# Turbulent Prandtl number

 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 April 2, 2013, 19:45 Turbulent Prandtl number #1 New Member   Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 11 Rep Power: 5 Hello, I'm trying to run a given case and it is said that the turbulent Prandtl number is set to 0.9 (no more information). I've searched in Fluent and the definition of the turbulent Prandtl number is unclear to me, there are at least 5 different turbulent Prandtl numbers (with SST): - TKE inner - TKE outer - SDR inner - SDR outer - Energy - Wall I don't think the first four are related to the given turbulent Prandtl number in my paper. But the Energy and Wall turbulent Prandtl number have the same value, close to 0.9. Should I change both of them? Do you have any information about turbulent Prandtl number? I've looked at the definition of turbulent Prandtl number (wiki, cfd-online) and at the definition in Fluent Manual, but I can't really figure out which one is concerned here. The case is about hypersonic interactions and heat transfer. Thanks for your help, Ravenn

 April 3, 2013, 10:57 #2 Senior Member   OJ Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: United Kindom Posts: 475 Rep Power: 12 Can you give more information about the paper you are referring to? OJ

 April 3, 2013, 11:21 #3 Administrator     Peter Jones Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 684 Rep Power: 10 The turbulent Prandtl number is used to relate turbulent heat flux with turbulent momentum flux. The definition is given in for example this CFD-Wiki page: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Favre...okes_equations By setting a constant turbulent Prandtl number you can compute the turbulent heat flux based on the turbulent eddy-viscosity that a turbulence model predicts. Changing the turbulent Prandtl number is a way to tune heat transfer results. So always be skeptical about papers where it is not stated what turbulent Prandtl number has been used.

 April 3, 2013, 11:24 #4 New Member   Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 11 Rep Power: 5 I only have hard copies of different papers: - AIAA paper 93-0779: numerical simulation of crossing shock/turbulent boundary layer interaction at Mach 8.3 "The baldwin-Lomax and the Rodi k-epsilon turbulence models are employed, the molecular viscosity was specified by Sutherland's law. The molecular Prandtl number is 0.73 (air) and the turbulent Prandtl number is 0.9." - AIAA Journal Vol 39 No 6 June 2001 p: 985-995: Insights in Turbulence Modeling for Crossing-Shock-Wave/Boundary-Layer Interactions "The Sutherland's law is used to calculate the laminar viscosity,and a constant laminar Prandtl number of 0.72 is assumed. Central differencing is used to evaluate the viscous terms.The steady solution is obtained by applying a time-marching method based on the hybrid approximate actorization/relaxation algorithm. The first solutions presented here are computed with the k–x turbulence model by Wilcox and a constant turbulent Prandtl number of 0.9." Ravenn Edit: That's exactly the problem, I've seen in many papers "constant turbulent Prandtl number of 0.9" without more information, I suppose it is linked to the hypersonic characteristic of the flow, but it dos not seem like a "cheat" or something to obtain better results. Or someone proposed in the 50's to use this value for this case and ever since everybody uses it. Edit 2: In the cfd-online wiki page, it is said after equation 26 that: "Where Prt is a turbulent Prandtl number. Often a constant Prt = 0.9 is used." In that case, which one of the fluent turbulent Prandtl number is concerned? Is it possible that turbulent Prendtl numbers in fluent are not this turbulent Prandtl number Prt defined here, hence the Prt would be a results of the calculation and not a property defined before the calculation? Last edited by Ravenn; April 3, 2013 at 11:40.

 April 3, 2013, 11:50 #5 Administrator     Peter Jones Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 684 Rep Power: 10 In laminar flow the viscosity is used to compute the heat-flux using Fourier's law and a laminar, well defined, Prandtl number as: Most turbulence models just give a turbulent eddy viscosity . By setting a turbulent Prandtl number the turbulent heat flux can be estimated in the same way by just using the turbulent eddy viscosity that the turbulence mode predicts: Using a constant turbulent Prandtl number is a simplification and it is not fully correct. Experimentally a value of something close to 0.9 has been measured. You can find more information and further references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulent_Prandtl_number jzc likes this.

