00 vote positif00 vote négatif

7 vues35 pagesAug 13, 2012

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

7 vues

00 vote positif00 vote négatif

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 35

Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals: An International Journal of Computation and Methodology

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/unhb20

A NEW LOW-REYNOLDS VERSION OF AN EXPLICIT ALGEBRAIC STRESS MODEL FOR TURBULENT CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER IN DUCTS

Masoud Rokni Available online: 29 Oct 2010

To cite this article: Masoud Rokni (2000): A NEW LOW-REYNOLDS VERSION OF AN EXPLICIT ALGEBRAIC STRESS MODEL FOR TURBULENT CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER IN DUCTS, Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B: Fundamentals: An International Journal of Computation and Methodology, 37:3, 331-363 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/104077900275431

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Numerical Heat Transfer, Part B, 37:331 363, 2000 Copyright Q 2000 Taylor & Francis 1040 7790 r 00 $12.00 H .00

A NEW LOW-REYNOLDS VERSION OF AN EXPLICIT ALGEBRAIC STRESS MODEL FOR TURBULENT CONVECTIVE HEAT TRANSFER IN DUCTS

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UMinho] at 01:47 12 February 2012

Masoud Rokni

Div ision of Heat Transfer, L und Institute of Technology, Box 118, 221 00 L und, Sweden

This investigation concerns performance of a new low-Reynolds version of an explicit algebraic stress model ( EASM) for numerical calculation of turbulent forced-convecti ve heat transfer and fluid flow in straight ducts with fully developed conditions. The turbulent heat fluxes are modeled by a SED concept, the GGDH, and the WET methods. New versions of GGDH, WET, and EASM are presented for low Reynolds numbers. However, at high Reynolds numbers, two wall functions are used, one for velocity fields and one for the temperature field. All the models are computed in a general three-dimensional channel. The low-Reynolds version of the models presented is very stable and has been used for Reynolds numbers up to 70,000 with least demanded number of grid points, and without any convergence problem or stability problem .

INTRODUCTION

The performance of a turbulence model in predicting the flow and temperature fields of relevant industrial problems has become increasingly important during the last few years. This is also valid for turbulent duct flow, which occurs frequently in many industrial applications such as compact heat exchangers, gas turbine cooling systems, recuperaters, cooling channels in combustion chambers, intercoolers, nuclear re actors, etc. The cross section of these ducts might be both orthogonal (square or rectangular ) and nonorthogonal (such as trapezoidal) , in which the generated flow is extremely complex. Sometimes, the ducts are also wavy or corrugate d in the main flow direction and might be manufactured with ribs in order to achieve turbulence faster than usual. It is known that secondary motions take place in the smooth corners of noncircular straight ducts in the plane perpendicular to the main flow direction. These motions are turbulence-induced and commonly they are said to be of Prandtls second kind. Such motions are of importance since they redistribute the kinetic energy, influence the axial velocity, and thereby affect the wall shear stress and heat transfer. The effect of secondary motions of Prandtls second kind on the wall shear stresses and heat fluxes

Received 16 June 1999; accepted 27 August 1999. Dr. Tom B. Gatski of NASA Langley Rese arch Center contributed significantly to this article and has been in extensive correspondence with the author from the beginning of this project. Hereby, I would like to thank him for ve ry helpful comments and discussions during this period. I would also like to thank Prof. Bengt Sunden of Lund University in Sweden, for valuable discussions and support during this project. Address correspondence to Dr. Masoud Rokni, Department of Heat and Power Engineering, Lund Institute of Technology, Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden. E-mail: masoud@emvox7.vok.lth.se 331

332

M. ROKNI

NOMENC LATURE

a A cr o ss Aw bi j B , Bt CP Ct Ce 1 , Ce 2 , C m Dh E f f1 , f 2 , f m fjt h k Nu Nu ov Nu xp Nu DB P P* Pk , Pe , Pt 2 Pr Re Sij SF T Tb lower length cross-section are a area of the wall anisotropy tensor constants in wall functions specific heat at constant pressure closure coefficients closure coefficients hydraulic diameter constant in wall function Fanning friction factor damping functions buoyancy-driven heat flux duct height kinetic energy Nusselt number overall Nusselt number local Nusselt number at each point Nusselt number due to Dittus-Boelter pressure cyclic pressure production terms Prandtl number Reynolds number me an strain rate source term for variable F temperature bulk temperature Tp Tw uiuj ujt Uj Um Uq Ut , U * Wi j xj yq b

G

point temperature wall temperature turbulent stresses turbulent he at fluxes velocity average ve locity dimensionless ve locity friction velocity me an velocity physical coordinates normal distance , Eq. (42 ) cyclic pressure coefficient numerical diffusivity Kronecker delta dissipation of kinetic energy dissipation tensor Eq. (23 ) invariant coefficient distance normal to the wall dimensionless temperature von Karman constants cyclic parameter, Eq. (36 ) molecular viscosity turbulent viscosity pressure ] strain density turbulent Prandtl number Eq. (23 ) invariant coefficient computational coordinate variable cyclic temperature source term

d e h h

Q

ij

ij

k ,k l

m m

t

ij

s j

F V

r j

increases considerably when the ducts are corrugated. A linear k ] e mode l does not have the ability to predict secondary flows, but still it is one of the most popular models among engineers, thanks to its simplicity and decent overall properties. An algebraic stress model (ASM) is able to predict secondary flows, but the increased complexity of the model may cause stability problems together with a significant increase in computational time and effort. An explicit algebraic stress model (EASM) may therefore be a competitive choice model to predict reliable anisotropic normal stresses, and then secondary flows may be predicted without solving additional equations. For prediction of the flow and he at transfe r characteristics for engineering purposes with availabl e computer capacities, the need for turbulence models for flow and temperature fields seems obvious. Limitation of computer capacities makes it almost impossible to solve directly the details of the turbulent flow in practical engineering duct flows by direct numerical simulation (DNS) } at present and for many years ahead if ever. Large-eddy simulations (LES ) , on the other hand, due to rapid increase in computer capacity and power, have found a place for

