COMPARISON OF THREE k-e TURBULENCE MODELS FOR PREDICTING VENTILATION AIR JETS

Q. Liu, S. J. Hoff, G. M. Maxwell, D. S. Bundy
ABSTRACT. Published data on unconfined plane-wall jets and plane-free jets were reviewed and used to assess the accuracy of numerical simulations, A plane-free jet was numerically simulated using the standard k-e model and four nonuniform grid patterns (70 x32,100 x52,120 x 60, and 120 x 74), The solution for a plane-free jet with adequate grid resolution was in good agreement with the published data, A plane-wall jet was numerically simulated usingfivedifferent grids (70 x 32, 100 x 52, 120 x 60, 120 x 74, and 120 x 92) and three k-e turbulence models (the standard k-e model. Lam and Bremhorst low Reynolds number model, and Lam and Bremhorst low Reynolds number model with wall functions). The simulations predicted velocity decay and velocity profile well, but overpredicted the jet spread and entrainment ratio by 20 to 40%, indicating the need for a better turbulence model for wall jet predictions. Keywords. Ventilation, Numerical, Grid pattern.

J

et-ventilated structures are widely used in both agricultural and nonagricultural systems. Numerous research has been done on ventilation air flows involving jets as well as on jets themselves. Because jets have been studied extensively, they provide good test cases to estimate the effects of using different turbulence models and grids. Turbulence modeling is an important part of numerical simulation. Currently, most of the ventilation simulations use one of three k-e models (k is turbulent kinetic energy, e is the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy): the standard k-e model (Launder and Spalding, 1974), Lam and Bremhorst (1981) low Reynolds number model, or the Lam and Bremhorst low Reynolds number with wall functions (Chen et al., 1990). Aldiough most of the studies reported agreement with the corresponding experimental results using the three models, detailed comparison of the performances of the three models is not available in a ventilation setting. Figure 1 is a sketch of a plane-free jet and a plane-wall jet. A plane-free jet is a two-dimensional jet fliat is not attached to any solid surface. If a two-dimensional jet is attached to a solid surface, the jet is a plane-wall jet. For ventilation applications, the jet characteristics of interest include the velocity profile, velocity decay (or peak velocity), jet spread, and entrainment ratio. The velocity

profile is the velocity profile at a given x location (fig. 1). The velocity decay is the peak velocity u^ as a function of X. The jet spread is the location of yo.5 as a function of x. The entrainment ratio is the flow rate at location x divided by the inlet flow rate, Qx/QoThe objective of this study was to compare the performances of three k-e turbulence models in predicting the jet characteristics of interest to ventilation. Available experimental data were used to assess the performance of numerical simulation and the impacts of different grids and turbulence models. Since inadequate grid resolution can be a major source of error (Thangam and Speziale, 1992), five different grid patterns were used to ensure adequate grid resolution and to evaluate the impact of using different grids in the numerical simulation of jets. Published data on unconfined isothermal air jets were summarized in terms of velocity profile, jet spread, velocity decay, and entrainment ratio for both plane-free and plane-wall jets. The three models used in this study were selected from available turbulence models (Liu et al..

Article was submitted for publication in April 1995; reviewed and approved for publication by the Structures and Environment Div. of ASAE in September 1995. Journal Paper No. J-16264 of Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa. Project No. 3140. The authors are Qianbao Liu, ASAE Member Engineer, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Agricultural Engineering, University of Puerto Rico, Mayaguez, Puerto Rico; Steven J. Hoff, ASAE Member Engineer, Associate Professor, Dwaine S. Bundy, ASAE Member Engineer, Professor, Agriculmral and Biosystems Engineering Dept., and Gregory M. Maxwell, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Dept., Iowa State University, Ames. Corresponding author: Steven J. Hoff, 105 Davidson Hall, Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, lA 50011; telephone: 515-294-6180; e-mail: <hoffer@abel .ae.iastate.edu>.

