Quote:
Thanks a lot for asking this question. I was planning to put this very question in the forum this morning since it was asked to me in an interview and I had no clue about it. I understand that an explanation to this must be given in one of those turbulence modelling books, but if some of the enlightened users can tell the answer to this question it will be great. Raashid 
Can some of the enlightened users give answer to this question ?
It will be very helpful. Thanks in advance, Raashid 
Hi Casey, Hi Raashid,
From application point of view you can find short but good info in the following references...I remember once I tried to understand the mathematical formulation and I did it somewhat ..but it was hard....I used some online notes and articles . [About the Raashid I'm sure that he knows all of the following materials....much better than me... :)] 1search for "turbulent" keyword in CFX help manual. 2 this link also covers general info about this matter http://www.cfdonline.com/Forums/mai...gamodels.html Anyway....If you find good information I also will be happy.... 
Hey guys,
I wrote a paper that gives a pretty in depth analysis and was able to learn about a lot of the differences. Basically the twoequation models are empirical and contain different terms in the dissipation equation to account for high (mean velocity) strain areas. Where can I post the description in PDF format? Thanks, Casey 
Quote:
If the paper is online, simply give the web address... Otherwise I think you can upload it here as an attachement to your post. The other way is that if it's a big file, and you cant upload it here, you can upload it on such websites that are free file hosts and then share the web address ( and username and password if needed) here. Thanks and Be Happy 
Quote:
As mohammad has said there are many ways of sharing the paper. If you do not want your paper to be that open you can mail your paper to selected users. Please do it as it will be very helpful in our understanding of CFD. Raashid 
paper
I have read the book by Wilcox who popularized the model, "Turbulence modelling in CFD".
In his book, all over, he shows how much komega model results are superior to the kepsilon model in many different types of flows(near wall flows, seperated flows, ...).There is a chapter for compressible flows if you want to read. But even in that book I don't remember a term by term explanations of the differences of the modeled omega & epsilon equations. If MEANGREEN has wrote a paper about it I would very much, like to read that. 
2 Attachment(s)
Hi everyone,
I am going to try and post the latex of the Background and theory section of my paper. I may publish some of the data. Please let me know if you want to cite any part of the paper. We can work out a "private communcation" or I can tell you the citation if I got the info from somewhere else. 
I also want to point out that the Wilcox book is very good. After doing this project I would say that the komega model is better than the standard kepsilon model, but that the RNG kepsilon model is better than the Wilcox komega model.

http://personalpages.manchester.ac.u...hydr/index.htm
Try this... there are a couple of lectures on turbulence modeling. 
If anyone uses the information that I wrote in that paper, please cite me.
Thanks, Casey 
Quote:
It is also strange that omega is inverse to epsilon (rate/scale of turbulence) and which means they are directly related. Still there is huge difference in results for the practice flows with both models. 
The simplist explination is this: both the komega and kepsilon models have many emperical terms. The komega model has terms that have been updated over the years. The komega model also has a different form of the turbulent viscosity equation. Page 5 of LaMarcheBackgroundandTheory.pdf above explains how the terms in the komega model make it more robust model.
Casey 
All times are GMT 4. The time now is 17:43. 