333

some practical cases. However, for the time being, LES can be used for only a very limited range of simple duct flows, which may not yet be of practical engineering interest. While most rese archers agree that LES will be used in more complicated duct flows in the future , how soon is not known: only development in computer power can enable this. In this article the author develops a computational method to predict the turbulent Reynolds stresses in arbitrary ducts using an explicit algebraic stress model (EASM). The turbulent heat fluxes are modeled by the SED, GGDH , and WET methods. A new low-Reynolds version of the EASM, GGDH, and WET are presented. The overall comparison between the models is presented in terms of the two most important hydraulic parameters, friction factor and Nusselt number. The secondary flow pattern is also of major concern. Near the walls at high Reynolds numbers, the wall functions are used for both the momentum equations and the temperature field, separately. Jayatillekes P-function is thus abandoned. The authors experience shows that Jayatillekes P-function has been suspected as one main source for numerically predicting the friction factor in ducts as much higher than experimental results (if the wall functions approach is used ). Several fundamental investigations concerning turbulent flow in square and rectangular ducts exist in the literature. Rokni and Sunden w 1,2 x have employed a nonline ar k ] e model for predicting the flow and he at flux in straight and corrugated ducts with trapezoidal cross sections. Direct numerical simulations have been carried out for a square duct by Gavrilakis w 3 x. Large-eddy simulations for square ducts are reported by Su and Friedrich w4 x at a Reynolds number of 49,000 and by Madabhush i and Vanka w5 x at a Reynolds number of 5,800. One difficulty associated with turbulent convective he at transfer and fluid flow in ducts is obtaining satisfactory results for both friction factor and Nusselt number, if wall functions are used. Usually, either friction factor or Nusselt number can be predicted satisfactorily , not both of them. On the other hand, usually, the low-Reynolds version of the models cannot be extended to high Reynolds numbers without additional considerations, such as significantly increasing the number of grid points near the walls. Comprehensive knowledge of flow structure and re asonabl y accurate prediction of the flow field is a necessary first step for analyzing and predicting the heat transfe r phenomenon, so advance d turbulence models for Reynolds stresses will be discussed first.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Straight ducts with square , rectangular, and trapezoidal cross sections are considered in this investigation. Only one-quarter of the ducts with square and rectangular cross sections and only half of the duct with trapezoidal cross section are considered by imposing symmetry conditions. A principle sketch of a duct is shown in Figure 1. A test calculation has also been carried out for a corrugated trapezoidal duct. The calculation method has been focused on fully developed turbulent flow in an arbitrary three-dimensional duct. The results are presented in terms of the two most important hydraulic parameters, friction factor and Nusselt number. The

334

M. ROKNI

secondary flow generation is also of major concern. Me an velocity distributions , friction factor, and Nusselt number are determined numerically for fully developed conditions.

GOVERNING EQUATIONS

The governing equations are the continuity, momentum , and energy equations. Fully developed periodic turbulent flow and heat transfer are considered in this investigation.

r t ( r Ui ) t

q

xj

( r Uj ) s 0

(1 )

xj

( r Ui Uj ) s y

P xi

xj xj

(r T) t

xj

( r Uj T ) s

( ) ( ) (

m

Ui xj

Uj xi

q

xj

(yr u u )

i j

(2 )

Pr x j

xj

yr u j t

(3 )

There are basically three ways to solve these equations, namely, DNS, LES, and traditional turbulence modeling. DNS has not yet been proved to be a general method for solving the above equations due to limited computer capacity and power. For example , Speziale w 6x postulated that a turbulent flow in a pipe at Reynolds number of 500,000 would require a computer which is 10 million times faster than the Cray YMP. However, the DNS works of Kim et al. w7 x , Gavrilakis w 3 x , and Huser and Bringen w8 x in a plane channel and a square duct with Re s 4,410 and Re f 10,000, respectively, have given valuable results for very simple duct flows. In LES, the me an flow and the large energy-containing eddies are computed directly with the time-dependent flow equations, but the small eddies

335

which are more universal in character } are modeled. Since the largest eddies interact strongly with the me an flow and contain most of the energies, this approach seems to yield a good approximation of the DNS. This turbulence model has re ached further than the DNS but still is limited to simple duct flows with simple geometries. Nowadays rese archers are attracted to the field of LES for simpler geometries, and it seems that LES is very promising, with incredible fast increase of computer power and capacity. Madabhush i and Vanka w5 x , Su and Friedrich w 4x , and Meyer and Rehme w 9 x have performed LES calculations in square and rectangular ducts with Re numbers up to 49,000. The third way is to solve these equations by traditional turbulence modeling, also solving the flow equations by modeling both the large eddies and the small eddies. The turbulent stresses ( y r u i u j ) and turbulent ``he at fluxes ( r C p u j t ) , which are the unknown parameters in the governing equations, are modeled as described in the following sections.

A two-equation model is a computationally cheap approach to solve the Navier-Stokes equations by turbulence modeling. Obviously, the mixing-length approach is much cheaper, but since the convection and diffusion terms are neglected in this approach and cannot be ignored in, e.g., recirculating flow, the mixing-length approac h is no longer fe asible. The most widely used and validated two-equation model, namely, the k ] e model, has also been used in this study. Its successful application to a variety flows without case-by-case adjustment of the model constants might be the main reason for its popularity in many industrial engineering applications. The conventional k ] e model, given in Eqs. (4) and (5 ) , is based on our best understanding of the relevant turbulence processes which cause changes to these values (Versteeg and Malalasekera w 10x ). This is why the two-equation model of k ] e is still being used in commercial codes as well as in advance d research programs more than 20 years after its presentation. As can be seen from these equations, expressing the turbulent Reynolds stresses, which appear in the production term, is still an important matter for the performance of these equations in complex flows. A nonprope r expression of the Reynolds stresses limits the use of this two-equation model in, e.g., duct flows. In other words, finding a proper expression for the Reynolds stresses may reveal the efficiency of this model in complex flow applications.

(r k) t (r e ) t

xj xj

( r Uj k ) s

xj xj

( r Uj e ) s

( ) ( )

m

k xj e xj

q Pk y r e

(4 )

q f 1C e

e

1

Pk y f 2 Ce

2 r

(5 )

336

M. ROKNI

Ui

ij

xj

s yr u i u j

Ui xj

(6 )

At high Reynolds numbers, the constants Ce 1 and Ce 2 are set to 1.44 and 1.83, respectively. The turbulent eddy viscosity m t is calculated as

m

t

s r f m Cm

K2

where C m f 0.09

(7 )

The functions f 1 , f 2 , and f m are the damping functions and are equal to unity in the fully turbulent region remote from solid walls (in other words, if wall functions are used ). However, in a region very close to a wall where the viscous effects become very important , f 1 , f 2 , and f m will differ considerably from unity. These functions are given in the following sections. At high Reynolds numbers, the constants s k and s e are set to 1.0 and 1.314, respectively. However, at low Reynolds numbers these constants may adopt other values, depending on the chosen model.

The high-Reynolds-number form of the k ] e model suggests that f m should approximately be equal to unity in the fully turbulent region remote from solid walls. However, in a region very close to a wall where the viscous effects become very important , f m will differ considerably from unity. In this study, two different damping functions are used, the Lam-Bremhorst w 11x damping functions and the Abe-Kondoh-Nagan o w12 x formulations of f 1 , f 2 , and f m . In the Lam-Bremhorst (LB ) method the f m is determined as f m s (1 y e y 0.0165 Re k ) 1 q where Re k s

2

( )

20 .5 Re t Re t s

(8 a )

r k 0.5h

m

and

r k2

m e

()

0.05 fm

3

and

f 2 s 1 y e yR e t

(9 )

The LB demands that the average y q value ne ar a wall should be of the order of unity.

