# Introduction to turbulence/Nature of turbulence

### From CFD-Wiki

(fixed case) |
Rajkiran g (Talk | contribs) m (added link to turbulence closure problem) |
||

Line 9: | Line 9: | ||

There really are the two reasons for studying turbulence- engineering and physics! And they are not necessarily complementary, atleast in the short run. | There really are the two reasons for studying turbulence- engineering and physics! And they are not necessarily complementary, atleast in the short run. | ||

- | Certainly a case can be made that we don't know enough about the turbulence to even start to consider engineering problems. To begin with, we always have fewer equations that unknowns in any attempt to predict anything other than the instantaneous motions. This is the famous [[turbulence closure problem]]. | + | Certainly a case can be made that we don't know enough about the turbulence to even start to consider engineering problems. To begin with, we always have fewer equations that unknowns in any attempt to predict anything other than the instantaneous motions. This is the famous [[The_Turbulence_Closure_problem_and_the_Eddy_Viscosity|turbulence closure problem]]. |

Of course, closure is not a problem when performing a [[Direct numerical simulation (DNS)| direct numerical simulation]] in which we numerically produce the instantaneous motions in a computer using the exact equations governing the fluid. Unfortunately we won't be able to perform such simulations for real engineering problems until at least a few hundred generations of computers have come and gone. And this won't really help us too much, since even when we now perform a DNS simulation of a really simple flow, we are already overwhelmed by the amount of data and its apparent random behaviour. This is because without some kind of theory, we have no criteria for selecting from it in a single lifetime what is important. | Of course, closure is not a problem when performing a [[Direct numerical simulation (DNS)| direct numerical simulation]] in which we numerically produce the instantaneous motions in a computer using the exact equations governing the fluid. Unfortunately we won't be able to perform such simulations for real engineering problems until at least a few hundred generations of computers have come and gone. And this won't really help us too much, since even when we now perform a DNS simulation of a really simple flow, we are already overwhelmed by the amount of data and its apparent random behaviour. This is because without some kind of theory, we have no criteria for selecting from it in a single lifetime what is important. |

## Revision as of 02:42, 8 February 2007

## Contents |

# What is turbulence?

Turbulence is that state of fluid motion which is characterized by apparently random and chaotic three-dimensional vorticity. When turbulence is present, it usually dominates all other flow phenomena and results in increased energy dissipation, mixing, heat transfer, and drag.

For a long time scientists were not really sure in which sense turbulence is 'random', but they were pretty sure it was. Like any one who is trained in physics, we believe the flows we see around us must be the solution to some set of equations which govern. (This is after all what mechanics is about- writing equations to describe and predict the world around us) But because of the nature of the turbulence, it wasn't clear whether the equations themselves had some hidden randomness, or just the solutions. And if the latter, was it something the equations did to them, or a consequence of the intial conditions

# Why study turbulence?

There really are the two reasons for studying turbulence- engineering and physics! And they are not necessarily complementary, atleast in the short run.

Certainly a case can be made that we don't know enough about the turbulence to even start to consider engineering problems. To begin with, we always have fewer equations that unknowns in any attempt to predict anything other than the instantaneous motions. This is the famous turbulence closure problem.

Of course, closure is not a problem when performing a direct numerical simulation in which we numerically produce the instantaneous motions in a computer using the exact equations governing the fluid. Unfortunately we won't be able to perform such simulations for real engineering problems until at least a few hundred generations of computers have come and gone. And this won't really help us too much, since even when we now perform a DNS simulation of a really simple flow, we are already overwhelmed by the amount of data and its apparent random behaviour. This is because without some kind of theory, we have no criteria for selecting from it in a single lifetime what is important.

The engineer's counter argument to the scientist's lament above is:

- airplanes must fly,
- weather must be forecast,
- sewage and water management systems must be built
- society needs ever more energy-efficient hardware and gadgets.

Thus the engineer argues, no matter the inadequate state of our knowledge, **we have the responsibilty as engineers to do the best we can with what we have**. Who, considering the needs, could seriously argue with this? Almost incredibly - some physicists do!

It seems evident then that there must be at least two levels of assault on turbulence. At one level, the very nature of turbulence must be explored. At the other level, our current state of knowledge- however inadequate it might be- must be stretched to provide engineering solutions to real problems.

# The cost of our ignorance

It is difficult to place a price tag on the cost of our limited understanding of turbulence, but it requires no imagination at all to realize that it must be enormous. Try to estimate, for example, the aggregate cost to society of our limited turbulence prediction abilities which result in inadequate weather-forecasts alone. Or try to place a value on the increased cost to the consumer need of the designer of virtually every fluid-thermal system-from heat exchangers to hypersonic planes- to depend on empiricism and experimentation, with the resulting need for abundant safety factors and non-optimal performance by all but the crudest measures.Or consider the frustration to engineers and cost to management of the never-ending need for 'code-validation' experiments every time a new class of flows is encounteredor major design change is contemplated. The whole idea of 'codes' in the first place was to be able to evaluate designs wihtout having to do experiments or build prototypes.

# What do we really know for sure?

Turbulence is a subject on which still studies are going on. We really don't know a whole lot for sure about turbulence. And worse, we even disagree about what we think we know! There are indeed some things some researchers think we understand pretty well - like for example the kolmogorov similarity theory for the dissipative scales and the Law of the Wall for wall-bounded flows. These are based on assumptions and logical constructions about how we believe turbulence behaves in the limit of infinite Reynolds number. But even these ideas have never been tested in controlled laboratory experiments in the limits of high Reynolds number, because no one has ever had the large scale facilities required to do so.

It seems to be a characteristic of humans(and contrary to popular beleif, scientists and engineers are indeed human) that we tend to accept ideas which have been around a while as fact, instead of just working hypotheses that are still waiting to be tested. One can reasonably argue that the acceptance of most ideas in turbulence is perhaps more due to the time lapsed since they were proposed and found to be in resonable agreement with limited data base, than that they have been subjected to experimental tests over the range of their assumed validity. Thus it might be wise to view most 'established' laws and theories of turbulence as more like religious creeds than matters of fact.

The whole situation is a bit analogous to the old idea that the sun and stars revolved around the earth - it was a fine idea, and even good today for navigational purposes. The only problem was that one day someone (Copernicus, Brahe and Galileo among them) looked up and realized it wasn't true. So it may be with a lot of what we believe today to be true about turbulence - some day you may be the one to look at evidence in a new way and decide that things we thought to be true are wrong.