Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-w6vhv Total loading time: 0.913 Render date: 2022-11-29T09:25:12.089Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

The linear response of turbulent flow to a volume force: comparison between eddy-viscosity model and DNS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2016

S. Russo*
Affiliation:
DICMAPI, Università degli Studi di Napoli Federico II, 80138 Napoli, Italy
P. Luchini
Affiliation:
DIIN, Università degli Studi di Salerno, 84084 Fisciano (SA), Italy
*
Email address for correspondence: aneres85@gmail.com

Abstract

We identify a benchmark problem simple enough that it can be solved both by an eddy-viscosity model and by direct numerical simulation: this is the linear response of a turbulent flow’s mean-velocity profile to an external volume force. An example of such a force was found in a study of the perturbation induced by bottom topography by Luchini & Charru (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 656, 2010, pp. 337–341). On the other hand, a modification of the method by Quadrio & Luchini (Proceedings of the IX European Turbulence Conference, Southampton, UK, 2002, pp. 715–718) and Luchini et al. (Phys. Fluids, vol. 18, 2006, 121702) to compute the linear impulse response of a wall-bounded turbulent flow allows the response to a volume force to be computed directly. The comparison exhibits significant differences and suggests that there might be fundamental obstacles to designing an eddy-viscosity model that provides the correct result.

Type
Papers
Copyright
© 2016 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abrams, J. 1979 A nonlinear boundary layers analysis for turbulent flow over a solid wavy surface. University of Illinois, Department of Chemical Engineering, Urbana/IL, USA.Google Scholar
del Alamo, J. C. & Jimenez, J. 2006 Linear energy amplification in turbulent channels. J. Fluid Mech. 559, 205213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cess, R. D.1958 A survey of the literature on heat transfer in turbulent tube flow. Rep. 8-0529-R24, Westinghouse Research.Google Scholar
Frederick, K. A. & Hanratty, T. J. 1988 Velocity measurements for a turbulent non separated flow over solid waves. Exp. Fluids 6, 477486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohnapfel, B., Hasegawa, Y. & Quadrio, M. 2012 Money versus time: evaluation of flow control in terms of energy consumption and convenience. J. Fluid Mech. 700, 406418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, J. 1994 Time Series Analysis, 1st edn. Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Hasegawa, Y., Quadrio, M. & Frohnapfel, B. 2014 Numerical simulation of turbulent duct flows with constant power input. J. Fluid Mech. 750, 191209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henn, D. S. & Sykes, R. I. 1999 Large-eddy simulation of flow over wavy surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 383, 75112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinze, J. O. 1975 Turbulence. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hœpffner, J. & Fukagata, K. 2009 Pumping or drag reduction. J. Fluid Mech. 635, 171187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyas, S. & Jimenez, J. 2006 Scaling of the velocity fluctuations in turbulent channels up to $Re_{{\it\tau}}=2003$ . Phys. Fluids 18, 011702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hussain, A. K. M. F. & Reynolds, W. C. 1970 The mechanics of an organized wave in turbulent shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 41 (2), 241258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. S. & Hunt, J. C. R. 1975 Turbulent wind flow over a low hill. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 101, 929955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jimenez, J., Uhlmann, M., Pinelli, A. & Kawahara, G. 2001 Turbulent shear flow over active and passive porous surfaces. J. Fluid Mech. 442, 89117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. 2008 Acoustic streaming and lower-than-laminar drag in controlled channel flow. In Progress in Industrial Mathematics at ECMI 2006, vol. 12, pp. 169177. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. & Charru, F. 2010a Consistent section-averaged equations of quasi-one-dimensional laminar flow. J. Fluid Mech. 656, 337341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. & Charru, F. 2010b The phase lead of shear stress in shallow-water flow over a perturbed bottom. J. Fluid Mech. 665, 516539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P., Quadrio, M. & Zuccher, S. 2006 The phase-locked mean impulse response of a turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 18, 121702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, J. W. 1983 Computation of turbulent flow over a moving wavy boundary. Phys. Fluids 26, 20652073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meketon, M. S. & Schmeiser, B. 1984 Overlapping batch means: something for nothing? In Winter Simulation Conference, pp. 227230. IEEE Press.Google Scholar
Myong, H. K. & Kasagi, N. 1990 New approach to the improvement of – turbulence model for wall-bounded shear flows. JSME Intl J. 33 (1), 6372.Google Scholar
Kasagi, N., Hasegawa, Y. & Fukagata, K. 2009 Towards cost-effective control of wall turbulence for skin-friction drag reduction. In Advances in Turbulence XII, vol. 132, pp. 189200. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nezu, I. & Rodi, W. 1986 Open-channel flow measurements with a laser Doppler anemometer. J. Hydraul. Engng 112, 335355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patel, V. C., Rodi, W. & Scheuerer, G. 1985 Turbulence models for near-wall and low Reynolds number flows – A review. AIAA J. 23 (9), 13081319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, S. B. 2011 Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 11th edn. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quadrio, M. & Luchini, P. 2002 The linear response of turbulent channel flow. In Proceedings of the IX European Turbulence Conference, Southampton, UK, pp. 715718.Google Scholar
Quadrio, M. & Luchini, P. 2006 A low-cost parallel implementation of direct numerical simulation of wall turbulence. J. Comput. Phys. 211 (2), 551571.Google Scholar
Quadrio, M. & Ricco, P. 2011 The laminar generalized Stokes layer and turbulent drag reduction. J. Fluid Mech. 667, 135157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, W. C. & Hussain, A. K. M. F. 1972 The mechanics of an organized wave in turbulent shear flow. Part 3. Theoretical models and comparisons with experiments. J. Fluid Mech. 54, 263288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarkar, A. & So, R. M. C. 1997 A critical evaluation of near-wall two-equation models against direct numerical simulation data. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 18 (2), 197208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilcox, D. C. 1993 Turbulence Modeling for CFD, 1st edn. DCW Industries, Inc.Google Scholar
Zilker, D. P., Cook, G. W. & Hanratty, T. J. 1977 Influence of the amplitude of a solid wavy wall on a turbulent flow. Part 1. Non-separated flows. J. Fluid Mech. 82, 2951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

The linear response of turbulent flow to a volume force: comparison between eddy-viscosity model and DNS
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

The linear response of turbulent flow to a volume force: comparison between eddy-viscosity model and DNS
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

The linear response of turbulent flow to a volume force: comparison between eddy-viscosity model and DNS
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *