
[Sponsors] 
September 29, 1998, 06:49 
CFD experimental validation

#1 
Guest
Posts: n/a

In the field of CFD I am a novice (I'm a researcher in experimental fluiddynamics) and I apologize if mine is a trivial question. I would like to know how to determine inlet boundary conditions of turbulent dissipation (epsilon = e) using LDA experimental data on length scales, for a CFD code with a two equations ke turbulence model applied to a duct flow (with square section preferably). I think I could use the relation e = C*(k^1.5)/l, where e is the turbulent viscous dissipation, C is a constant, K the turbulent kinetic energy (I can evaluate it) and l the integral length scale of the flow. The problem is how to quantify C, with regards, I suppose, to the experiment (i.e. duct flow) and to the turbulent Reynolds number ul/ni (in my case 238: when is it defined high?), where u is the rms flow velocity and ni the kinematic viscosity of the fluid (air). Other expressions for e, as in example those formulated in "Tennekes/Lumley A first course in turbulence" or in "McComb The physics of fluid turbulence", give very different results.
Thanks in advance for any suggestion. 

October 10, 1998, 06:05 
Re: CFD experimental validation

#2 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Massimiliano
Firstly, I can be considered a novice as I have only worked with CFD packages for less than a year. I apologise if my contribution does not help you solve your problem. There are 2 ways to set inlet b.c.: 1. set hydraulic diameter and turbulence intensity if there is this option in the dialog box. 2. set k and e if you insist or tere is no other option. Integral or turbulence length scale l is a physical quantity related to the size of the large eddies that contain the energy in turbulent flow. Since these eddies cannot be larger than the duct, the integral length scale is equal to 0.07L, by experimental result. The factor 0.07 is based on the max. value of the mixing length in a fullydeveloped turbulent pipe flow. L is usually denoted as the hydraulic diameter of te pipe. I hope this will help. Good luck. Lam 

October 12, 1998, 13:15 
Re: CFD experimental validation

#3 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Your suggestion it's no doubt helpful for me, and I'm very grateful to you for it, but my primary need it's to know a relation between boundary conditions and experimental data specific for the case studied.


October 16, 1998, 09:28 
Re: CFD experimental validation

#4 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Massimiliano
Sorry for not able to help out the last time. I hope that this may help. Based on the past experience with the CFD package from Fluent, the epsilon is given as (C^0.75)*(k^1.5)/l; where C is an empirical constant, k for kinetic turbulence energy and l for turbulence length scale. For ke model, all I know is that C is equal to 0.0845 by default. I am afraid that I cannot tell you more about C. If you are running a CFD package, there may be other options like defining the hydraulic radius and the turbulence intensity; or kinetic turbulence energy and the characteristic length. If there is these options, then you may simplify that in the inlet b. c. dialog box. As for the turbulent Re nos., the nos. you had showed, may be the cell Re nos.(if it is from the CFD simulated results). If that is true, then you may find that these nos. are calculated from cellcell boundary. The question is rather hard to give you a proper answer, as I have not been analyzing these nos. at the time I was helping out in the research work. This is because it was not the main criteria at that time and also not what we are targetting during that period. Hope there is something you can find in this email. Good luck again. 

November 18, 1998, 11:20 
Re: CFD experimental validation

#5 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hi Massimiliano,
you don't need do apologize, im working on cfd and turbulence sine one and half year and i have similar problems. But now to your Problem: The formular you suggested is an emperical one. I think it isn't very accurate. Perhaps there is an alternative way to get epsilon. If your turbulence is decaying. (there is no shear or other source for production of turbulent kinetic energy) then you can say that epsilon =  U * dK / dx U is mean velocity. see Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1996 vol 312 pp 373407 especially page 380 Brown, Bilger An experimental study of a reactive plume in grid turbulence greets Roland 

November 24, 1998, 08:07 
Re: CFD experimental validation

#6 
Guest
Posts: n/a

First of all, thank You very much for Your suggestion, which is useful for my study. Anyway my formula to calculate epsilon seems to be the same relation used in the cited article to get the integral length scale (l) with the constant C = 1. Thank You again and goodbye.


Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Experimental validation  mach13  Main CFD Forum  0  February 12, 2010 02:42 
validation of CFD results  andy  FLUENT  0  June 13, 2007 13:55 
CFD VALUES AT EXPERIMENTAL POINT  J  FLUENT  1  September 25, 2005 16:55 
experimental validation of cfx code  ravindra tupake  CFX  2  August 18, 2002 09:11 
ASME CFD Symposium  Call for Papers  Chris Kleijn  Main CFD Forum  0  September 25, 2001 10:17 