y+ PrT dT+
heating or cooling at the wall of a round tube, (1 + γ) 1 - +
[1 - (u′v′)++] ) + (26)
Pr

( )
a dy
u+
1
∫0R
2

( )
1+γ) dR2 (22)
um+ a+ PrT
R2 T+ )
2
∫R1 (1 + γ)[1 - (u′v′)++]
2
Pr
dR2 (27)

[ ]
and eq 21 may be reduced by integration by parts to
obtain the following single integral: 2a+
Nu
) Tm+ )
a+
2
∫01 ∫R1 (1 + γ)[1 - (u′v′)]++
2 ( )
PrT
Pr
dR2

( )
8
Nu ) (23) +
(1 + γ)2 dR4 u
∫01 dR2 (28)

[ ]
+
++ um
Pr (u′v′)
1+
Prt 1 - (u′v′)++ and
The dependence of Nu on both Pr and Prt then stems
only from the term Pr/Prt in the denominator of the
integral. On the other hand, for the other common
Nu ) 8/ ∫01(1 + γ)[1 - (u′v′)++] ( ) PrT
Pr
dR4 (29)

thermal boundary conditions, namely, that of a uniform

wall temperature, Equations 26-29 appear to have a simpler structure
than eqs 19-21 and 23, and they do have some utility

( )
+ + for that reason in a qualitative sense. However, this
1+γ)
1
R2
∫0R uu + TT +
2
dR2 (24) impression of simplicity is somewhat misleading. For
example, Nu does not approach zero as Pr f ∞, as might
m m
be inferred from eq 29. Also, Prt is a more sensitive
Because of the presence of T+/Tm+ in the integrand of variable than PrT, and, perhaps for that reason, all
eq 24, γ now depends on Prt, Nu depends on Prt by correlating equations appear to have been constructed
virtue of γ as well as by its explicit presence, reduction for Prt rather than PrT.
of eq 21 to a single integral by integration by parts is Alternative Models and Variables for the Pre-
no longer possible, and an iterative scheme is required diction of Turbulent Flow and Convection. The
for the solution of eqs 20, 21, and 24 or their differential mixing length l of Prandtl,9 as defined by
counterparts.
(du
2

The dependence of Nu on Prt may be seen to vanish
from eqs 21 and 23 for Pr ) 0, for which condition Nu
is thereby a function only of the rate of flow and the
thermal boundary condition. Prt also vanishes from
these two expressions for Pr ≡ Prt insofar as the this
value of Prt is invariant with radius, a condition which,
remarkably enough, appears to occur to at least a good
degree of approximation. However, despite the conse-
quent great simplification of eqs 21 and 23 for this
particular value of Pr, Nu remains a function of Pr in
the region encompassing that value. For Pr f ∞, the
temperature field develops almost completely very near
dy )
Fl 2 ) -Fu′v′ (30)
has been widely used in the past as an alternative to
the eddy viscosity, and a thermal mixing length has
sometimes been used as an alternative to the eddy
conductivity. Although the use of the mixing length has
been fading in recent years, it was frequently cited in
the past as being conceptually superior to the eddy
viscosity because of its mechanistic origin as an ana-
logue, however strained, of the mean free path in the
kinetic theory of gases. In a round tube the mixing

