Estimation of the Turbulent Schmidt Number from Experimental Profiles of Axial Velocity and Concentration for High-Reynolds-Number Jet Flows

Yimer, Ibrahim; Campbell, Ian G.; Jiang, Leiyong

doi:10.5589/q02-024

Cited by 95 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Baurle and Eklund (2002), for example, discuss scramjet (supersonic combustion ramjet) operation and point out the extreme sensitivity of CFD calculations to the imposed levels of the turbulent Schmidt number: Variations between 0.25 and 0.75, with t Pr =0.89, result in predictions covering the entire range from flame blowout to combustor unstart. Similar evidence is provided in Baurle et al (1998), Yimer et al (2002), Sturgess and McManus (1984), Keistler (2006) and Milligan et al (2010). Several remedies are suggested in the abovementioned references.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Variable Turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl Number Modeling

Goldberg

Palaniswamy

Batten

et al. 2010

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes variable turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl number formulations, based on Rodi's (1980) algebraic Reynolds stress model adapted to velocity-scalar correlations. Since the approach is algebraic in nature, it does not introduce transport equations beyond the ones already existing to compute the flow, rendering it a viable engineering tool. The method is scrutinized against several test cases, including a 3D Scramjet combustor problem. Results are encouraging and lend confidence in the proposed approach.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 66%

Variable Turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl Number Modeling

Goldberg

Palaniswamy

Batten

et al. 2010

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is remarkable and underlines a basic strength of large-eddy simulation: the subgrid scales have universal properties and are easier to model than the full turbulence spectrum required in Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations. Note also that the value of the SGS Schmidt number of 0.3 is significantly lower than the 0.7 typically used in RANS to account for all turbulent scales, although the optimal value for RANS is known to be more flow dependent (see, for example, Yimer et al 2002).…”

Section: Dependence Of Sgs Model Coefficients On Filter Size Heightmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subgrid-Scale Dynamics of Water Vapour, Heat, and Momentum over a Lake

Vercauteren

Bou‐Zeid

Parlange

et al. 2008

Boundary-Layer Meteorol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examine the dynamics of turbulence subgrid (or sub-filter) scales over a lake surface and the implications for large-eddy simulations (LES) of the atmospheric boundary layer. The analysis is based on measurements obtained during the Lake-Atmosphere Turbulent EXchange (LATEX) field campaign (August-October, 2006) over Lake Geneva, Switzerland. Wind velocity, temperature and humidity profiles were measured at 20 Hz using a vertical array of four sonic anemometers and open-path gas analyzers. The results indicate that the observed subgrid-scale statistics are very similar to those observed over land surfaces, suggesting that the effect of the lake waves on surface-layer turbulence during LATEX is small. The measurements allowed, for the first time, the study of subgrid-scale turbulent transport of water vapour, which is found to be well correlated with the transport of heat, suggesting that the subgrid-scale modelling of the two scalars may be coupled to save computational resources during LES.

show abstract

“…The turbulence was modeled with the help of the Shear-Stress-Transport (SST) model [8] using the standard values of the coefficients and the "automatic" wall treatment. The transport has been modeled with a turbulent Schmidt number of 0.7 (the value of 0.7 is recommended for high-Reynolds-number jet flows by Yimer et al [9]). The turbulent Prandtl number was set to the default value in CFX which equals 0.9.…”

Section: Simulationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical Simulations of the Flame of a Single Coaxial Injector

Жуков

Feil

2017

International Journal of Aerospace Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The processes of mixing and combustion in the jet of a shear-coaxial injector are investigated. Two test cases (nonreacting and reacting) are simulated using the commercial computational fluid dynamics code ANSYS CFX. The first test case is an experiment on the mixing in a nonreacting coaxial jet carried out with the use of planar laser induced fluorescence (PLIF). The second test case is an experiment on the visualization of hydrogen-oxygen flame using PLIF of OH in a single injector combustion chamber at pressure of 53 bar. In the first test case, the two-dimensional axisymmetric simulations are performed using the shear-stress turbulence (SST) model. Due to the dominant flow unsteadiness in the second test case, the turbulence is modeled using transient SAS (Scale-Adaptive Simulation) model. The combustion is modeled using the burning velocity model (BVM) while both two-and three-dimensional simulations are carried out. The numerical model agrees with the experimental data very well in the first test case and adequately in the second test case.

show abstract

Estimation of the Turbulent Schmidt Number from Experimental Profiles of Axial Velocity and Concentration for High-Reynolds-Number Jet Flows

Cited by 95 publications

References 4 publications

Variable Turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl Number Modeling

Variable Turbulent Schmidt and Prandtl Number Modeling

Subgrid-Scale Dynamics of Water Vapour, Heat, and Momentum over a Lake

Numerical Simulations of the Flame of a Single Coaxial Injector

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About