Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-2lccl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T13:18:59.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Small-scale two-dimensional turbulence shaped by bulk viscosity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Abstract

Bulk-to-shear viscosity ratios of three orders of magnitude are often reported in carbon dioxide but are always neglected when predicting aerothermal loads in external (Mars exploration) or internal (turbomachinery, heat exchanger) turbulent flows. The recent (and first) numerical investigations of that matter suggest that the solenoidal turbulence kinetic energy is in fact well predicted despite this seemingly arbitrary simplification. The present work argues that such a conclusion may reflect limitations from the choice of configuration rather than provide a definite statement on the robustness of kinetic-energy transfers to the use of Stokes’ hypothesis. Two distinct asymptotic regimes (Euler–Landau and Stokes–Newton) in the eigenmodes of the Navier–Stokes equations are identified. In the Euler–Landau regime, the one captured by earlier studies, acoustic and entropy waves are damped by transport coefficients and the dilatational kinetic energy is dissipated, even more rapidly for high bulk-viscosity fluids and/or forcing frequencies. If the kinetic energy is initially or constantly injected through solenoidal motions, effects on the turbulence kinetic energy remain minor. However, in the Stokes–Newton regime, diffused bulk compressions and advected isothermal compressions are found to prevail and promote small-scale enstrophy via vorticity–dilatation correlations. In the absence of bulk viscosity, the transition to the Stokes–Newton regime occurs within the dissipative scales and is not observed in practice. In contrast, at high bulk viscosities, the Stokes–Newton regime can be made to overlap with the inertial range and disrupt the enstrophy at small scales, which is then dissipated by friction. Thus, flows with substantial inertial ranges and large bulk-to-shear viscosity ratios should experience enhanced transfers to small-scale solenoidal kinetic energy, and therefore faster dissipation rates leading to modifications of the heat-transfer properties. Observing numerically such transfers is still prohibitively expensive, and the present simulations are restricted to two-dimensional turbulence. However, the theory laid here offers useful guidelines to design experimental studies to track the Stokes–Newton regime and associated modifications of the turbulence kinetic energy, which are expected to persist in three-dimensional turbulence.

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© 2019 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