length is readily shown to be related to (u′v′)++ as
follows:
(u′v′)++
(l +)2 )
( )
(31)
y+
1 - + [1 - (u′v′)++]2
a
Because (u′v′)++ is finite at the center line, l +, and
thereby l, may be seen from eq 31 to be unbounded at
that location, thereby negating their very basis. This
serious failing was apparently overlooked for over half
a century because of (1) insufficiently precise data for
u′v′ and u in that region, (2) uncritical examination of
such data, (3) a fortuitous insensitivity of calculations
for f and Nu to values of l in that region, and (4) the
valid prediction, based on the experimentally observed
linearity of l to y in “the turbulent core near the
wall,” of a semilogarithmic dependence of u on y in that
region. However, the semilogarithmic relationship has
since been derived by speculative and asymptotic di-
mensional analysis without recourse to a mechanistic
model such as the mixing length. Furthermore, the
corresponding relationship for the velocity distribution
in “the turbulent core near the center line”, which was
derived on the basis of a finite value of the mixing length
at the center line has since been shown to be in serious
error. (See, for example, work by Churchill.5) The mixing
length is also singular at the central plane between
parallel plates and shares the failure of the eddy
viscosity in channels with differing shear stresses on
the walls.
The κ- model of Launder and Spalding10 was de-
signed to predict µt and thereby turbulent flow, but after
20 years its implementation remains quite arbitrary and
approximate overall and essentially correlative rather
than predictive near the wall. The κ--u′v′ model was
utilized successfully by Hanjalić and Launder11 to
predict the behavior in an annulus, which an eddy
viscosity model cannot do. The κ--u′v′-T′v′ model
utilized by Suzuki et al.12 for an annulus might, in
principle, predict Prt. However, both of these latter
models are quite empirical overall and essentially
correlative near the walls.
The large eddy simulation (LES) model pioneered by
Schumann13 is predictive, in principle, for u′v′ and T′v′
and thereby Prt in the turbulent core but incorporates
the eddy viscosity in the subgrid formulation for the
region very near the wall. Kawamura et al.14 used the
LES model for convection as well as for flow, but they
postulated a value of Prt ) 0.85 for the subgrid region
rather than predicted it.
One methodology for the prediction of u′v′ and T ′v′
and thereby the prediction or avoidance of Prt for the
entire cross section of a channel without any empiricism
is that of DNS, which was apparently first conceived
by Orszag and Patterson15 in the context of homoge-
neous and isotropic turbulence. However, the great early
promise of this concept has not yet been completely
fulfilled in that numerical results for confined shear
flows are limited primarily to parallel-plate channels
and to rates of flow barely above the minimum value of
145 for b+ for fully developed turbulence. The predicted
values of several investigators, including Kim et al.,16
Lyons et al.,17 and Rutledge and Sleicher,18 for (u′v′)++
near the wall are in good agreement with experimental
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002 6397
measurements for all rates of flow, but the disappear-
ance for b+ < 300 of the semilogarithmic regime of the
time-mean velocity distribution, which characterizes
the flow in the “turbulent core near the wall” (30 < y+
< 0.1b+), renders questionable the extrapolation of the
results of the DNS calculations for the turbulent core
to higher values of b+. The effective restriction of DNS
calculations to parallel-plate channels is less serious in
that the analogy of MacLeod19 implies that the values
of (u′v′)++ and u+ are the same function of y+ and a+ in
a round tube as of y+ and b+ in a parallel-plate channel.
On the other hand, because of their potential precision,
the execution of otherwise identical DNS calculations
for these two geometries for a wide range of values of
b+ and a+ would provide a more severe test of the
accuracy and limitations of that analogy than do the
best current experimental measurements. Calculations
using DNS for heat transfer have been carried out for
a wide range of values of Pr, but the various calculated
values of T′v′, as contrasted with those of u′v′, are not
in complete agreement with one another or with experi-
mental results. In particular, the values of Sct (the
analogue for mass transfer of Prt for heat transfer), as
predicted in the pioneering work of Papavassiliou and
Hanratty20 using a Lagrangian form of DNS for very
large values of Sc (analogous to Pr), contradict the
postulate of a limiting value of Sct and thereby of Prt
for y+ f 0 that leads to eq 23. Because the most reliable
experimental data for heat transfer generally agree with
eq 24, including the 1/3 power dependence on Pr for large
values of Pr, this discrepancy may be due to (1) the
upper limit of Pr ) 100 for all fluids, whereas values of
Sc are virtually unlimited in magnitude, (2) a funda-
mental difference between the turbulent transport of
energy and species very near the wall, or (3) the
limitation of the pertinent DNS calculations to b+ ) 150.
Renormalization group theory (RGT) has been used
to predict PrT directly rather than by detailed solution
of the equations of conservation of momentum and
energy for u′v′ and T′v′ as with DNS. Results of great
purported generality are achieved at the price of ide-
alizations of unknown consequence. Yahkot et al.21 and
others have devised the following structure for this
purpose:
( ) ( )
R/(1+2R)
1 (1+R)/(1+2R) 1
-R +1+R
PrT PrT µ
)
1 1 µ + µt
-R +1+R
Pr Pr
or 1 - (u′v′)++ (32)
where
2 1/2
([
R) 1+81+ ( d )] )
- 1 /2 (33)
An iterative method of solution is obviously required for
PrT. Prt can, in turn, be calculated by means of eq 16.
Yahkot et al. proposed a value of 21/3 ) 7 for d in eq
33, but in a “Note Added in Proof” stated that 9/3 ) 3
might be better. Elperin et al.22 and Itazu and Nagano23
both proposed 14/3. On the other hand, an arbitrary
value of d ) 24/3 ) 8 produces better agreement with
experimental data and the subsequently mentioned
empirical correlating equations for Prt. Yahkot et al.
argue that eqs 32 and 33 are free of any “experimentally
6398 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002

Table 1. Comparison of Predictions of Prt for a+ ) 5000 and y+ ) 500

Pr 0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 0.7 0.8633 1.0 10 100
Pr(u′v′)++/ 0.01857 0.1857 1.857 18.57 130.0 160.3 185.7 1857 18570)
[1 - (u′v′)++]a
eq 35 (N&S) 1201 63.80 3.366 1.003 0.9457 0.9458 0.9463 0.9525 0.9553
eq 34b (J&R) 115.9 12.35 2.000 0.9650 0.8664 0.8633 0.8615 0.8512 0.8501
eq 36 (Kays) 38.54 4.619 1.227 0.8877 0.8553 0.8544 0.8538 0.8504 0.8500
eqs 32 and 33 (Yahkot et al.)c 42.98 4.855 1.216 0.8957 0.8643 0.8633 0.8627 0.8593 0.8590
a (u′v′)++ is based on eq 5 of Bo et al.7 b With a coefficient of 0.0115. c Based on d ) 8.

adjusted parameters”, the quantity d apparently being
exempted as a “physical dimension”. In any event, a
number of the idealizations made in the derivations of
eqs 32 and 33, and in particular that of homogeneous
turbulence, would appear to confine their applicability
to the turbulent core (y+ > 30) and perhaps to “the
turbulent core near the wall” (30 < y+ < ∼0.1a+).
Functional Dependence and Correlating
Equations for Prt
Abbrecht and Churchill24 determined experimentally
the eddy conductivity as well as the eddy viscosity in
provides a reasonable representation for all values of
Pr.
Hill27 (also see Notter and Sleicher28) concluded from
theoretical considerations involving isotropic turbulence
and a linear temperature gradient that Prt approaches
inverse proportionality to the equivalent of Pr (u′v′)++/
[1 - (u′v′)++] as Pr f 0. Notter and Sleicher developed
the following correlating equation based on that result
and the apparently false premise that Prt f 1 as
(u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++] f ∞:
Prt ) {1 + φ}/{0.025Pr(u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++] + φ}

{ }
the developing temperature field generated by a step 10
in wall temperature in the fully developed flow of air 1+ (35)
in a round tube. Their derived values of kt are somewhat 35 + (u′v′) /[1 - (u′v′)++]
++

less certain than those of µt because of the necessity of

evaluating the longitudinal as well as the radial tem-
perature gradients, but the invariance on the mean of
kt and Prt with axial distance is unambiguous evidence
of their independence from the temperature field and
thereby of the thermal boundary condition. The close
correspondence of their values of Prt with those mea-
where φ ) 90Pr3/2[(u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++]]1/4.
Kays found that most experimental and computed
values of Prt in the turbulent core (y+ > 30) could be
represented satisfactorily with an empirical expression
that may be rewritten in terms of (u′v′)++ rather than
ut/µ as follows:

