|
[Sponsors] |
Prandtl mixing length vs Isotropic assumption |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
March 23, 2000, 23:53 |
Prandtl mixing length vs Isotropic assumption
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi:
In Prandtl mixing length hypothesis, which is almsot the background of all zero equation models, the turbulent fluctuataions throughout the whole computational domain are modeled as: u' =. v' =. l*du/dy (=. is appoximation sign) But ( u' =. v' ) is exactly the definition of isotropic turbulent. My question: Does not this a violate the anisotropicicity fact of the turbulent close to the wall? i.e. how the Prandtl mixing length hypothesis justifies the anisotropic turbulent close to the wall? Thanks for your comment. MJ |
|
March 26, 2000, 16:47 |
Re: Prandtl mixing length vs Isotropic assumption
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
If this were true, and the only weakness of the mixing length hypothesis, it would be doing pretty well. The mixing length hypothesis is not meant to be any sort of rigorous derivation by any means.
That being said, I think the development is only contingent upon \overline{u'} and \overline{v'} being related by a constant. That constant doesn't have to be particularly small. In fact, it doesn't even have to be constant, since the mixing length is a function of y. You could split off any portion of the y dependence in l and consider it to be part of the relationship between u' and v' if you like. Bob |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How to define the turbulence intensity and mixing length at an outlet (for k-eps)? | david39 | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 6 | February 2, 2011 04:01 |
Turbulence mixing length value | eva | Main CFD Forum | 1 | February 27, 2009 15:19 |
Mixing length models and zero-hvac model in fluent | sarah_ron | FLUENT | 0 | November 28, 2004 00:29 |
mixing length | mukkarum | Main CFD Forum | 4 | July 25, 2002 06:16 |
Prandtl Mixing length Vs. Isotropic turbulent | Mohammad Kermani | Main CFD Forum | 0 | March 24, 2000 00:06 |