0
Technical Brief

An Improved Model for the Return to Isotropy of Homogeneous Turbulence

[+] Author and Article Information
Hari Warrior

Department of Ocean Engineering and
Naval Architecture,
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
Kharagpur 721302, India
e-mail: warrior@naval.iitkgp.ernet.in

Sajo Mathews

Red Brick Lane, India

Subhendu Maity

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
National Institute of Technology Meghalaya,
Shillong 793003, Meghalaya, India

Kaushik Sasmal

Department of Ocean Engineering and
Naval Architecture,
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur,
Kharagpur 721302, India

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 26, 2013; final manuscript received December 9, 2013; published online January 27, 2014. Assoc. Editor: Sharath S. Girimaji.

J. Fluids Eng 136(3), 034501 (Jan 27, 2014) (4 pages) Paper No: FE-13-1192; doi: 10.1115/1.4026236 History: Received March 26, 2013; Revised December 09, 2013

In CFD modeling, the most widely used Reynolds stress models is the Speziale, Sarkar, Gatski (SSG) model. The present formulation, though similar in structure to the SSG model, is a mathematical variation assuming homogeneity of turbulence and is an improved model for the slow pressure strain of turbulence. The basic thrust is that anisotropy of dissipation tensor is not negligible when compared to the anisotropy of turbulent kinetic energy and affects the slow pressure strain rate. After an exhaustive survey of the available experimental results on return to isotropy, graphical plots reveal that the model performs as good as the SSG model.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2014 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Phase space comparison with the plane contraction experiment of Le Penven et al. [9] (III < 0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Phase space comparison with the plane distortion experiment of Choi and Lumley [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of temporal decay of II with the axisymmetric expansion experiment of Choi and Lumley [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of temporal decay of II with the plane contraction experiment of Le Penven et al. [9] (III < 0)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of temporal decay of II with the plane distortion experiment of Choi and Lumley [10]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Comparison of temporal decay of III with the plane contraction experiment of Le Penven et al. [9] (III < 0)

Tables

Errata

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 eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In