0
Research Papers: Fundamental Issues and Canonical Flows

Evaluation of RANS Models in Predicting Low Reynolds, Free, Turbulent Round Jet

[+] Author and Article Information
Shahriar Ghahremanian

Bahram Moshfegh

e-mail: Baharam.moshfegh@liu.se; bmh@hig.se
Department of Management and Engineering,
Department of Building,
Energy and Environmental Engineering,
University of Gävle,
Gävle, 801 76, Sweden

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received July 13, 2012; final manuscript received September 4, 2013; published online October 7, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Sharath S. Girimaji.

J. Fluids Eng 136(1), 011201 (Oct 07, 2013) (13 pages) Paper No: FE-12-1325; doi: 10.1115/1.4025363 History: Received July 13, 2012; Revised September 04, 2013

Abstract

In order to study the flow behavior of multiple jets, numerical prediction of the three-dimensional domain of round jets from the nozzle edge up to the turbulent region is essential. The previous numerical studies on the round jet are limited to either two-dimensional investigation with Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) models or three-dimensional prediction with higher turbulence models such as large eddy simulation (LES) or direct numerical simulation (DNS). The present study tries to evaluate different RANS turbulence models in the three-dimensional simulation of the whole domain of an isothermal, low Re (Re = 2125, 3461, and 4555), free, turbulent round jet. For this evaluation the simulation results from two two-equation (low Re $k-ɛ$ and low Re shear stress transport (SST) $k-ω$), a transition three-equation ($k-kl-ω$), and a transition four-equation (SST) eddy-viscosity turbulence models are compared with hot-wire anemometry measurements. Due to the importance of providing correct inlet boundary conditions, the inlet velocity profile, the turbulent kinetic energy ($k$), and its specific dissipation rate ($ω$) at the nozzle exit have been employed from an earlier verified numerical simulation. Two-equation RANS models with low Reynolds correction can predict the whole domain (initial, transition, and fully developed regions) of the round jet with prescribed inlet boundary conditions. The transition models could only reach to a good agreement with the measured mean axial velocities and its rms in the initial region. It worth mentioning that the round jet anomaly is still present in the turbulent region of the round jet predicted by the low Re $k-ɛ$. By comparing the $k$ and the $ω$ predicted by different turbulence models, the blending functions in the cross-diffusion term is found one of the reasons behind the more consistent prediction by the low Re SST $k-ω$.

<>

Figures

Fig. 4

Test room layout

Fig. 5

Decay of mean axial velocity along the centerline

Fig. 6

Predicted (SST k-ω) decay of mean axial velocity along the centerline for different Reynolds number

Fig. 7

Mean axial velocity and turbulence intensity at y = 0.34 d0 (M stands for measurement) [61]

Fig. 3

Computational grid: nozzle grid, whole domain, and coordinate system

Fig. 2

Inlet grid and its velocity and turbulent kinetic energy profile

Fig. 1

Computational domain

Fig. 8

Close-up view of axial mean velocity decay along the centerline

Fig. 9

Mean axial velocity and its rms profile at y/d0 = 4.31 ((urms|max/Umax)|M = 0.15,(urms|max/Umax)|SSTk-ω = 0.15)

Fig. 10

Mean axial velocity and its rms profile at y/d0 = 6.38 ((urms|max/Umax)|M = 0.15,(urms|max/Umax)|SSTk-ω = 0.16)

Fig. 11

Mean axial velocity and its rms profile at y/d0 = 8.28 ((urms|max/Umax)|M = 0.18,(urms|max/Umax)|SSTk-ω = 0.18)

Fig. 12

Mean axial velocity and its rms profile at y/d0 = 15.34 ((urms|max/Umax)|M = 0.22,(urms|max/Umax)|SSTk-ω = 0.25)

Fig. 13

Mean streamwise velocity and its rms profile at y/d0 = 20.34 ((urms|max/Umax)|M = 0.25,(urms|max/Umax)|SSTk-ω = 0.26)

Fig. 14

Mean axial velocity and its rms profile at y/d0 = 25.34 ((urms|max/Umax)|M = 0.26,(urms|max/Umax)|SSTk-ω = 0.27)

Fig. 15

Mean axial velocity and its rms profile at y/d0 = 30.34 ((urms|max/Umax)|M = 0.25,(urms|max/Umax)|SSTk-ω = 0.27)

Fig. 16

Self-similarity of round jet at different cross-sectional profiles (M stands for measurement) [61]

Fig. 17

Fig. 18

Turbulent kinetic energy (k) of different turbulence models at four cross-sectional profiles

Fig. 19

Turbulent frequency (specific dissipation rate, ω) computed by different turbulence models at four cross-sectional profiles

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections