CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS

Eddy viscosity hypothesis versus Reynolds stress models

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

LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   August 12, 2013, 06:20
Question Eddy viscosity hypothesis versus Reynolds stress models
Senior Member
JuPa's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Britain
Posts: 361
Rep Power: 14
JuPa is on a distinguished road
As time progresses computing power also increases. Just compare the power of desktop computers nowadays to 5 or 6 years ago.

Taking this into consideration why aren't more and more people using the Reynolds stress models as apposed to eddy viscosity models?

Surely the computational cost of Reynolds stress models is decreasing making them an attractive alternative to the Eddy viscosity models.

The reason I ask this question is because I've read recent papers (2011 and 2012) where the authors have used two equation models to model strong anisotropic flows, where in my opinion the Reynolds stress models would be better suited.

Am I missing a trick?
JuPa is offline   Reply With Quote


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Link between eddy viscosity and subgrid-scale turbulent viscosity in LES Marvin Main CFD Forum 6 December 4, 2009 11:08
non-linear eddy viscosity models George Main CFD Forum 0 December 11, 2006 19:14
Questions about the Reynolds stress model empirer2002 Main CFD Forum 1 January 5, 2006 07:37
Why Turbulence models are not universal. Senthil Main CFD Forum 4 July 5, 2000 04:34
Reynolds Stress Models Roued Main CFD Forum 20 February 8, 2000 02:58

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:44.