|
[Sponsors] |
March 17, 2015, 08:25 |
|
#41 | |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,768
Rep Power: 71 |
Quote:
The general continuum assumption is based on the fact that the smallest characteristic lenght of turbulence (i.e., Kolmogorov scale) is several order of magnitude greater than the mean free path. I dont know real case where such lenghts become comparable, even shock waves lenghts (Mach <3-4) have one order of magnitude greater. So, what do you mean for deviation from continuum mechanics? |
||
March 17, 2015, 09:18 |
|
#42 |
Senior Member
|
That is true. In my opinion, the more or less satisfactory advance in turbulence is the Kolmogorov's theory. The rest is handwaiwing and numerical simulations.
|
|
March 17, 2015, 09:37 |
|
#43 | |
Member
Alex
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 12 |
Quote:
Quite frankly, I don't see how we can develop a full theory of turbulence while simultaneously neglecting the physical fact that fluids are made up of molecules and their ensemble behavior governs what we observe. What is the smallest scale we have generated turbulence at anyway? Have we generated turbulence in near super-fluid systems? These are the experiments that need to be considered to determine the physical limits of the governing rules of turbulent flow. |
||
March 17, 2015, 09:54 |
|
#44 |
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19 |
I'm not sure I understand. Your statement seems to imply that we don't understand laminar flow. For example, what happens to shear flow as it gets very very thin.
|
|
March 17, 2015, 10:04 |
|
#45 |
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19 |
Another example, the viscous sub layer is between one and two orders thick in regards to Re where Re=u(+)*v(+). However inside this sublayer are very very small U shaped vortices like little hairs sticking up. Even though it is very unsteady in this region, the region is not considered turbulent. At least from what I understand. As mentioned a few times now, I'm definitely not an expert. So I guess the uncertainty is whether the Navier-Stokes equations can be correctly applied to that region?
|
|
March 17, 2015, 10:11 |
|
#46 |
Member
Alex
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 54
Rep Power: 12 |
Im not expert either. I left a PhD program due to a lack of funding, but I read a lot and still teach myself things. Anyway, a really good example of where N-S fails is in filtration. Take a look at submicron scale filtration, youll find most numerical methods need to employ an adjusted Brownian motion solver. Other cool things, such as thermophoresis, I do not believe are captured by N-S, though I am not as well read on microscale flows as on larger scale topics.
|
|
March 17, 2015, 11:12 |
|
#47 |
Senior Member
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 500
Rep Power: 19 |
Does anyone know of a reference to a numerical (or real life) experiment of what happens to the boundary layer of a spinning cylinder (started impulsively or some other way) in still air as the boundary layer thickens up? I gather as the boundary layer increases in size, a wave will develop and it will eventually go unstable (depending on omega I guess).
|
|
March 17, 2015, 11:19 |
|
#48 |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,768
Rep Power: 71 |
To the best of my knowledge, there exists studies that confirmed the correctness of NS equations from the statistically averaged molecular point of view.
As I wrote above, shock layer for air is about 10^-6 - 10^-7m and is still well governed by the NS equations as confirmed in some observations. Kolomogorov scale is much greater, so I don't see how any correction can be relevant. Said that, if you see difference in filtration or similar problem these are nothing to do with validity of NS for turbulence, simply such problems can require to focus on nanofluidics wherein many effects can be relevant and are erroneously disregarded in general flow problems |
|
March 17, 2015, 12:11 |
|
#49 |
Member
robo
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 47
Rep Power: 12 |
I aggree with FMDenaro. The mean free path is orders of mangitude lower then the Kolmogorov scale. That is the reason you can neglect statistical mechanics in the vast majority of cases. The examples you cited may in fact be cases where some statistical mechanics are required, but those are niche cases where you are purposely introducing or changing some facet of the intermolecular forces. That does not imply that turbulence requires a statistical description, it just implies that it is required when you mess with the intermolecular forces. The turbulent flow of air over a flat plate can be described by the NS equations using continuum mechanics, including the turbulent motions, with no need for a statistical description, precisely because the mean free path is orders of magnitude lower then the smallest turbulent motion.
|
|
March 17, 2015, 12:54 |
|
#50 | |
Senior Member
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,768
Rep Power: 71 |
Quote:
I remember a series of papers on JFM, I googled that http://journals.cambridge.org/action...%20Coutanceau& |
||
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Difference between Fluent transitional model and CFX transitional model | Anna Tian | FLUENT | 2 | August 7, 2014 10:52 |
LES transitional pipe entrance flow | hasanduz | Main CFD Forum | 2 | October 11, 2013 17:59 |
Question about transitional model | Anna Tian | CFX | 3 | March 4, 2013 16:45 |
Should I use the transitional turbulence? | hopehope | CFX | 1 | November 14, 2012 16:47 |
Questions about Y+ and Transitional Flows | Justin Figley | FLUENT | 4 | March 5, 2008 17:25 |