337

2

(

r h

m

5 Re 0 .75 t

e y (Re t r 200)

)

r k2

m e

(10 )

y* s u e

r h

m

()

r

m e

0.25

and

Re t s

2

(11 )

Using this model, the constants in Eqs. (4 ) and (5 ) are set to s k s s e s 1.4 and the constants Ce 1 and Ce 2 are set to 1.5 and 1.9, respectively. In the above equations h is the normal distance to a wall. This damping approach demands a very small y q value near a solid wall. The authors experience shows that the average y q value ne ar a wall should be of the order of about 10 y2 to yield the best results. This does not me an that additional grid points are required; it is sufficient to change the stretching function. In other words, one needs finer grid points in the viscous sublaye r compare to the LB model.

For the sake of simplicity, attention will be paid to incompressible turbulent flows that are statistically homogenous. The Reynolds stress tensor u i u j is thus a solution of the transport equation as expressed below:

uiuj t

where P

xk

(U u u ) s yu u

k i j i

Uj

k

xk

y uj uk

Ui xk

qP

ij

ye

ij

(12 )

ij

s yp

ui xj

uj xi

)

e

ij

and

ij

s2

ui uj x k xk

(13 )

are pressure ] strain correlation and dissipation rate tensors. Using the Kolmogorov assumption of local isotropy, the dissipation rate tensor can be expressed as s 2 3

e d

ij

(14 )

338

M. ROKNI

where e is the scalar turbulent dissipation rate. In equilibrium homogeneous flows the following expression may be used for Reynolds stresses:

Downloaded by [b-on: Biblioteca do conhecimento online UMinho] at 01:47 12 February 2012

(u u ) q x (U u u )s ( P t

i j k k i j

ye )

uiuj k

(15 )

Ui xj

(16 )

and k is the kinetic energy. Using Eqs. (12) and (15 ) yields the linear system of algebraic equations ( Pk y e ) uiuj k

s yu i u k

Uj xk

y ujuk

Ui xk

qP

ij

2 3

e d

ij

(17 )

Equation (17) is the basic form of the traditional algebraic stress model (ASM) , which is an implicit system of equations for determination of the Reynolds stresses. Gatski and Speziale w 13x obtaine d an explicit solution of Eq. (17 ) by integrity bases technique from linear algebra. The solution takes place as follows:

r uiuj s

2 3

r kd

ij

y2m

t

Sij y 2 m

t

UU

( S ik W k j q S jk W k i )

q 4m

t

UUU

(

t UU

Sik Sk j y

1 3

Sm n Sm n d

ij

)

s r C m U,3 k2

(18 )

where

m

t U

s r C m U,1

k2

s r C m U,2

k2

m

t

UUU

(19 )

2 3 (1 q h ) 1

3 qh

q 6 j 2h

2) 2

q 6j

C m U, i s a

1a

3 (1 q h

i

3 qh

q 6 j 2h

q 6j

i s 2 ,3

(20 )

339

and

s 0.5

gs

1 2

C4 q

Pk

( ) )

4 3

y1

y C1 g

s 0.5 (2 y C 2 ) g

s 0.5 (2 y C 3 ) g

(21 )

y1

C 1 s 0.36

C 2 s 0.40

C 3 s 1.25

C 4 s 6.8 (22 )

h s

1 a 2 a

3 1

( S i j S i j ) 0.5

j s a

2 1

( Wi j Wi j ) 0 .5

(23 )

where the mean strain rate and mean vorticity are Sij s 1 2

(

1

Ui xj

Uj xi

Wi j s

1 2

(

2

Ui xj

Uj xi

(24 )

Equation (20 ) reflects the regularization imposed by Gatski and Speziale in their original formulation. A more robust regularization , also using a Pade approxim ation, has been proposed by Speziale and Xu w14 x , which has the correct asymptotic behavior for h 4 1 (far from equilibrium ) , C m U,1 sa (1 q 2 j (1 q 2 j (1 q 2 j

i 2 )( 2 )( 2 )( 2 )(

1 q 6h

2

5)

q 5h 3

2 6)

1 q 2j

4) 2

qh q 2h 3

q 6g 1h

C m U, i s a

1a

1 qh

2 6)

(1 q 2 j

1 q 2j

q g ih

i s 2 ,3

(25 )

where the constants are g 1 s 7.0, g 2 s 6.3 , and g 3 s 4.0, respectively. Gatski w 15 x discussed another form of Pade approximation which also diminishes the robustness of the original regularization, C m U, 1 s a 3 (1 q h

1 2)

q 0.2 ( h

2

6 2

qj qh

6) 6

(3 q h

q 6 j 2h 3 (1 q h

q 6j

qj

6)

C m U, i s a

1a

2) 2

(3 q h

q 6 j 2h

q 6j

qh

qj

6)

i s 2 ,3

(26 )

While both the EASM in Eq. (18) and a nonlinear eddy viscosity model (NLEVM, see e.g., w 1x ) have similar functional forms, their development follows different paths. In NLEVMs the functional form of the polynomial expansion is

340

M. ROKNI

consistent with both the tensorial properties of a tensor to be represented and the various constraints imposed on the tensor expansion } such as coordinate invariance or material frame indifference. In ASMs the functional form is also based on correct tensorial properties, but expansion is also consistent with representation theory in that a complete basis or some subset is chosen for the polynomial expansion. In addition, the coefficients appearing in the tensorial expansion are (or should be ) consistent with the Reynolds stress model (RSM) from which it is derived. Recall that an ASM yields the same results as an RSM in the equilibrium limit of homogeneous turbulence. The explicit form of the ASM is a consequence of the fact that the expansion is in terms of me an flow variables. Thus, the EASM should be a more consistent representation of the RSM than the NLEVM.

The low-Reynolds-numbe r version of the EASM used in this study was suggested by Rokni w16 x. It enables calculation of the Reynolds stresses at low Reynolds numbers. The proposed model yielded very satisfactory results in straight ducts with keeping its robust character, k2 k2 k2

m

t

sr

f m C m U,1

m

t

UU

sr

f m C m U,2

m

t

UUU

sr

f m C m U, 3

(27 )

However, these expressions were not sufficient, and he suggested that the invariance coefficients must also be damped. The damping functions used for the invariant coefficients were the same as for the turbulent viscosity in order to keep these coefficients consistent with the turbulent viscosity. Thus Eqs. (23 ) yield the forms

h s fm

1 a 2 a

3 1

( S i j S i j ) 0.5

j s fm a

2 1

( Wi j Wi j ) 0.5

(28 )

Three models are used to express the turbulent he at flux. 1. Simple eddy diffusivity (SED) based on the Boussinesq viscosity model as

r ujt s y s

m

t

T xj

(29 )

At low Reynolds numbers the damping function f m will appear in m t . The turbulent Prandtl number for the temperature s T is set to 0.89.