Alferez, N. & Touber, E. 2017 One-dimensional refraction properties of compression shocks in non-ideal gases. J. Fluid Mech. 814, 185221.10.1017/jfm.2017.10Google Scholar
Aluie, H. 2011 Compressible turbulence: the cascade and its locality. Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 174502.Google Scholar
Aris, R. 1989 Vectors, Tensors, and the Basic Equations of Fluid Mechanics, 1st edn. Dover.Google Scholar
Ash, R., Zuckerwar, A. & Zheng, Z.1991 Second coefficient of viscosity in air. NASA Tech. Rep. CR-187783.Google Scholar
Blesbois, O., Chernyshenko, S., Touber, E. & Leschziner, M. 2013 Pattern prediction by linear analysis of turbulent flow with drag reduction by wall oscillation. J. Fluid Mech. 724, 607641.10.1017/jfm.2013.165Google Scholar
Boffetta, G. & Ecke, R. E. 2012 Two-dimensional turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 44, 427451.10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101240Google Scholar
Bogey, C. & Bailly, C. 2004 A family of low dispersive and low dissipative explicit schemes for flow and noise computations. J. Comput. Phys. 194, 194214.10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09.003Google Scholar
Boukharfane, R.2018 Contribution à la simulation numérique d’écoulements turbulents compressibles canoniques. PhD thesis, Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Mécanique et d’Aérotechnique – Poitiers.Google Scholar
Cook, A. W. & Cabot, W. H. 2004 A high-wavenumber viscosity for high-resolution numerical methods. J. Comput. Phys. 195, 594601.10.1016/j.jcp.2003.10.012Google Scholar
Cramer, M. S. & Bahmani, F. 2014 Effect of large bulk viscosity on large-Reynolds-number flows. J. Fluid Mech. 751, 142163.Google Scholar
Cramer, M. S. 2012 Numerical estimates for the bulk viscosity of ideal gases. Phys. Fluids 24, 123.10.1063/1.4729611Google Scholar
Davidson, P. A. 2004 Turbulence: An Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Donzis, D. & Jagannathan, S. 2016 Reynolds and Mach number scaling in solenoidally-forced compressible turbulence using high-resolution direct numerical simulations. J. Fluid Mech. 789, 669707.Google Scholar
Gotoh, T. 1994 Inertial range statistics of Burgers turbulence. Phys. Fluids 6 (12), 39853998.10.1063/1.868388Google Scholar
Graves, R. & Argrow, B. 1999 Bulk viscosity: past to present. J. Thermophys. Heat Transfer 13 (3), 337342.10.2514/2.6443Google Scholar
Jaeger, F., Matar, O. K. & Müller, E. A. 2018 Bulk viscosity of molecular fluids. J. Chem. Phys. 148, 112.Google Scholar
Kawai, S., Shankar, S. K. & Lele, S. K. 2010 Assessment of localized artificial diffusivity scheme for large-eddy simulation of compressible turbulent flows. J. Comput. Phys. 229 (5), 17391762.10.1016/j.jcp.2009.11.005Google Scholar
Khurshid, S., Donzis, D. & Sreenivasan, R. 2018 Energy spectrum in the dissipation range. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 082601(R).Google Scholar
Kosuge, S. & Aoki, K. 2018 Shock-wave structure for a polyatomic gas with large bulk viscosity. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 142.10.1103/PhysRevFluids.3.023401Google Scholar
Kovásznay, L. S. G. 1953 Turbulence in supersonic flow. J. Aeronaut. Sci. 20, 657674.Google Scholar
Kraichnan, R. H. 1967 Inertial ranges in two-dimensional turbulence. Phys. Fluids 10 (7), 14171423.Google Scholar
Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1987 Fluid Mechanics. Elsevier Science.Google Scholar
Lele, S. K. 1994 Compressibility effects on turbulence. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 26, 211254.10.1146/annurev.fl.26.010194.001235Google Scholar
Liao, W., Peng, Y. & Luo, L.-S. 2009 Gas-kinetic schemes for direct numerical simulations of compressible homogeneous turbulence. Phys. Rev. E 80, 046702 126.Google Scholar
Meador, W., Miner, G. & Townsend, L. 1996 Bulk viscosity as a relaxation parameter: fact or fiction? Phys. Fluids 8 (1), 258261.10.1063/1.868833Google Scholar
Mininni, P. D. & Pouquet, A. 2013 Inverse cascade behavior in freely decaying two-dimensional fluid turbulence. Phys. Rev. E 87.Google Scholar
Pan, S. & Johnsen, E. 2017 The role of bulk viscosity on the decay of compressible, homogeneous, isotropic turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 833, 717744.10.1017/jfm.2017.598Google Scholar
Phillips, E. M. & Stella, V. J. 1993 Rapid expansion from supercritical solutions: application to pharmaceutical processes. Intl J. Pharm. 94, 110.10.1016/0378-5173(93)90002-WGoogle Scholar
Rinaldi, E., Pecnik, R. & Colonna, P. 2015 Computational fluid dynamic simulation of a supercritical CO2 compressor performance map. Trans. ASME J. Engng Gas Turbines Power 137, 17.10.1115/1.4029121Google Scholar
Sciacovelli, L., Cinnella, P. & Gloerfelt, X. 2017 Direct numerical simulations of supersonic turbulent channel flows of dense gases. J. Fluid Mech. 821, 153199.10.1017/jfm.2017.237Google Scholar
Shu, C.-W. & Osher, S. 1989 Efficient implementation of essentially non-oscillatory shock capturing schemes, II. J. Comput. Phys. 83, 3278.10.1016/0021-9991(89)90222-2Google Scholar
Stokes, G. G. 1845 On the theories of the internal friction of fluids in motion, and of the equilibrium and motion of elastic solids. Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc. 8, 287319.Google Scholar
Szemberg O’Connor, T.2018 Bulk viscosity effects in compressible turbulent Couette flow. PhD thesis, Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Tam, C. K. W. & Webb, J. C. 1993 Dispersion-relation-preserving finite difference schemes for computational acoustics. J. Comput. Phys. 107, 262281.Google Scholar
Touber, E. & Alferez, N. 2019 Shock-induced energy conversion of entropy in non-ideal fluids. J. Fluid Mech. 864, 807847.10.1017/jfm.2019.25Google Scholar
Wang, J., Gotoh, T. & Watanabe, T. 2017 Spectra and statistics in compressible isotropic turbulence. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2.Google Scholar
Wang, J., Wan, M., Chen, S. & Chen, S. 2018 Kinetic energy transfer in compressible isotropic turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 841, 581613.10.1017/jfm.2018.23Google Scholar
Wright, M. J., Tang, C. Y., Edquist, K. T., Hollis, B. R., Krasa, P. & Campbell, C. A. 2010 A review of aerothermal modeling for Mars entry missions. In 48th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition AIAA 2010-0443. AIAA.Google Scholar

Touber Supplementary Movie 1

Animated version of figure 5.

Download Touber Supplementary Movie 1(Video)
Video 1.2 MB

Touber Supplementary Movie 2

Animated version of figure 6.

Download Touber Supplementary Movie 2(Video)
Video 1.3 MB

Touber Supplementary Movie 3

No caption provided
Download Touber Supplementary Movie 3(Video)
Video 5.3 MB