• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>ERCOFTAC International Symposium on Engineering Turbulence Modelling and Measurements(ETMM6); 20050523-25; Sardinia(IT) >COMPARISON OF TURBULENCE MODELS IN CASE OF JET IN CROSSFLOW USING COMMERCIAL CFD CODE
【24h】

COMPARISON OF TURBULENCE MODELS IN CASE OF JET IN CROSSFLOW USING COMMERCIAL CFD CODE

机译：商业CFD代码在横流射流情况下湍流模型的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A circular jet in a crossflow is simulated numerically using a commercial CFD code. A grid resolution study is performed to find a grid that yields a grid-independent solution. The three high-Reynolds-number k-ε models, the two k-ω models, the six low-Reynolds-number k-ε models as well as the Reynolds stress model have been used. In all calculations, the near-wall regions are resolved all the way down to the wall and no wall functions are used. Jet to crossflow velocity ratio is 3.3. The Reynolds numbers of the crossflow and the jet are 317,000 and 8,130, respectively. Results show that a grid should be very fine to obtain a grid-independent solution. There are considerable differences between the turbulence models. Results of standard k-ε model are closest to the measured values. Results of the SST k-ω model are also quite satisfactory. The RNG k-ε model and the standard k-ω model gave nonphysical velocity profiles. Contrary to expectations, Reynolds stress model did not predict velocity profiles well.
机译：使用商用CFD代码对横流中的圆形射流进行数值模拟。执行网格分辨率研究以找到产生与网格无关的解决方案的网格。使用了三个高雷诺数k-ε模型，两个k-ω模型，六个低雷诺数k-ε模型以及雷诺应力模型。在所有计算中，近壁区域一直解析到壁，并且不使用任何壁函数。射流与横流的速度比为3.3。横流和射流的雷诺数分别为317,000和8,130。结果表明，网格应该非常精细，以获得独立于网格的解决方案。湍流模型之间存在相当大的差异。标准k-ε模型的结果最接近测量值。 SSTk-ω模型的结果也非常令人满意。 RNGk-ε模型和标准k-ω模型给出了非物理速度分布。与预期相反，雷诺应力模型不能很好地预测速度分布。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号