341

( )

uj uk

xk

(30 )

u j t s yf m C t

ujuk

T xk

q uk t

Uj xk

q fj t

(31 )

where f j t is the buoyancy-driven he at flux and is zero in this case. The constant C t is set to 0.3 in both GGDH and WET.

PERIODIC CONDITION

Periodic boundary conditions are imposed in the main flow direction for decreasing the number of grid points in this direction. In practical applications, periodic conditions in the main flow direction are commonly justified, since in wavy or corrugated ducts such conditions occur naturally. The pressure P decreases in the main flow direction and therefore the pressure should be handled in a special way, if periodic cases are considered. It is expressed as P ( x , y , z ) s y b x q P* ( x , y , z ) (32 )

where b is a constant representing the nonperiodic pressure gradient and P* behaves in a periodic manner from cycle to cycle in the flow direction. The dimensionless temperature u is defined in the cyclic case as

u ( x, y, z) s

T ( x , y , z ) y Tw T b ( x ) y Tw

(33 )

where Tw is the constant wall temperature and T b is the fluid bulk temperature. Using this expression and inserting it into the energy equation one obtains in steady state

xj

where V is V

( r Uj u ) s

xj

( )

m

Pr x j

xj

(yr u u ) q V

j

(34 )

sl

G

u x

( G u ) y r Uu

qG u

(

l

l x

(35 )

342

M. ROKNI

and

r uj u s

r ujt

T b y Tw

l s l ( x) s

(T b y Tw ) x

r ( T b y Tw )

(36 )

The diffusion coefficient G s m r Pr and both l and V are periodic parameters. Using periodic conditions in the GGDH method, u j t is then calculated from

u j t s yf m C t

(T b y Tw ) u j u l u q

(

u

u x

q ujv

u y

q ujw

u z

(37 )

(T b y Tw ) u j u l u q

q ujv

u y

q ujw

u z

q uk t

Uj xk

(38 )

An additional condition is needed to close the problem since the energy equation contains two unknowns, u and l . This condition can be obtaine d from the definition of the bulk temperature. In dimensionless form one has H < U < u dA cross s H < U < dA cross (39 )

where A cross is the cross-sectional area in the main flow direction. In the fully developed periodic region, the shape of the nondimensional temperature profile u ( x, y, z ) repe ats itself.

BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

Periodicity conditions are imposed at the inlet and outlet for all variables: F ( x, y, z) s F ( x q L , y, z) F s U ,V ,W , P* , k , e , u (40 )

In order to achieve numerical stability, u i u j ,u j u , l , and f m are also handled as periodic. Usually, at high Reynolds numbers (more than about 10,000, based on the hydraulic diameter) , the wall functions has been used and at low Reynolds numbers the low-Reynolds versions of the models were applied.

The law of the wall is assumed to be valid for both the flow and temperature fields in the ne ar-wall region at high Reynolds numbers. It is assumed that the region near the wall consists of only two layers, the ``viscous sublaye r, in which the turbulent viscosity is much smaller than the molecular viscosity, and the ``log layer, in which the turbulent viscosity is much greater than the molecular viscosity.

343

The ``buffer layer is ignored. The traditional law of the wall is defined as U qs where U U* ( 1 ln y q q B s 1 ln ( Ey q ) (41 )

y qs

r U *h

m

wall

(42 )

and h wall is the distance normal to the wall. The von Karman constant is k s 0.41 , while the value for the roughness parameter E is set to 9.8 for a smooth wall (or B s 5.5). These values are supported from experimental results carried out by Hirota et al. w 17 x in a straight square duct. The point y qs 11.53 is used to dispose the intersection (transition ) between the viscous sublayer and the log-law layer. Below this point the flow is assumed to be purely viscous (i.e., the turbulent stresses are negligible ) , and above this point the flow is assumed to be purely turbulent. The details can be found in w1 x.

Near the wall for the temperature field can be treated by either of two methods: the so-called Pee-function method and the law of the wall. Using the Pee-function method which is commonly used, T qs (Tw y T p ) r C p U * qw s s Uqq P

()

Pr

(43 )

()

Pr

s 9.24

()

Pr

0.75

y 1 w 1 q 0.28 ew y 0.007*(Pr r s

)x

(44 )

This method is very popular, especially in commercial codes. However, the disadvantages of this method is that the temperature field will be directly dependent on the velocity field, and the von Karman constant ( k ) may play a significant roll in determination of the Nusselt number in duct flows. Figure 2 shows clearly the effect of the k value (for the velocity field ) on the calculated friction factor and the Nusselt number in a square duct (using EASM and SED models). Now a question may arise , which value of the von Karman constant should be chosen; i.e., k s 0.408 gives the best result for the friction factor, but k s 0.46 gives the best result for the Nusselt number. The average value k s 0.435 may also be a re asonabl e choice and was chosen in w1 x but not in the present study. The value of 0.89 for s t was used in these calculations.

344

M. ROKNI

Figure 2. Calculated friction factor and Nu number compared with experimental correlations in a square duct using EASM, SED, and two near-wal l tre atments for the temperature field.

T qs

ln y q q B t

(45 )

where k t s 0.46, as suggested by Launder w19 x. This value is applied in this study. Hirota et al. w 17 x found k t s 0.462 from experimental results in a straight square duct. For a cold wall and a medium with Pr s 0.72, the value of B t is B t s 2.0; see Mohammadi and Pironneau w20 x. The point y qs 5.834 is used to dispose the intersection between the sublayer and the log layer. The details of application of this method can be found in w1,21x . It should be pointed out that the turbulent Prandtl number for the temperature field ( s t ) can be found by the ratio k r k t , which provides the value 0.89.

ADDITIONAL EQUATIONS

Some additional equations have been used to calculate Reynolds number, mass flow, bulk velocity, pressure drop, Fanning friction factor, and Nusselt number. The details of the calculation procedures can be found in w 1,21 x. Experiments carried out by Lowdermilk et al. w22 x showed that the Nusselt number in

345

square ducts can be correlated with the Dittus-Boelter correlation and the friction factor can be correlated with the Prandtl-law friction factor. The calculated friction factor is thus compared with the Prandtl law w23 x as 1 s 2 log (Re 4 f

4f

) y 0.8

(46 )

The Reynolds number is based on the hydraulic diameter: 3 walls D h s 4 A cross a q b q h r sin w 4 A cross a q h r sin w (47 )

2 walls D h s

where a, b , h , and w are base length, upper length, height, and base angle , respectively. The Nusselt number is calculated in two ways: (1 ) by calculating the local Nusselt number at each point adjacent to a wall and then integrating over all the walls (NUx ); (2 ) using the periodic conditions and calculating the overall Nusselt number by a heat balance equation (Nu ov ). These are called local and overall Nusselt numbers, respectively. The details of this procedure can also be found in w 1,21 x . The calculated Nusselt number is compared with the Dittus-Boelter correlation w 23 x as Nu s 0.023 Re 0.8 Pr 0.3 for Re R 8 ,000 (48 )

The values calculated by these two Nusselt numbers should ideally be very close to each other. If not, something is not properly considered } for example , the y q value near the walls. The differences between these two calculated Nusselt numbers are less than 1% for all cases considered in this study.