sured by Page et al.25 in fully developed turbulent flow
between parallel plates at different uniform tempera-
tures provides not only a confirmation of the indepen-
dence of Prt from the thermal boundary condition but
also an indication of independence from geometry for
a+ ) b+. Abbrecht and Churchill thereby concluded that
Prt is a function only of µt/µ and Pr. In retrospect, this
conclusion may or may not be valid for the regime very
near the wall because of the increased uncertainty of
the values they determined for µt and kt as y+ f 0. This
conclusion, that is, the dependence of Prt on µt/µ [or
(u′v′)++] and Pr only, has since been dismissed as both
obvious and disputed and apparently has never been
proven or disproven conclusively, although it is implied
by eq 32 and most empirical correlating equations.
Kays,3 with some justification, questioned the ap-
plicability of this restricted dependence to the region
near the wall and near the center line on the grounds
of insufficient evidence and, having overlooked the work
of Abbrecht and Churchill, speculated on the basis of a
comparison of some separate experimental results for
uniform heating and uniform wall temperature that Prt
may depend on the thermal boundary condition. The
extreme difference in the thermal boundary conditions
utilized in the work of Abbrecht and Churchill and in
that utilized by Page et al. would appear to be a more
critical and sufficient test.
Turning to correlating equations for Prt , Jischa and
Rieke26 concluded that the dependence of Prt on y+ and
Re, while real, is of second-order and that the simple
expression
Prt ) 0.85 +
0.015
(34)
Pr
[ ]
++
0.7 1 - (u′v′)
Prt ) 0.85 + (36)
Pr (u′v′)++
However, he suggested that 2.0 was a better coefficient
than 0.7 for liquid metals (Pr , 1).
It is informative to compare the predictions of eqs 32
and 34-36 functionally and numerically. Equations 32
and 35 predict a separate dependence of Prt on (u′v′)++
and Pr, whereas eq 36 predicts a dependence only on
the combined variable Pr(u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++]. This
result is perhaps explicable in that Hill27 derived this
combined dependence as an asymptote for Pr f 0,
whereas eq 36 stretches the applicability of that as-
ymptote for all values of Pr. The neglect of a dependence
on (u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++] by Jischa and Rieke can
perhaps be interpreted as an approximation of this term
by a mean value that results in only a slight error
insofar as the term 0.85 is dominant.
Equation 32 implies the existence of a value of Pr )
Prt ) PrT that is independent of (u′v′)++, thus justify-
ing the reduction of eqs 19-21, 23, and 26-29 to
expressions free of Prt and Pr for this condition. On the
other hand, both eqs 35 and 36 predict a slightly varying
dependence of Prt and PrT on (u′v′)++ for all values of
Pr.
Representative predictions of Prt by eqs 32 and 34-
36 are listed in Table 1. Values of d ) 8 in eq 33 and a
coefficient of 0.0115 (rather than 0.015) in eq 34 are
postulated for this comparison in the interest of con-
sistency. The value of a+ ) 5000 was chosen to represent
a moderate rate of flow and the value of y+ ) 500 to
represent the outer range of the semilogarthmic regime

