CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > FLUENT

RSM in 2D Flow

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 18, 2017, 02:06
Default RSM in 2D Flow
  #1
New Member
 
Pawarit
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 2
pawarit28 is on a distinguished road
Hi,

I was wondering why specifically we require 4 additional transport equations for the Reynolds stresses in 2D flow??

(For the 3D case, it makes perfect sense to take all 6 Reynolds stress components). I understand that turbulence is a 3D phenomenon. Hence, for 2D simulations, we can allow a zero mean W (out of the page) with a fluctuating velocity w'.

But then it raises the question:
Why do we solve for (w'w')?? but not (u'w') or (v'w') then?

Thank you very much everyone!
pawarit28 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 18, 2017, 02:37
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Svetlana Tkachenko
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 144
Rep Power: 5
Светлана is on a distinguished road
This is a duplicate of Second-Moment Closure in 2D Flow, I hope an administrator is able to merge the threads and put them all into the FLUENT forum.
Светлана is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 18, 2017, 02:55
Default
  #3
New Member
 
Pawarit
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 2
pawarit28 is on a distinguished road
hope this stays on the main forum as its a general theory question and doesn't only apply to fluent. thank you
pawarit28 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 19, 2017, 01:03
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,904
Rep Power: 26
LuckyTran will become famous soon enoughLuckyTran will become famous soon enough
So I answered this question also in the other thread. But I must say this is a very good question!

In 2D you have a zero mean w but non-zero w'. That is correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pawarit28 View Post
Why do we solve for (w'w')?? but not (u'w') or (v'w') then?
So for 2D mean-flow, you don't ever need to solve for u'w' or v'w', you can skip them. They can be anything and it would not affect your solution.

So the question is why w'w'?

1. If you solve for the Reynolds stresses via transport equations. However, you still have a closure problem for the Reynolds stress equations. Eventually you bring in a transport equation for k and a scalar dissipation to arrive at closure. To get k though, you need w'w'.

2. In most formulations w'w' is hiding in the x-momentum and y-momentum equation in the turbulent pressure because there is an isotropic part of the Reynolds stresses hiding in there. Fluent uses this formulation. However, fundamentally, there is a w'w' even in the x and y momentum equations.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 19, 2017, 05:57
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Pawarit
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 7
Rep Power: 2
pawarit28 is on a distinguished road
Hi, thanks so much for your great answer! I'm learning a lot from this

Correct me if I'm wrong:
- d(u'w')/dz and d(v'w')/dz do actually appear in the 2D momentum equations (see attached)
- However, we can skip these because we impose that these quantities have no variation in the z direction when solving a 2D flow. Hence, it doesn't matter what u'w' and v'w' are.

Now, just one final thing for me to figure out..

Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
In most formulations w'w' is hiding in the x-momentum and y-momentum equation in the turbulent pressure because there is an isotropic part of the Reynolds stresses hiding in there. Fluent uses this formulation. However, fundamentally, there is a w'w' even in the x and y momentum equations.
Main question: Where is w'w' fundamentally in the x and y momentum equations? (see attached image)

Especially for RSM where we don't use the Boussinesq hypothesis, w'w' would only show up in the transport equation for k as you mentioned earlier, which I completely agree with. But that's not really fundamental then if I understand correctly?

Thank you again
Attached Images
File Type: png 2D-RANS-Momentum.png (33.7 KB, 1 views)

Last edited by pawarit28; May 19, 2017 at 09:40.
pawarit28 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 19, 2017, 08:23
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,904
Rep Power: 26
LuckyTran will become famous soon enoughLuckyTran will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by pawarit28 View Post
Hi, thanks so much for your great answer! I'm learning a lot from this

Correct me if I'm wrong:
- d(u'w')/dz and d(v'w')/dz do actually appear in the 2D momentum equations (see attached)
- However, we can skip these because we impose that these quantities to have no variation in the z direction when solving a 2D flow. Hence, it doesn't matter what u'w' and v'w' are.
That is correct. d(u'w')/dz and d(v'w')/dz are automatically zero in 2D, otherwise you are talking 3D.

Regarding k, I will double-check. You may be right and it only appears when you apply the Boussinesq hypothesis. My initial thoughts however is that you have shown the incompressible RANS. There is only 1 set of terms involving the fluctuating velocities (when there can be up to 3 coming from the advection part) along with the fluctuating viscous stresses. When you try to solve RANS analytically you often do order of magnitude analysis and kill a lot of these terms, but when you want to derive the correct RANS equations, you should keep them.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 20, 2017, 10:16
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Lucky Tran
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 1,904
Rep Power: 26
LuckyTran will become famous soon enoughLuckyTran will become famous soon enough
Ah-hah. I found my mistake. You are right, the w'w' does not appear in the momentum equations until you start modelling.

Where they do appear is in the energy equation. See Eqns. (14-16)
https://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Favr...okes_equations

Some concluding remarks:

Depending on the school of thought, the "Navier-Stokes equations" may refer to all three equations (continuity, momentum, & energy) together. Here it is not incorrect to say that w'w' appears somewhere in the 2D Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes.

But to be even more fundamental, there is only 1 Reynolds Stress tensor. In cartesian this tensor has 9 terms, of which 6 are independent. Really there's only 1 tensor and you need to solve a transport equation for the Reynolds stress. You shouldn't need to worry about which of those 9 or which of those 6 need to be solved because always you solve a transport equation for the entire transported quantity: mass, momentum, energy, turbulent kinetic energy, Reynolds stress, etc.

For example, there's only 1 velocity vector. It's not important that the velocity can be referred to by u,v,w in x,y,z coordinates. Decomposing these vectors and tensors into their components is just from human convenience of looking at the terms. The numerical solver can directly solve for these vectors and tensors quite easily (users of OpenFOAM are aware of how easy it is to modify the governing equations this way). One can makeup a coordinate system with 4 non-orthogonal dimensions and end up with 4 velocity components and many more parts of Reynolds stresses. The wrong & hasty interpretation of this 4-D Navier-Stokes would be that we suddenly have more unknowns than equations. However, that is not the case as long as one does the proper algebra.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
reynolds stress model, reynolds stress tensor

Thread Tools
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 On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Exit Corrected Mass Flow Rate Mesh Sensitivity Study s__s__s CFX 4 July 20, 2016 11:46
Review: Reversed flow CRT FLUENT 0 July 20, 2012 13:03
Different flow patterns in CFX and Fluent avi@lpsc FLUENT 4 April 8, 2012 06:12
Flow meter Design CD adapco Group Marketing Siemens 3 June 21, 2011 08:33
mass flow in is not equal to mass flow out saii CFX 2 September 18, 2009 08:07


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:06.