The partial differential equations are transforme d to algebraic equations by a general finite-volume technique. The momentum equations are solved for the velocity components on a nonstaggered grid arrangement. The Rhie-Chow interpolation method is used to interpolate the velocity components to the control-volum e faces from the grid points. The SIMPLEC algorithm is employed to handle the pressure ] velocity coupling. A modified SIP (strongly implicit procedure ) algorithm is used for solving the equations. The convective terms are treated by the QUICK scheme , while the diffusive terms are treated by the central difference scheme. The hybrid scheme is used for solving the k and e equations. The Prandtl number set to 0.72. The computations were terminated when the sum of the absolute residuals normalized by the inflow was less than 10 y5 for all

346

M. ROKNI

variables at high Reynolds numbers and less than 3 = 10 y6 at low Reynolds numbe rs. If the low-Reynolds versions of the models were used, it was important to make sure that some grid points ne ar the walls were in the viscous sublayer and perhaps the me an values of y q at the first grid points adjacent to each wall should be of order less than unity. However, at high Reynolds numbers, when the wall functions are used, the average values of y q were kept between 41 and 43. A complete discussion about the y q value at the point adjacent to a wall can be found in w1 x. At this point it is also important to remind the re ader that all models mentioned in the previous sections were presented in the Cartesian coordinate system. The transformatio n between the physical space ( x, y, z ) and the computational space ( j , , z ) can for a first-order derivative be written as

F j

i

xk

i

xk j

(49 )

As is obvious, any r j i consists of three derivatives. The derivation of r x may also be written as (generally speaking)

q extra terms

(50 )

in which the ``extra terms due to curvilinear transformatio n are very small in straight orthogonal ducts. This will be discussed later.

Numerical Stability

The general equation can be written as

(r F ) t

xj

( r Uj F ) s

xj

( )

G

xj

q SF

(51 )

with G F as the diffusion coefficient and S F as the source term. All differential equations are compared with this equation and the diffusion coefficients and the source terms are then identified. Numerical stability is secured by always setting the diffusion coefficients as

G G

m

s m qm s m q

m

t ,m t m

m s U ,V ,W m s k ,e (52 )

Pr

m

t

msT

347

independent of whether the governing equation (or model) consists of such a diffusion coefficient or not. For example , if the temperature field is solved with the zero-equation WET model, the model does not have the term m t r s t , but this term is first added in the diffusion coefficient and then subtracted in the source term. This treatment has been found to be very successful and is highly recommended by the author. Anothe r specific treatment implemented by the author to achieve a highly numerical stable calculation method in periodic flows r he at transfe r is the assumption that the matrices u i u j ,u j u , l , and f m behave in a periodic fashion.

Wall-Surface Conditions

By using the low-Reynolds-numbe r version of the models, the wall-surface conditions for k and e must be defined. These conditions are usually adopted from the propose d model. In the LB model, k s e s 0 at the walls. However, in the AKN model , k s 0 at the wall and the dissipation is set in the points adjacent to a wall as source terms with following condition:

e s2 r

2 wall

(53 )

where h wall is the normal distance from the point adjacent to a wall and the considered wall.

Symmetry Conditions

The derivative s of all the variables are set to zero in these planes.

Rokni and Sunden w 24 x and Rokni w 16x , in previous studies, used the Lam Bremhorst (1981 ) damping functions (LB ) in the k and e equations, but the study showed that these damping functions were not proper functions for duct flows with periodic conditions. It was found that these functions demanded initial values for the k and e equations and these initial values were in a very narrow interval, which was difficult to find. The same problem was also noticed here. However, in this study the wall damping functions proposed by the AKN model have also applied for duct flows and it has been found that these functions do not require any specific initial values for k and e , and the model is much more stable than the LB one in duct flows with periodic conditions. Significantly fewer grid points in the cross section can also be adopte d with this model compared to the LB model. The last two findings (stability and fewer grid points) may be explained by the fact that the LB damping functions have singularities in contrast to the AKN model. The friction velocity u* is used to account for the near-wall effect in the LB model, however, the Kolmogorov velocity scale u e (ve ) 0.25 is used in the AKN model. It is known that the friction velocity vanishe s at separation (at the corner of an

348

M. ROKNI

orthogonal duct) and reattachment points, but the Kolmogorov velocity scale does not. The calculations show that the LB model requires fewer grid points in the viscous sublaye r than the AKN model. However, this does not me an that the AKN model requires more domain grid points than the LB model. Using the same domain grid points and changing the stretching factor, one can insert more grid points in the viscous sublayer. As discussed in previous sections, the GGDH and WET methods were introduced with the damping function f m and these models are related to the temperature field. It has been found that using the LB model in the GGDH and WET models gives better results than the AKN model. In short, the AKN model is superior to the LB model for the flow field but the LB model gives better results compared to the AKN model in the GGDH and WET temperature models. The difference between the AKN and LB models for the GGDH and WET temperature methods are more obvious at higher Reynolds numbers, if the same number of grid points are used at the cross section. The results presented below are with the AKN damping functions for the flow field ( f m in the turbulent viscosity, k ] e equations, and EASM equations ) , while LB damping functions are used in the GGDH and WET models. However, in order to extend the capability of the LB model to very high Reynolds numbers (more than 10,000) , some modification has been applied in this model, as shown below: f m s (1 y e A Re k ) 1 q where Re k s

2

( )

B Re t

A s y0.0125

B s 20.5

(8 b )

r k 0.5h

m

and

Re t s

r k2

m e

Grid Investigation

A nonuniform grid distribution is employed in the plane perpendicular to the main flow direction. Close to each wall, the number of grid points or control volumes is increased to enhance the resolution and accuracy. From the duct center to each wall the grid distance is multiplied by a factor less than unity, the stretching factor (ST). The lower this factor is chosen, the more grid points concentrate near the wall. Different numbers of grid points were used in the cross-sectional plane in order to establish the accuracy of the calculations. Table 1 provides calculated Nu number and friction factor in a square duct with different grid points and stretching factor, using the low-Reynolds version. The calculated Nu number (by SED) and Fanning friction factor are compared with the correlations mentioned in previous sections. In the table , Nu DB stands for Nu number calculated from the Dittus-Boelter correlation and f Pr stands for friction factor calculated from the Prandtl-law correlation. As is evident from Table 1, decreasing the stretching

ALGEBRAIC STRESS MODEL FOR HEAT TRANSFER IN DUCTS Table 1. Calculated Nu number and Fanning friction factor for a square duct with different numbers of grid points and stretching factors using low-Reynolds version ST 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.85 0.83 Grid 21 31 35 41 51 21 41 = = = = = = = 21 31 35 41 51 21 41 Re 5,448 5,685 5,697 5,590 5,611 5,640 5,614 f = 10 3 10.245 9.411 9.372 9.733 9.659 9.562 9.648 f Pr = 10 3 9.123 9.014 9.008 9.057 9.047 9.034 9.046 diff % y12.3 y4.4 y4.0 y7.5 y6.8 y5.8 y6.7 SED 21.4 20.6 20.6 20.2 20.2 20.9 20.3 Nu D B 20.3 21.0 21.1 20.7 20.8 20.9 20.8

349

factor (inserting more grid points in the viscous sublayers ) for a specific number of grid points increases the accuracy of calculations; see , e.g., 21 = 21 number of grid points. At high Reynolds numbers (more than about 10,000 based on the hydraulic diameter) , 31 = 31 seemed to be enough to enhance re asonable accuracy for the friction factor and Nu number in square ducts. However, at low Reynolds numbers 31 = 31 or 41 = 41 grid points were used, depending on the Reynolds number. Only three grid points were applied in the main flow direction. The overall friction factors and Nusselt numbers, which are the most interesting parameters from an engineering point of view, did not change significantly if the number of grid points was increased further. However, local values of the Reynolds stresses depend somewhat on the number and distribution of the grid points, especially at low Reynolds numbers.

In Figure 3b the secondary flow pattern in a square duct in the fully developed region obtained from the DNS work of Gavrilakis w 3 x is displayed (the re ader should be warned about the quality of the figure since it was first scanned and then enclosed ). The corresponding secondary velocity vectors predicted by the EASM (with the low-Reynolds version ) at the same Re number ( s 4,800 ) are shown in Figure 3a but rotated 1808 . As is evident from these figures, the qualitative agreement between the DNS data and the predicted results is quite satisfactory. Similar secondary flow is predicted at all the considered Reynolds numbers, at both high and low Reynolds numbers. The driving forces for the secondary motion are concentrate d to the region close to each corner. For laminar flow it can be shown that these secondary flows do not occur. In turbulent flow these motions are generated essentially by the gradient of the normal turbulent stresses. However, the LEVM (linear k ] e model; see , e.g., w25 x ) does not predict these secondary motions because of its inability to predict accurately the individual normal Reynolds stresses u i u i. The LEVM yields

350

M. ROKNI

Figure 3. Predicted secondary motion in a square duct ( a) compared with DNS work of Gavrilakis (1992 ) ( b ). The Re number is around 4,800.

351

erroneously, the physically incorrect expression (see w 6x ) uu f vv f ww With predefined coordinate s as in the section on ``Problem Statement, the condition vv f ww is essentially sufficient for the LEVM to be unable to predict secondary motions in straight square r orthogonal ducts. This problem is alleviated in the EASMs. It is worthwhile to point out that such secondary motions exist even with LEVM but they are extremely small, about 0.0001% to 0.001% of the main flow, which cannot normally be detected and cannot be regarded as secondary flow pattern. These very small values may also be in the limit of numerical r compute r accuracy (absolute values of 10 y6 ] 10 y 7 ). One may then conclude that the turbulent shear stresses may also play an important role in generating secondary motions. In fact, secondary motions originate from turbulent shear stresses but anisotropic turbulent normal stresses reflect them. The predicted secondary velocity profile using the EASM model combined with both the wall functions and the low-Reynolds version of this model are shown in Figure 4. The velocity profile for the low Reynolds number is obviously much smaller than those for the high Reynolds number, but for the sake of clarity the velocity profile for the low Reynolds number has been enlarged. A comprehensive comparison between the predicted secondary motions and experimental results, direct numerical simulation and large-eddy simulation, can be found in w 1 x. The secondary motions consist of two counterrotating vortices which transport highmomentum fluid toward the duct corner along the bisector and then outward along the walls. At low Reynolds numbers and close to the duct center the secondary flow is weak and its influence on the streamwise flow is expected to be small. However, the secondary motions are concentrate d ne ar the corners of the duct and their effect on the streamwise flow is expected to be large (see Figure 5 ). Very close to the corners there exist no secondary flow. In general, it can be said that close to any corner there exists two counterrotating vortices. The sizes of these vortices are similar in a right-angle corner but essentially nonsimilar in a non-right-angl e corner (see below). Figure 5 shows the streamwise velocity contours (U r Ubulk ) predicted by the EASM using both the wall functions and its low-Reynolds version. More bulging is obtained at Re f 3,900 (using the low-Reynolds version ) than at Re f 66,000 (using the wall functions ) in the region close to the corner. However, the shapes of the contours are similar near the duct center.

The calculated Fanning friction factor and Nu number at high Reynolds numbers (using wall functions ) are shown in Figure 6. The results obtained from the EASM model agree very well with the Prandtl-law correlation for Fanning friction factor (less than " 4% ) and the Dittus-Boelter correlation for Nu number.

352

M. ROKNI

Figure 4. Secondary velocity profile predicted by the EASM model with different ne ar-wall treatment: ( a ) using wall functions, ( b ) using low-Reynolds ve rsion.

353

Figure 5. Predicted stre amwise contours using EASM model at two different Reynolds numbers.

Both the GGDH and WET methods are in excellent agreement with the Dittus-Boelter correlation (less than " 3% ) , but the SED deviates somewhat from this correlation, as shown in Figure 6. One problem associated with using the wall functions is that the grid points adjacent to a wall should be a certain distance away from the considered wall, in order to get the average y q value in an acceptable range (more than about 35 ). The problem will be more evident when the ducts are corrugated and have trapezoidal cross sections. This problem can be aviated by using a low-Reynolds version of the models. However, the damping functions demand the calculation of normal distance from any point to the ne arest wall, which is not an easy task in general complicated geometries.

As mentioned above , the AKN damping functions are used for the flow field, while the LB model is used for GGDH and WET models. At low Reynolds numbers the calculated Fanning friction factor and calculated Nu number at different Re numbers are shown in Figure 7. The figure shows that the calculated Fanning friction factors by the EASM agree excellently with the Prandtl-law correlation. The figure shows also that Nu number obtaine d from SED models agrees well with the Dittus-Boelter correlation. However, the GGDH and WET models predict less Nu number than the correlation for Re numbers less than about 8,000. The experimental work of Lowdermilk et al. w 22x shows also that the

354

M. ROKNI

Figure 6. Calculated Fanning friction factor ( a ) and Nu number ( b ) using the EASM model with the wall functions.

355

Figure 7. Calculated Fanning friction factor ( a) and Nu number ( b ) using the EASM model with the damping functions (the lowReynolds ve rsion ).

356

M. ROKNI

Nu number in square ducts deviates (less values ) from the Dittus-Boelter equation for Re numbers less than about 8,000. The presented calculation procedure is highly stable and can be extended to much higher Re numbers than 10,000 with the least demanded number of grid points. In Figure 8 all the calculations were performed with only 31 = 31 grid points for all Reynolds numbers. No convergence problems were faced even at the very high Re number 71,000 using the low-Reynolds version of the models presented in previous sections. It should be mentioned that the LB model could not be used for the flow field up to such high Re numbers without significantly increasing the number of grid points. The LB model for the flow field at this high Re number also had convergence problems. As mentioned in previous sections, the LB model is used for GGDH and WET models. Again the results (both friction factor and Nu number ) are in excellent agreement with the correlations, which in turn are shown to be in excellent agreement with experiment data. The modified LB model is used in Figure 8.

Rectangular Ducts

Good agreement between the calculated results and the presented correlation for friction factor and Nu number are also obtained in the rectangular ducts (side ratios 2, 3, 5, and 10 are considered ). The secondary flow are also predicted in all cases considered. For example , the secondary flow motion for two rectangular ducts with aspect ratios 3 and 5 are presented in Figure 9. The secondary flow profiles predicted by the EASM and the AKN damping functions are in good agreement with what might be expected. Table 2 provides calculated Fanning friction factor, Nu number, and the center-to-bulk velocity ratio (Uc r Ub ) in a rectangular duct with different aspect ratios. For a given cross section the Uc r Ub decreases slightly with increasing Re number, which is also evident from this table. The experimental value of Uc r Ub for a rectangular duct with aspect ratio 10 at Re f 5,800 is 1.23 (see Rokni et al. w 26x ) , which can be compared with the calculation result (Table 2) 1.22 at Re f 15 ,500.

Trapezoidal Ducts

Using wall functions and the LEVM predicts only one vortex, regardless of the cross section. Such a secondary flow pattern is actually not expected and does not exist in nonorthogonal ducts. The re ason may be explained by the curvilinear transformatio n effect. Recall from a previous section wEq. (50 )x that any gradient after curvilinear transformatio n could be written as

q extra terms

357

Figure 8. Calculated Fanning friction factor ( a) and Nu number ( b ) using the low-Reynolds ve rsion of the EASM model at high Re numbers.

358

M. ROKNI

Figure 9. Predicted secondary flow profile in rectangular ducts with aspect ratios 3 and 5.

r uiuj s

2 3

r kd

ij

The ``extra terms due to curvilinear transformatio n are obviously equal in the two directions of cross sections of an orthogonal straight duct (here , Y and Z directions) , while they are essentially not equal in the nonorthogonal straight ducts. However, the presence of these ``extra terms together with the wall functions is sufficient to provide the condition vv / ww and thereby generate a false (not correct ) secondary motion, see Fig. 10. In fact, these ``false secondary motions are generated by the mathematical task and are geometry-driven rather than turbulence-driven. Such calculation methods (using the standard k ] e model with curvilinear transformation ) are widely used and are adopte d in most commercial codes.

Table 2. Calculated Nu number and Fanning friction factor for rectangular ducts with different aspect ratio using low-Reynolds version of EASM and SED Aspect ratio 2 3 5 10 Re 9,174 11,275 13,520 15,492 f = 10 3 8.566 8.075 7.703 7.618 Nu 30.4 35.4 41.1 47.8 Uc r Ub 1.28 1.28 1.26 1.22

359

Figure 10. Secondary velocity ve ctors predicted by the LEVM (linear k ] e model ) in a straight trapezoidal duct using wall functions. These secondary motions are called false secondary motions.

In wavy r corrugated ducts such false secondary patterns may change shape and character but are still in the frame of false secondary motions (or geometrydriven secondary flows rather than turbulence-driven flows). One may then conclude that the LEVM or standard k ] e model cannot be used in duct flows. The secondary velocity vectors in a trapezoidal duct predicted by the EASM are presented in Figure 11. Ne ar-the-wall regions are treated using the wall functions and the damping functions of AKN. The trapezoidal duct chosen here has a small upper side length compared with the lower side length and the duct height (close to a triangular duct). No convergence problem was noticed in predicting the secondary motion with the EASM and AKN damping functions , even in such a trapezoidal duct. Only 51 = 31 grid points in the cross section were used to perform the calculation with the AKN model. However, the LB damping functions for the flow field had convergence and stability problems in trapezoidal ducts, regardless of the number of grid points in the cross section. In Figure 11b , the Re number is about 13,250 and the calculated Fanning friction factor and the calculated Nu number (SED model) are 7.931 = 10 y3 and 42.8, respectively. These values can be compared with the Prandtl-law and DittusBoelter correlation wEqs. (49) and (51 )x , which provide 7.188 = 10 y3 and 41.4 , respectively. In Figure 11 a, the Re number is about 200,920 and the obtained Fanning friction factor as well as Nu number (GGDH model) are 4.010 = 10 y3 and 385.6, respectively. The Prandtl-law and Dittus-Boelter correlations for this Re number give 3.914 = 10 y3 and 364.2, respectively.

360

M. ROKNI

Figure 11. Secondary ve locity profile predicted by the EASM model with different ne ar-wall tre atment: ( a ) using wall functions; ( b ) using damping functions.

361

Wavy Ducts

A test calculation has been carried out on a wavy duct to evaluate the performance of the low-Reynolds version of EASM presented in this study. The wavy duct under consideration is shown in Figure 12. A symmetry plane is imposed at the cross section and the wavy amplitude is applied along the Y direction. The number of grid points in the cross section is set to 51 = 31 for the y and z directions, respectively. Also, the same cross section as in the previous section is used here. As mentioned before , a nonuniform grid distribution is employed in the plane perpendicular to the main flow direction. Close to each wall, the number of grid points or control volumes is increased to enhance the resolution and accuracy. Thirty grid points are set for the main flow direction, the x direction. However, a uniform grid distribution is applied along the streamwise direction, as shown in Figure 12. The calculation is performed without any convergence problem or stability problem and the residuals re ach the value 10 y5 for the temperature field and 10 y7 for the velocity filed and turbulence equations. The SED method was used for the temperature equation. Table 3 shows the calculated Nu number and Fanning friction factor for the wavy duct in comparison with the straight duct (which has the same cross section ). In one column of the table , the calculated Fanning friction factor has been normalized by the Prandtl law and the calculated Nu number has been normalized by the Dittus-Boelter correlation. As can be seen from Table 3, both the friction factor and the Nu number for the corrugated duct are much higher than for the straight duct.