 April 3, 2013, 17:18 #6 New Member   Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 11 Rep Power: 5 So, I've post-processed 2 different calculations, one with the default values for energy and wall Prandtl number, and the other with energy and wall Prandtl number set to 0.9. I've read carefully fluent user manual and here is what I understood: - - - In Fluent, it is possible to obtain , and . With these values on a line normal to a surface, I've calculated and then . It appears that for the first calculation, outside the laminar part of boundary layer, which is the value of energy and wall Prandtl numbers. For the second calculation where I changed the value of energy and wall Prandtl numbers to 0.9, outside the laminar part of boundary layer. In the laminar part of boundary layer, , hence is undefined, or very high. I'm wondering now what is the value of in the laminar part of boundary layer for the papers where is said to be fixed to 0.9. In my opinion it depends on which parameter is used to calculate the other: - , fixed to 0.9, and are used to calculate (papers) - and are calculated by the turbulence model, and can be deduced with the same procedure I used. (Fluent)

 May 23, 2016, 13:06 #7 Senior Member   Shamoon Jamshed Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Karachi Posts: 181 Rep Power: 9 Dear Ravenn I was facing the same issue. I used two turbulence models, kepsilon and k-omega SST. I was getting incorrect Nu from the komega. So I decreased very much the Prt and got my result close to experiment. But since I used very low value (0.35) I am still doubtful. Are you still working on that too? yuor post seems 3 years old

 May 24, 2016, 15:57 #8 New Member   Join Date: Jan 2013 Posts: 11 Rep Power: 5 Hello Shamoon, I'm sorry but it's been a while since I last worked on this subject (almost 3 years as you see) and I don't really remember everything, I've rediscovered the subject with your question. It appears I still receive the alerts for this post^^ Good luck for your research!

July 18, 2016, 22:25
how to change the Prt with k-e
#9
New Member

minqiangwu
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1
Rep Power: 0
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Shamoon Jamshed Dear Ravenn I was facing the same issue. I used two turbulence models, kepsilon and k-omega SST. I was getting incorrect Nu from the komega. So I decreased very much the Prt and got my result close to experiment. But since I used very low value (0.35) I am still doubtful. Are you still working on that too? yuor post seems 3 years old

would you mind telling me how to change the Prt with k-e，I do really need it THX

 July 19, 2016, 11:36 #10 Senior Member   Shamoon Jamshed Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Karachi Posts: 181 Rep Power: 9 In the model--> viscous select k-epsilon then select realziable On the right side there is a list of constants among which Energy and Wall Prandtal numbers are there

July 19, 2016, 11:38
#11
Senior Member

Shamoon Jamshed
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Karachi
Posts: 181
Rep Power: 9
Quote:
 Originally Posted by pete In laminar flow the viscosity is used to compute the heat-flux using Fourier's law and a laminar, well defined, Prandtl number as: Most turbulence models just give a turbulent eddy viscosity . By setting a turbulent Prandtl number the turbulent heat flux can be estimated in the same way by just using the turbulent eddy viscosity that the turbulence mode predicts: Using a constant turbulent Prandtl number is a simplification and it is not fully correct. Experimentally a value of something close to 0.9 has been measured. You can find more information and further references here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbulent_Prandtl_number

Dear Ravenn

I was facing the same issue. I used two turbulence models, kepsilon and k-omega SST. I was getting incorrect Nu from the komega. So I decreased very much the Prt and got my result close to experiment. But since I used very low value (0.35) I am still doubtful.

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post riesotto OpenFOAM 50 May 26, 2014 01:47 maxj Main CFD Forum 4 March 5, 2013 07:16 Thomas P. Abraham Main CFD Forum 10 February 15, 2011 11:11 hjasak OpenFOAM Native Meshers: blockMesh 11 August 15, 2008 07:36

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:40.