|
[Sponsors] |
October 16, 2001, 10:27 |
"Pseudo" Dissipation
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
In most scientific articles dealing with turbulence a dissipation rate of the turbulent kinetic energy is defined as: \epsilon=\nu \cdot \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j}. In only a handful of articles the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy is defined as: \epsilon = [( \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i}) \cdot ( \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i}) ] and the above mentioned definition is titled "pseudo dissipation". Can somebody explain the difference in the two terms and why do most scientific articles refer to the simplified definition of the dissipation?
|
|
October 16, 2001, 14:35 |
Re: "Pseudo" Dissipation
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
(1). In Hinze's book, p-65-, eq.(1-98), term-V, it is nu * mean of { [(dui/dxj) + (duj/dxi)] * (duj/dxi) }.(2). In Wilcox's book, p-104-, eq.(4.5), it is nu * mean of { (dui/dxk) * (dui/dxk) }. (3). There is a short explanation on p-105-. (4). So, if you have to be right, use the long form. Or take 2% error by using the short form.
|
|
October 19, 2001, 12:52 |
Re: "Pseudo" Dissipation
|
#3 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Fabian,
I have addressed this issue in reply to your other question about dissipation and pressure drop in DNS my Mansour et al. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Artificial dissipation for NS equations, flow in a pipe | RameshK | Main CFD Forum | 8 | November 13, 2011 10:29 |
CFX12 rif errors | romance | CFX | 4 | October 26, 2009 13:41 |
Dissipation in Harten-Yee and Davis-Yee TVD Scheme | cfdxue | Main CFD Forum | 0 | April 29, 2008 10:45 |
Dissipation rate access | K. Kevala | FLUENT | 0 | July 14, 2004 11:11 |
calculation of (turbulent) dissipation energy ? | max | Main CFD Forum | 3 | August 18, 1999 09:42 |