362

M. ROKNI

Table 3. Comparison between a wavy duct and a straight duct with similar cross sections Type Straight Wavy Re 13,258 9,431 f = 10 3 7.931 15.470 f Pr = 10 3 7.188 7.845 f r fPr 1.10 1.97 SED 42.8 46.1 Nu D B 41.4 31.5 NU r NUD B 1.03 1.46

C ONCLUSION

A computational procedure for turbulent flow in 3D ducts has been presented using an EASM model to predict the secondary velocity field, the streamwise velocity, and other turbulent quantities. The turbulent heat fluxes are calculated by a SED, the GGDH, and the WET methods. At high Reynolds numbers, the wall functions for the momentum equations and the temperature field are employed, separately. A low-Reynolds number version of the EASM, the GGDH, and the WET are also presented. With the low-Reynolds version of the models, the AKN damping functions are used for flow field and the LB model is used for the GGDH and WET models. The presented calculation procedure is very stable , and satisfactory results are obtained with least demanded number of grid points. The model was also tested for a trapezoidal straight duct with small upper length (compared with the lower length and the duct height ) which is close to a triangular duct. Excellent results obtaine d without any convergence problem or stability proble m. For ducts with square cross section, the calculated friction factors and Nu numbers agree very well with the Prandtl-law correlation when the low-Reynolds version of EASM presented here is used. Using the wall functions, the Nusselt numbers obtained by the GGDH and the WET methods are in excellent agreement with the Dittus-Boelter correlation. However, there exist some discrepancies between the calculated Nusselt numbers by the SED method and the Dittus-Boelter correlation using wall functions. The model is used for ducts with different cross sections and satisfactory results (in terms of friction factor and Nu number ) are obtained without any convergence or stability problems. The model was also tested for a corrugated duct and the calculations were performed without any convergence or stability problems. The model was tested for high Re numbers up to 70 ,000 without any convergence or stability problems.

REFERENCES

1. M. Rokni and B. Sunden, A Numerical Investigation of Turbulent Forced Convection in Ducts with Rectangular and Trapezoidal Cross-Section Area by Using Different Turbulence Models, Numer. Heat Transfer, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 321 ] 346, 1996. 2. M. Rokni and B. Sunden, 3D Numerical Investigation of Turbulent Forced Convection in Wavy Ducts with Trapezoidal Cross Section, Numer. Meth. Heat Fluid Flow, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 118 ] 141, 1998. 3. S. Gavrilakis, Numerical Simulation of Low-Reynolds-Number Turbulent Flow through a Straight Square Duct, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 244, pp. 101 ] 129, 1992. 4. M. D. Su and R. Friedrich, Investigation of Fully Developed Turbulent Flow in a Straight Duct with Large Eddy Simulation, J. Fluids Eng., vol. 116, pp. 677 ] 684, 1994.

363

5. R. K. Madabhushi and S. P. Vanka, Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulence-Driven Secondary Flow in a Square Duct, Phys. Fluids A , vol. 3, pp. 2734 ] 2745, 1991. 6. C. G. Speziale , Analytical Methods for the Development of Reynolds-Stress Closures in Turbulence , Rev . Fluid Mech., vol. 23, pp. 107 ] 157, 1991. 7. J. Kim, P. Moin, and R. Moser, Turbulence Statistics in Fully Developed Channel Flow at Low Reynolds Number, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 177, pp. 133 ] 166, 1987. 8. A. Huser and S. Biringen, Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Flow in a Square Duct, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 257, pp. 65 ] 69, 1993. 9. L. Meyer and K. Rehme , Large-Scale Turbulence Phenomena in Compound Rectangular Channels, Exp. Thermal Fluid Sci., vol. 8, pp. 286 ] 304, 1994. 10. H. K. Versteeg and W. Malalasekera, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dynam ics, Longman, 1995. 11. C. K. G. Lam and K. Bremhorst, A Modified Form of the k ] e Model for Predicting Wall Turbulence , ASME J. Fluids Eng., vol. 103 , pp. 456 ] 460, 1981. 12. K. Abe , T. Kondoh, and Y. Nagano, A New Turbulence Model for Predicting Fluid Flow and Heat Transfer in Separating and Re attaching Flows } II. Thermal Field Calculations, Int. J. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 38, no. 8, pp. 1467 ] 1481, 1995. 13. T. B. Gatski and C. G. Speziale , On Explicit Algebraic Stress Models for Complex Turbulent Flows, J. Fluid Mech., vol. 254 , pp. 59 ] 78, 1993. 14. C. G. Speziale and Xiang-Hua Xu, Towards the Development of Second-Order Closure Models for Non-Equilibrium Turbulent Flows, 10th Symp. on Turbulent Shear Flow, Pennsylvania State University, pp. 23-7 to 23-12, 1995. 15. T. B. Gatski, Prediction of Airfoil Characteristics with Higher Order Turbulence Models, NASA Tech. Memo. 110246 , 1996. 16. M. Rokni, Application of an Explicit Algebraic Stress Model for Turbulent Convective Heat Transfer in Ducts, in R. W. Lewis and J. T. Cross (eds.) , Numerical Methods in Therm al Problem s, Pineridge Press, vol. 10, pp. 102 ] 115, 1997. 17. M. Hirota, H. Fujita, H. Yokosawa, H. Nakai, and H. Itoh, Turbulent Heat Transfer in a Square Duct, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 170 ] 180, 1997. 18. C. V. Jayatilleke , The Influence of Prandtl Number and Surface Roughness on the Resistance of the Laminar Sublayer to Momentum and Heat Transfer, Prog. Heat Mass Transfer, vol. 1, p. 193, 1969. 19. B. E. Launder, On the Computation of Convective Heat Transfer in Complex Turbulent Flows, ASME J. Heat Transfer, vol. 110, pp. 1112 ] 1128, 1988. 20. B. Mohammadi and O. Pironne au, Analysis of the K-Epsilon Turbulence Model, p. 114, Wiley, New York, 1993. 21. M. Rokni and B. Sunden, Performance of RNG Turbulence Modelling for Turbulent Forced Convective Heat Transfer in Ducts, Int. J. CDF , vol. 11, pp. 351 ] 362, 1997. 22. W. H. Lowdermilk, W. F. Wieland, and J. N. B. Livingood, Me asurements of Heat Transfer and Friction Coefficients for Flow of Air in Noncircular Ducts at High Surface Temperature , NACA RN E53J07 , 1954. 23. F. P. Incropera and D. P. DeWitt, Fundam entals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 4th ed., Wiley, New York, 1996. 24. M. Rokni and B. Sunden, Improved Modeling of Turbulent Forced Convective Heat Transfer in Straight Ducts, ASME HTD-Vol. 346 , 141 ] 149, 1997. 25. M. Rokni and B. Sunden, Turbulence Modeling Experience in Ducts with Forced Convective Flow, Num er. Heat Transfer, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 629 ] 654, 1999. 26. M. Rokni, C. O. Olsson, and B. Sunden, Numerical and Experimental Investigation of Turbulent Flow in Rectangular Ducts, Int. J. Num er. Meth. Fluids, vol. 28, pp. 225 ] 242, 1998.

## Bien plus que des documents.

Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.

Annulez à tout moment.