|
[Sponsors] |
October 18, 2001, 05:53 |
Dissipation versus pressure drop
|
#1 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Hi, I took the DNS data by Mansour,Kim,Moin (1988) of a turbulent channel flow Re=3250, Retau=178.12. I thought the integral of the Dissipation (viscious+turbulent) must equal the pressure drop times vol. flux (energy balance) Pressure Drop: dp/dx=tw/H (1) (tw=wall shear stress, H=half channel width) Energy balance: dp/dx * Um * H = int_0^(H) DIS dy + int_0^(H) rho * epsilon *dy (2) (Um=mean Velocity, DIS=viscious Dissipation, epsilon=turbulent Dissipation). In dimensionless Form the energy balance can be written as: Re/Retau**2 = int_0^1 DIS* dy* + int_0^1 epsilon* dy* (3) (dimensionless by nu/utau**4). By integrating the DNS data, I obtain: 0.08676 for the dissipation and 0.102437 for the pressure drop times vol. flux. Why is there a 15% difference? I checked formular (3) for laminar flow and the balance was right. Thanks Fabian
|
|
October 19, 2001, 13:46 |
Re: Dissipation versus pressure drop
|
#2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
What formula did you use for turbulent dissipation.
Turbulent dissipation is 2*nu*{s_ij*s_ij}, where {.} indicates an ensemble average. Sometimes, the term nu*{ (du_i/dx_j)* (du_i/dx_j) } is also referred to as dissipation but isn't quite right. There needs to be another term nu*{ (du_i/dx_j)* (du_j/dx_i) } which supposedly has more dispersive behavior than dissipative and is hence dropped out. However, the sum of the 2 terms is the real dissipation. Only when you include both these terms, you have a definition for dissipation which is material frame indifferent. If the 2nd term is not included, you have invariance under linear translational motions but not under arbitrary rigid body motions (like rigid body rotation). If you have already use the right formula and still have a mismatch, I suggest you use the same spatial stencils (discretization) as those used in the simulations. This has to do with discrete conservation/compatibility. Also one should note that, although the mean and rms profiles for velocities in a DNS might match the experimental data, accurate prediction of wall stresses is not guaranteed unless the viscous sub-layer is well resolved. Typically, min (dy+} < 0.2-0.3. |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
pressure drop in the pipe | mike.mm | FLUENT | 6 | February 7, 2011 11:31 |
Pipe Flow - Pressure Drop | Daniel L | FLOW-3D | 2 | December 10, 2010 05:23 |
Total and Static Pressure drop | Jaggu | FLUENT | 3 | December 9, 2008 07:03 |
pressure drop calculation multi-inlet-outlet syst. | timmyy | FLUENT | 1 | April 24, 2007 07:03 |
what the result is negatif pressure at inlet | chong chee nan | FLUENT | 0 | December 29, 2001 06:13 |