
[Sponsors] 
November 6, 2012, 11:47 
Turbulent kinetic Intensity greater than 100%

#1 
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 5 
Hello,
I am modelizing a gas flow through a Laval nozzle. (the flow become supersonic) with a 2D axisymmetric model. I started the simulation with a laminar flow to ease convergence. Then I want include Turbulence in my model. I read enough the FLUENT documentation and my former turbulence courses to understand the main ideas of the different models available. The RMS model being quite unstable, I decide, in order to complete my convergedlaminarsolution, to set up a ke model with enhanced wall function ( my mesh is not wallresolved). My max Reynolds number being ~50 000 and considering the hydraulic diameter, I set a Intensity of 5% at inlet and outlet. The solution converged quite well, with physically coherent results, and the flow pattern is not deeply changed from the laminar solution. But by plotting the Turbulent intensity, it appears that my TI is ~1e6 on almost all the nozzle domain ! The TI should be between 0% to 100% or maybe I misunderstood something very important, how is it possible ? I wonder wether the supersonic flow can make the turbulence model incorrect ? Thank you Florian 

November 6, 2012, 12:56 

#3 
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 5 
Thanks, but the residuals of the Turbulence parameters (k and epsilon) converge as well, reached 105, just as the other residuals. And my intuition is that a 10000% of turbulent intensity should totally deteriorate the flow pattern and the flow should appear as a big mess, am I wrong ?
Florian 

November 6, 2012, 15:07 

#4 
Member

With a Re number that you mentioned, the whole inside of domain is naturally a mess and turbulent intensity gets very high. I do not suppose that it's wrong since your parameters converged.
Best regards. 

November 7, 2012, 06:47 

#6 
New Member
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 5 
The turbulent intensity is defined by Uturb/Uavg : ratio of the turbulent velocity with the mean flow velocity. I read everywhere than TI = 10% is already a quite turbulent flow, but of course, nothing mathematically prevent Uturb (named u' in ANSYS help if I remember well) to be bigger than Uavg, except maybe if some high order term in (Uturb/Uavg)^(n) are neglicted to derive the averaged Navier Stokes equation and the other turbulentrelevant equations, but I don't think so. Imagine a fast flow going rigth into a wall perpendicular to the flow direction. At the stagnation point, the turbulent flow is way higher than the mean flow, isn't it ?
I would like plot actually separatly Uavg and Uturb, is it possible ? 

November 7, 2012, 07:49 

#7 
Member

[QUOTE=FlorianM;390764]The turbulent intensity is defined by Uturb/Uavg : ratio of the turbulent velocity with the mean flow velocity. I read everywhere than TI = 10% is already a quite turbulent flow, but of course, nothing mathematically prevent Uturb (named u' in ANSYS help if I remember well) to be bigger than Uavg, except maybe if some high order term in (Uturb/Uavg)^(n) are neglicted to derive the averaged Navier Stokes equation and the other turbulentrelevant equations, but I don't think so. Imagine a fast flow going rigth into a wall perpendicular to the flow direction. At the stagnation point, the turbulent flow is way higher than the mean flow, isn't it ?
It is. Extreme fluctuations could result in high jump of u'. 

November 8, 2012, 10:14 

#9 
New Member
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3
Rep Power: 5 
Hi all,
I had some problems with the turbulence intensity myself. One suggestion that could resolve the affair is that FLUENT is apparently not normalizing the u' on the local mean velocity but on a velocity selected in the "Reference Value" tab. So, if your inlet velocity is relatively small compared to the maximum velocity found in the domain and you chose inlet section as your reference value, unreasonably huge intensities will appear due to the high fluctuation velocities are not normalized on the high local mean velocity, but on the rather small inlet velocity. If the flow is looking as expected and the other values are realistic, I would not worry too much. It is just a postprocessing problem after all... 

May 8, 2013, 20:43 
Turbulence Intensity

#11 
New Member
Pete
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 11
Rep Power: 6 
You can go under Report tab in Fluent 14.5 and select "from inlet" in Compute form. Also, depending on the length scale of the your problem change the value of Length. Run the solution of a few iterations. It will give you reasonable values of Turbulence Intensity.


May 10, 2013, 11:55 

#12 
Senior Member
david
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 112
Rep Power: 5 
I just thought i'd throw some of my thoughts into the mix here. Theoretically, the turbulence intensity is a function of k and U. And if you're getting values over 100%, the results are pretty much rubbish ( as with most CFD results lol). You've mentioned that you have used the kepsilon turbulence model. This eddyviscosity turbulence model calculates your dissipation rate thru the eddy viscosity ratio. If you've received some warning during your calculations saying turbulent viscosity ratio limited to 1e6 or something like that, chances are your k values are wrongly calculated. Not sure if it might help you but just something i would just like to share.


June 2, 2014, 17:26 

#13  
Member
John
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: My home :)
Posts: 70
Rep Power: 6 
Quote:
Code:
SQRT(2/3*turbkineticenergy)/velocitymagnitude You may multiply it by 100 to get TI as percentage. 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
question about turbulent kinetic energy  junker4236  Main CFD Forum  17  February 2, 2016 20:29 
Problem with divergence  TDK  FLUENT  10  September 8, 2012 01:11 
Turbulent intensity  swe704  Main CFD Forum  0  November 13, 2009 04:42 
setting value of turbulent intensity and turbulent viscosity ratio in wind tunnel  nuimlabib  Main CFD Forum  0  August 4, 2009 00:05 
Turbulent Kinetic Energy  Olga  FLUENT  2  October 11, 2002 15:05 