..
b

Y

i
M).9

AUn/2 ^Un

X

t

!
Figure 1-A plane-free jet and a plane-wall j e t

Transactions of the ASAE VOL. 39(2):689-698 © 1996 American Society of Agriculmral Engineers 0001-2351 / 96 / 3902-0689

689

jet spread. 1953. Using experimental data from 17 studies. 1974) and SIMPLE (Patankar. and a terminal zone (zone 4). momentum loss along the jet. Narasimha et al. which is also referred to as the self-similar zone (zone 3). a transition zone (zone 2). turbulence intensity. 1961. Tuve. Wilson et al. The Reynolds number based on inlet height and mean velocity was 2. (1992) reaffirmed the Narasimha et al. ASHRAE (1989) (6) Walker (1977) The same as equation 5 (7) 3 L « 0. Albright. However. Other studies quantified the difference as about 30% less than the corresponding free jet (Launder and Rodi. 1989)—a short zone in which the maximum velocity of the jet remains practically unchanged (zone 1). Table 1 is a list of results reported in the literature and the results were used to assess the accuracy of the numerical simulations. The suggested division line is at x/b of about 100 (ASHRAE. Table 1. jet spread. Fifteen studies on plane-wall jets were compared for velocity decay. ASHRAE (1989) Velocity profile (wall jets) J L . Tuve (1953) found that the wall-jet spread was slightly less than that of the corresponding free jet. and 5 3 L « 0. Summary of jet characteristics Equation and Number Velocity profile (free jets) -y--exp(-0. 1990). Launder and Rodi (1981) reviewed experimental studies on plane-wall jets. Setrak (1988) used the standard k-e model (Launder and Spalding. 1950. jet spread. 1977. 1981.5 = 0.48TI1/7[1 . (1973) finding on inlet momentum flux. Myers et al. NUMERICAL SIMULATIONS A number of numerical simulations on jets have been conducted. 1981.693Ti2) m Sources (1) Rajaratnam (1976). Refer to nomenclature for all variables used in the table. the entrainment ratio was usually calculated using the velocity profile. Wygnanski et al..5=0.. 1992). although the velocity expressions were different (table 1. Narasimha et al. 1989. LITERATURE REVIEW EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL STUDIES ON PLANE JETS Unconfined air jets can be divided into four zones (ASHRAE. Walker (1977). Black et al. The velocity decay of a wall jet was found to be equivalent to that of a free jet having twice the inlet width of the wall jet (Tuve. 5b).28A/^+12 Qo vb 690 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE . a zone of fully established turbulent flow. Because of the difficulty in measuring flow rate. 1969. The entrainment ratio of the plane-wall jet was also about 30% less than the corresponding free jet due to the reduced jet spread.1995a) because they were conmionly used in ventilation simulations. 1958.). Rajaratnam. The inlet height b (half of the inlet height for the plane-free jet) was 0.. Many experiments measured jets at x/b over 100 (Launder and Rodi. Wygnanski et al. 1976). 1989). 1973). Walker. Rajaratnam (1976) Launder and Rodi (1981). However. The results cited here are for the self-similar portion of the jet (zone 3) only.1x yo. and shear stress (Koestel et al. ASHRAE. Walker. The same was true for the velocity profile of a wall jet except for the region close to the wall (fig. 1976). 1963. and other properties.0 X 10^. (1973) showed that inlet momentum flux JQ (JQ = ^o^b) rather than both UQ and b could be used to determine "most (if not all) mean flow parameters" in the fully developed region (x/b > 30). 1953. The results showed that zone 3 behavior continued at x/b > 100 and as high as x/b =1000. Schwarz and Cosart.40A/^ Qo Entrainment ratio (wall jets) V b (8) Equations 2. 4. Zone 3 is the longest and the most important in engineering applications among the four zones.erf(0. the jet spread and entrainment ratio calculations for wall jets were assumed to be equivalent to the corresponding free jet (ASHRAE. The results reviewed in tiiis study are for zone 3 only.68n)] m (2) Rajaratnam (1976) Jet spread (free jets) Jet spread (wall jets) Velocity decay (free jets) yo. Schwarz and Cosart (1961) Rajaratnam (1976) "o Velocity decay (wall jets) Entrainment ratio (free jets) V X Rajaratnam (1976). and velocity decay (Rajaratnam. 1977.. Studies on both plane-free jets and plane-wall jets were reviewed and summarized by Rajaratnam (1976) and Abramovich (1963).. 1970. I. In their experimental study. The jets were isothermal and unconfined (except confinement due to a soUd wall that form a wall jet for the plane-wall jet). The jets studied were a plane-free jet and a plane-wall jet. Sigalla.05 m and the inlet velocity was 6 m/s and was assumed uniform across the inlet.. turbulence properties. the division line between zones 3 and 4 may need clarification. 3b and fig.073(x+12b) (3) (4) (5) Awbi (1991). Plane jets have been studied in terms of velocity profile. 1989).

