# turbulent model k-epsilon

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 June 25, 2004, 05:49 turbulent model k-epsilon #1 yann Guest   Posts: n/a hi, i am trying to look at the flow of air around a rectangle (length 7m and width 2.5m) (in turbulent regime). the inlet velocity is 16.66m/s. i solved in 2nd order implicit segregated. i have tried 3 different models of turbulent regime in order to compare them: k-epsilon standard, K-epsilon realisable and K-epsilon RNG. i did focus my study on the recirculation zone generated after the rectangle and the drag coefficient. the results i have are quite disturbing: length of recirculation zone: k-espilon standard: 4.44m k-epsilon realisable: 4.36m k-epsilon RNG: 7.59m drag coefficient k-espilon standard: 2.3811 k-epsilon realisable: 2.2554m k-epsilon RNG: 2.5053m my problem is that i dont understand why the length of the recirculation zone is that big for the case of the k-epsilon RNG. it is almost the double of the length for the realisable or the standard. if someone has an explanation that would be nice! thanks

 June 27, 2004, 14:20 Re: turbulent model k-epsilon #2 gopal Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, It depends on which model you are using. You have to select apporpriate model for your geometry from the literature available. Each model will treats the N-S equations in different way. So, you should be careful before selecting the Turbulence model.

 June 29, 2004, 13:40 Re: turbulent model k-epsilon #3 Iason Hatztheodorou Guest   Posts: n/a Hi there, I am doing something pretty similar right now. You can look up a paper by Yao, Savill and Sandham (in Flow, Turbulence and Combustion 68, 2002); they compare DNS and RANS for the truncated trailing edge flow. RANS always gave approximatelly half the re-circulation region. This might suggest that the RNG variant is actually closer to the truth. What is more peculiar is that the RNG and the realizable model do not agree well, but instead the realizable agrees with the standard. The solution will also depend on the wall functions used. Are you using the same wall functions in all 3 runs? Are the mesh densities the same? Also since you are using essentially variants of the same model, try using the S-A model or the k-omega model and compare with that as well. Good luck!

 July 7, 2004, 07:37 Re: turbulent model k-epsilon #4 ramezani Guest   Posts: n/a

 July 7, 2004, 07:39 Re: turbulent model k-epsilon #5 ramezani Guest   Posts: n/a

 July 25, 2004, 15:51 k-epsilon method #6 Surena Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Im Surena Norouzi. Im from iran. Im a fluid mechanic engineering. I try to solve internal flow in a gas turbine blade. I must to use the K-Epsilon Method to simulate flow. I use finite difference method to solve Navier Stocks equations. But i have not discreat form of K-Epsilon equation in staggered mesh. please help me. regards

 August 7, 2004, 08:18 Re: k-epsilon method #7 Ravi Guest   Posts: n/a hello, My project is also regarding internal flows of a turbine blade. I am trying to find the internal heat transfer coefficints and trying to cool the blade by means of impingement and film cooling. I am dealing with totally conjugat heat transfer. Can you please tell me on what model should i select and what boundary conditions should i apply. You please tell me as to what journals should i refer to or send some if you have already any. thanks Ravi

 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 vaina74 Main CFD Forum 6 April 26, 2010 06:03 orlik Fluent UDF and Scheme Programming 0 March 31, 2010 11:48 maruthamuthu_venkatraman OpenFOAM 0 March 16, 2010 04:27 Andrew Clarke FLUENT 5 May 19, 2008 13:40 Dolly Main CFD Forum 0 December 12, 2005 04:11

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:03.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top