Table 2. Comparison of Predictions of PrT for a+ ) 5000 and y+ ) 500
Pr 0.0001 0.001
eq 34a (J&R) 0.01867 0.1839
eqs 32 and 33 (Yahkot et al.)b 0.01866 0.1798
a With a coefficient at 0.0115. b Based on d ) 8.
Table 3. Comparative Dependence of Nu for a+ ) 5000 on Extreme Expressions for Prt and PrT
Pr 0.0001 0.001 0.01
Nu1/Nu2 1.000 1.010 1.120
(Prt)1/(Prt)2 7.962 4.025 1.432
(PrT)2/(PrT)1 1.0001 1.009 1.154
a Prt based on eq 35 (N&S). b Prt based on eq 34 (J&R).
of the velocity distribution. The agreement for large and
moderate values of Pr is very good except for the
predictions of Notter and Sleicher, which are signifi-
cantly higher. The predictions of Kays and Yahkot et
al. are in fair agreement for small values of Pr, but those
of Jischa and Rieke and of Notter and Sleicher are much
higher. The appearance of an almost exact agreement
between the predictions of Yahkot et al. and Kays in
Figure 2 of the latter is to some extent an artifact of
the compressed logarithmic coordinates.
The predictions of PrT by eq 34 of Jischa and Rieke
are compared in Table 2 with those of Yahkot et al.
using d ) 8 in eq 33, for the same conditions as those
for Table 1. It is noteworthy that the agreement is very
close for Pr g 0.7 and for Pr e 0.001 despite the great
structural difference of eqs 32 and 34. This is a
somewhat fortuitous consequence, on the one hand, of
the dominance of the limiting value of PrT ) 0.85 for
even moderate values of Pr and, on the other hand, the
approach of PrT to Pr/[1 - (u′v′)++] for Pr f 0 per eq 16
and thereby its independence from the expression used
to predict Prt. These same two generalizations apply to
the predictions (not shown) of PrT by eqs 35 and 36.
Dependence of Nu on Prt
The principal applicability of an expression for the
prediction or correlation of values of Prt is in the
prediction of values of Nu by means of eq 21 or 23 or
their equivalent. It may be inferred from the reduced
forms of eqs 21 and 23 for Pr ) 0 and Pr ) Prt and the
limiting form for Pr f ∞ that the power dependence of
Nu on Pr/Prt increases from zero to a maximum value
approaching unity at a value of Pr/Prt ) 1 and then
decreases to a value of 1/3 as Pr f ∞. The less than linear
power dependence of Nu on Pr/Prt for all values of Pr
thus fortuitously reduces the uncertainty in Nu arising
from the uncertainty in Prt. This reduction is illustrated
in Table 3, in which the ratio of the values of Nu
calculated by Bo et al.7 for a+ ) 5000 and uniform
heating using eqs 34 and 35 for Prt is compared with
the corresponding ratios of values of Prt and PrT. The
difference in the predicted values of Nu is very small
except at Pr ) 0.01, for which it is 12% as compared to
corresponding differences of 43% in Prt and 15% in PrT.
The 2.6% difference in Nu for Pr ) 100 is a consequence
of the 12.5% overprediction of the limiting value of Prt
by eq 35, thereby a proof rather than an exception with
respect to the insensitivity of Nu to Prt. Almost identical
results are obtained for uniform wall temperature and
for other values of a+. It should be emphasized that the
comparisons in Table 3 were deliberately made using a
simplistic expression (eq 34) and a more complex but
questionable one (eq 35) for Prt in order to exaggerate
the dependence of Nu on the expression used for Prt.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002 6399
0.01 0.1 0.7 0.8633 1.0 10 100
0.9681 0.9223 0.8653 0.8633 0.8621 0.8553 0.8547
0.7388 0.8591 0.8633 0.8633 0.8634 0.8635 0.8635
0.10 0.70 1.0 10 100
0.9913 1.0076 1.006 0.9844 0.9743
1.003 1.085 1.094 1.119 1.124
1.003 1.085 1.094 1.119 1.124
The actual uncertainty in the value of Nu resulting from
the use of eq 32 or 36 for y+ > 30 and eq 34 for y+ < 30
would be expected to be far less, probably less than 1
or 2% for all values of Pr and a+. It may be concluded
that improved numerical values, predictive equations,
and/or correlative equations for Prt, while eagerly
