CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

Question regarding Reynolds Number and Turbulent Intensity

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 4, 2013, 21:17
Default Question regarding Reynolds Number and Turbulent Intensity
  #1
New Member
 
Adam Squires
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 4
maxj is on a distinguished road
Hello,

I have a question regarding Reynolds numbers.

As I understand, the higher a Reynolds number, the more turbulent a flow becomes, with Re>4000 considered turbulent.

I have a model where I've calculated a Reynolds number of 10^7, and when going to set my model boundary conditions I'm asked for a 'Turbulent Intensity' parameter, so I do some research and find the following equation:

I=0.16*(Re)^-1/8

So my question is, why does the turbulent intensity decrease as the Reynolds number increases, when a higher Reynolds number flow is meant to become more turbulent?

For my calculations I got a turbulent intensity of around 2%, which seemed far too low..
maxj is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 5, 2013, 03:43
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
RodriguezFatz's Avatar
 
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,097
Rep Power: 16
RodriguezFatz will become famous soon enough
Saying that a flow for Re>4000 is considered to be turbulent is not correct. The Reynolds number always depends on a typical length scale. Normally you have multiple conclusive length scales you can use. In a pipe you can use the radius or the diameter (what people normally do) -> you get Re differences of a factor of 2 for identical cases. Also the critical Reynolds number strongly depends on the shape, roughness,... of your setup. Therefore they can differ from case to case by orders of magnitude.

I don't know where that formula is from, but I would try to find a similar case in the literature / a paper and look for the intensity they used.

By the way: A decreasing turbulent intensity does not mean, that the flow becomes less turbulent. It just says that the velocity fluctuations divided by the mean velocity decreases. If both values increase, but the mean velocity increases even more, than the intensity decreases.
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower.
RodriguezFatz is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 5, 2013, 05:53
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Adam Squires
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 4
maxj is on a distinguished road
Hi there RodriguezFatz, and thank you for your response!

Your insight into Re numbers is appreciated, so thank you! I did use the pipe diameter to calculate my Re number, the model I have is reasonably simple, and has allowed me to make several assumptions in order to treat it as more of an academic exercise

I find it hard to understand how the mean velocity can increase more, when the Re number is also inversely proportional to it.. surely both values will change at the exact same rate, am I not correct?

I will search through some more reputable literature today, however here are my sources so far:


http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Turbulence_intensity

http://www.efm.leeds.ac.uk/CIVE/CIVE..._turbulent.htm
maxj is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 5, 2013, 06:15
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
RodriguezFatz's Avatar
 
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,097
Rep Power: 16
RodriguezFatz will become famous soon enough
Hi,

I did not expect the turbulent intensity to decrease for increasing Re in a pipe... but: If you look at different Re, you will see, that the turbulent intensity does not change too much for a wide range of Re. Also a value of about 4% can't be very wrong. You can also have a look how your results change when you change the inlet intesity from 3% to 4% and I guess that you won't see any change at all. But try it!
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower.
RodriguezFatz is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 5, 2013, 07:16
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Adam Squires
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 4
maxj is on a distinguished road
Ahaa that's exactly what I mean! The equation works perfectly, and is an more than efficient approximation equation for the purposes I'm using it for, and as you say, it did come out fine when modeling.

I'm just worried, as this is part of my final year dissertation, and it's one of the few aspects of my project that I don't completely understand, and it's exactly the kind of question I feel that I could be asked in my dissertation defense I guess it's back to the books, unless anyone else could share some insight!
maxj is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
reynolds number, turbulence, turbulent intensity

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Low Reynolds number k-E Turbulent Model Sohail FLUENT 13 December 3, 2013 12:59
A question about Turbulent Schmidt Number in CFX piyo CFX 8 June 20, 2013 18:40
low turbulent reynold number C-CARE CFX 4 March 12, 2004 07:36
Turbulent Reynolds number Free_and_SIMPLE Main CFD Forum 3 March 3, 2003 09:47


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 20:20.