awaited in an intrinsic sense, will not greatly impact
existing calculated values of Nu such as those of Bo et
al.7 for round tubes, Danov et al.29 for parallel-plate
channels, and Bo et al.30 for concentric circular annuli.
Summary and Conclusions
The eddy viscosity ratio µt/µ has been shown to be
equal to the ratio of the local fraction of the shear stress
rate of momentum transfer due to the turbulent fluc-
tuations, namely, (u′v′)++ ) -Fu′v′/τ, to that due to the
molecular motions, namely, 1 - (u′v′)++, and thereby
independent of its heuristic diffusive origin. The eddy
conductivity ratio kt/k has similarly been shown to be
equal to the ratio of the local fraction of the radial heat
flux density due to the turbulent fluctuations, namely,
(T′v′)++ ) FcT′v′/j, to that due to the molecular mo-
tions, namely, 1 - (T′v′)++, and thereby also indepen-
dent of the heuristic diffusive origin of kt. Despite their
justification as physically meaningful quantities in
round tubes and parallel-plate channels, the eddy
viscosity and eddy conductivity are inferior in behavior
and in implementation to (u′v′)++ or (u′v′)+ and T′v′)++
even in those two geometries.
Turbulent flow and convection can be described com-
pletely and with clarity in terms of (u′v′)++ and (T′v′)++
while wholly avoiding the eddy viscosity, the eddy
conductivity, and/or the corresponding mixing lengths.
This approach might be feasible with undergraduate
students, who have nothing to unlearn, were it not for
the pervasive presence of the latter quantities in the
literature of the past and present.
On the other hand, the turbulent Prandtl number
ratio, Prt/Pr, which was originally defined as the ratio
of µt/µ to kt/k but which now may be reexpressed in
terms of (u′v′)++ and (T′v′)++, as in eq 16, and inter-
preted as the ratio of the fractions of the local rate of
momentum transport due to turbulent fluctuations and
molecular motions divided by the corresponding ratio
for energy transport, has a continued essential role in
the prediction of convection, although its symbol and
name may be vestiges of the past.
Abbrecht and Churchill24 found experimentally that
kt/k is a function only of µt/µ and Pr and thereby
independent of the thermal boundary condition. The
same dependence and independence obviously extends
to the turbulent Prandtl number ratio Prt/Pr. The close
6400 Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002
agreement of their results for kt/k and Prt/Pr with those
of Page et al.25 for convection between parallel plates at
different uniform temperatures confirms this finding
and implies that Prt/Pr is independent of geometry as
well when expressed in terms of µt/µ ) (u′v′)++/[1 -
(u′v′)++] and Pr.
The only significant advance in the measurement and
prediction of Prt since the recent review of Kays3
appears to be the Lagrangian DNS calculations of
Papavassiliou and Hanratty20 for very large Schmidt
numbers. The latter results contradict the postulate of
a finite value of Prt at the wall that is the basis for the
experimentally confirmed 1/3 power dependence of Nu
on Pr. The explanation of this discrepancy is not yet
resolved, but the practical consequences for heat trans-
fer are unimportant because all normal fluids have
values of Pr < 100.
Predictions of Nu, which are the principal application
of predictions for Prt, are fortuitously very insensitive
to Prt. While improved measurements, predictions, and
correlating equations for Prt are eagerly awaited, their
impact on the currently predicted results for Nu can be
expected to be only of second-order.
Nomenclature
a ) radius of the round tube
a+ ) a(τwF)1/2/µ
b ) half-spacing of parallel plates
b+ ) b(τwF)1/2/µ
c ) heat capacity at constant pressure
d ) “arbitrary” coefficient in eq 33
f ) 2τw/Fum2 ) Fanning friction factor
j ) heat flux density in the y direction
k ) thermal conductivity
kt ) eddy conductivity
kT ) k + kt ) total conductivity
l ) mixing length
l + ) l (τwF)1/2/µ
Nu ) 2ajw/k(Tw - Tm) ) Nusselt number
p ) pressure
Pr ) cµ/k ) Prandtl number
Prt ) cµt/kt ) Pr(u′v′)++[1 - (T′v′)++]/(T′v′)++[1 - (u′v′)++]
) turbulent Prandtl number
PrT ) cµT/kT ) Pr[1 - (T′v′)++]/[1 - (u′v′)++] ) total
Prandtl number
R ) 1 - y+/a+
Re ) 2a+um+/µ ) Reynolds number
Sc ) Schmidt number
Sct ) turbulent Schmidt number
T ) time-averaged temperature
T+ ) k(τwF)1/2/(Tw - T)/µjw
T′ ) fluctuating component of temperature
T′v′ ) time-averaged value of T′v′
(T′v′)++ ) FcT′v′/j
u ) time-averaged x component of velocity
u+ ) u(F/τw)1/2
u′ ) fluctuating x component of velocity
u′v′ ) time-averaged value of u′v′
(u′v′)+ ) -Fu′v′/τw
(u′v′)++ ) -Fu′v′/τ
v′ ) fluctuating y component of velocity
x ) axial coordinate
y ) distance from the wall
y+ ) y(τwF)1/2/µ
Greek Symbols
R ) coefficient defined by eq 33
γ ) jτw/jwτ - 1
 ) rate of dissipation of turbulent energy
κ ) kinetic energy of turbulence
µ ) dynamic viscosity
µt ) eddy viscosity
µT ) µ + µt ) total viscosity
F ) specific density
τ ) shear stress
φ ) 90Pr3/2{(u′v′)++/[1 - (u′v′)++]}1/4
Subscripts
m ) mixed-mean value
w ) at wall
Acknowledgments
The very discerning comments and constructive sug-
gestions of the anonymous reviewers resulted in sig-
nificant improvement of the manuscript and are grate-
fully acknowledged. The investigation that led to the
unexpected findings reported herein might not have
been undertaken without the prompting of Professor
Tetsu Fujii following a seminar by the author at Kyushu
University.
Literature Cited
(1) Reynolds, O. On the Dynamical Theory of Incompressible
Viscous Fluids and the Determination of the Criterion. Proc. R.
Soc. London 1985, 186, 123.
(2) Boussinesq, J. Essai sur la theorie des eaux courantes. (A
Study of the Theory of Water Flows). Mem. Acad. Sci. Fr. 1877,
23, 1.
(3) Kays, W. M. Turbulent Prandtl NumbersWhere are We?
J. Heat Transfer, Trans. ASME 1994, 116, 284.
(4) Churchill, S. W.; Chan, C. Turbulent Flow in Channels in
Terms of the Turbulent Shear and Normal Stresses. AIChE J.
1995, 41, 2513.
(5) Churchill, S. W. New Simplified Models and Formulations
for Turbulent Flow and Convection. AIChE J. 1997, 43, 1125.
(6) Reichardt, H. Die Grundlagen des Turbulent Wärmeüber-
traganges. Arch. Gesamte Wärmetech. (The Principles of Turbulent
Heat Transfer). 1951, 2, 129.
(7) Bo, Y.; Ozoe, H.; Churchill, S. W. The Characteristics of
Fully Developed Turbulent Convection in a Round Tube. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 2001, 56, 1781.
(8) Weigand, B.; Ferguson, J. R.; Crawford, M. E. An Extended
Kays and Crawford Turbulent Prandtl Number Model. Int. J. Heat
Mass Transfer 1997, 40, 4192.
(9) Prandtl, L. Eine Beziehung zwischen Wärmeaustausch and
Strömungswiderstand der Flüssigkeit. (An Analogy between Heat
Transfer and Friction in Fluid Flow). Phys. Z. 1910, 11, 1072.
(10) Launder, B. E.; Spalding, D. B. Mathematical Models of
Turbulence; Academic Press: York, London, 1972.
(11) Hanjalic, K.; Launder, B. E. A Reynolds Stress Model of
Turbulence and Its Application to Thin Shear Flows. J. Fluid
Mech. 1972, 52, 609.
(12) Suzuki, K.; Tohkaku, A.; Sato, T. Liquid Metal Turbulent
Heat Transfer in Concentric Annuli. Proceedings of the 8th
International Heat Transfer Conference; Hemisphere Publ. Corp.:
Washington, DC, 1980; Vol. III, p 969.
(13) Schumann, U. Subgrid Scale Model for Finite Difference
Simulation of Turbulent Channel Flows in Plane Channels and
Annuli. J. Comput Phys. 1975, 18, 376.
(14) Kawamura, H.; Nakamura, S.; Satake, S.; Kunagi, T. Large
Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Heat Transfer in a Concentric
Annulus. Thermal Science & Eng. 1994, 2, No. 2, 16.
(15) Orszag, S. A.; Patterson, G. S. Numerical Simulation of
Three-Dimensional Homogenous Isotropic Turbulence. Phys. Rev.
Lett. 1972, 28, 75.
(16) Kim, J.; Moin, P.; Moser, R. Turbulence Statistics in Fully
Developed Turbulent Channel Flow at Low Reynolds Number. J.
Fluid Mech. 1987, 177, 133.

(17) Lyons, S. L.; Hanratty, T. J.; McLaughlin, J. B. Large-
Scale Computer Simulation of Fully Developed Turbulent Channel
Flow with Heat Transfer. Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids 1991,
13, 999.
(18) Rutledge, J.; Sleicher, C. A. Direct Simulation of Turbulent
Flow and Heat Transfer in a Channel. Part I. Smooth Walls. Int.
J. Numer. Methods Fluids 1993, 15, 1051.
(19) MacLeod, A. C. Liquid Turbulence in a Gas-Liquid
Absorption System. Ph.D. Thesis, Carnegie Institute of Technol-
ogy, Pittsburgh, PA, 1951.
(20) Papavassiliou, D. V.; Hanratty, T. J. Transport of a Passive
Scalar in a Turbulent Channel Flow. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer
1977, 40, 1303.
(21) Yahkot, V.; Orszag, S. A.; Yahkot, A. Heat Transfer in
Turbulent Fields. 1. Pipe Flow. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1987,
30, 15.
(22) Elperin, T.; Kleeorin, N.; Rogachevskii, I. Isotropic and
Anisotropic Spectra of Passive Scalar Fluctuations in Turbulent
Fluid Flow. Phys. Rev. E 1996, 53, 3431.
(23) Itazu, Y.; Nagano, Y. Modeling of Thermal Eddy Diffusivity
Based on Renormalization Theory (In Japanese). Trans. Jpn. Soc.
Mech. Eng. 1997, B36, 3072.
(24) Abbrecht, P. H.; Churchill, S. W. The Thermal Entrance
Region in Fully Developed Turbulent Flow. AIChE J. 1960, 6, 268.
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res., Vol. 41, No. 25, 2002 6401
(25) Page, F., Jr.; Schlinger, W. G.; Beaux, D. K.; Sage, B. W.
Point Values of Eddy Conductivity and Viscosity in Uniform Flow
Between Parallel Plates. Ind. Eng. Chem. 1982, 44, 424.
(26) Jischa, M.; Rieke, H. B. About the Prediction of Turbulent
Prandtl and Schmidt Numbers from Modeled Transport Equation.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1979, 22, 1547.
(27) Hill, J. W. Estimation of Eddy Diffusivities in Isotropic
Turbulence. Preprints of the 6th Annual AIChE Meeting, San
Francisco, 1972.
(28) Notter, R. D.; Sleicher, C. A. A Solution to the Turbulent
Graetz ProblemsIII. Fully Developed and Entry Region Heat
Transfer Rates. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 1972, 27, 2073.
(29) Danov, S. N.; Arai, N.; Churchill, S. W. Exact Formulations
and Nearly Exact Numerical Solutions for Convection in Turbulent
Flow Between Parallel Plates. Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer 2000,
43, 2767.
(30) Bo, Y.; Ozoe, H.; Churchill, S. W. Nearly Exact Numerical
Solutions for Turbulent Convection in an Internally Heated
Circular Concentric Annulus. In review.
Received for review December 17, 2001
Revised manuscript received May 29, 2002
Accepted June 6, 2002
IE011021K