Most of the new models reviewed have not been tested for ventilation simulation. two-equation models including the standard k-£ model. and a Reynolds stress model and found that the standard k-e model was not as accurate as the other two models. (1994). NUMERICAL SOLUTION GOVERNING EQUATIONS The governing equations for steady state flows can be written in the general form of (White. 1974). 1991). Most of the numerical simulations in ventilation applications use the SIMPLE(R) algorithm (Patankar. possibly a result of the same problem. Patankar. Numerical studies of wall jets using three types of turbulence models were reviewed—models using mixing length hypothesis. In a review of experimental and numerical studies on wall jets.. Hoff (1990) used a low Reynolds number model proposed by Lam and Bremhorst VOL. and dissipation for turbulent Table 2. and Hoff (1990). Mixing length models needed to adjust the constants from flow to flow in wall jet prediction. many new turbulence models have been proposed and some of them showed significant improvement over the standard k-e model.. Patel et al. By evaluating the standard k-e model using direct numerical simulation. The combination of Lam Bremhorst model with wall functions were also used in Chen et al. Baker et al.^|^)=S. Detailed discussions of this algorithm and its application for ventilation simulation were given by Awbi (1991). and 42 x 42 were tested. Chen and Jiang. The Lam and Bremhorst low Reynolds number model compared favorably with a number of turbulence models (Liu et al. Murakami et al. 32 X 32. An empirical entrainment ratio was embedded in the boundary condition at the free boundary of the wall jet. The predicted results were comparable with the experimental results.eff 0 ^i + ^At 0 Turbulence energy Dissipation k e ^i+[^lt/ak] \i+[li^/o^] P(G-e) (pe/k)(CiG-C2e) 691 . 1991. Reynolds stress models were better than the two equation models and the models using mixing length hypothesis for predicting wall jets. Using a grid of 200 x 100. (1992). especially flow with separation (White. Thangam and Speziale (1992) showed that the reported errors in predicting flow over a back-facing step were mainly due to inadequate grid resolution. Chen et al. Wilcox. Cazalbou and Bradshaw (1993) also showed that a number of constants (including C^) in the standard k-e model were different from region to region in wall-bounded flows (boundary layer flow and channel flow). two problems are commonly reported using the standard k-e model in engineering applications. Awbi. Grid patterns of 12 x 12. The use of Reynolds stress models for engineering were limited because of the limited gains by using the models and the greater CPU time requirement (Bradshaw. (1990) used the Lam and Bremhorst low Reynolds number model with wall functions to predict water and air flows in a model and found that this combination was better than the standard k-e model. c^. (9) where (|) = scalar variable FA gf^ = effective diffusion coefficient for (]) SA = source term for < [ ) The governing equations include continuity. However. 1980): ^fpUi<t>--r. 1993. Rodi and Spalding (1970) and Ng and Spalding (1972) also simulated wall jets in an earlier search for better turbulence models. Gan and Awbi. (1988) using the standard k-8 model and a modified TEACH program. an algebraic model. 1991. 1990. As pointed out by Baker and Kelso (1990). Summary of the partial differential equations Equation Continuity Momentum 1 Ui ^<|>. Murakami et al. 22 x 22. The importance of grid resolution was addressed by Baker and Kelso (1990) and Thangam and Speziale (1992). and the Reynolds stress models. 1984). Choi et al. 1990. (1994) compared the performances of the standard k-e model. Choi et al. was adjusted from 0. Because of these problems. 1995. Maghirang and Manbeck. Because of this problem. turbulent kinetic energy. Another problem of the standard k-e model is the poor accuracy when predicting complex flows. (1988) found that a fine grid of 42 x 42 did not converge but that coarser grids converged.09 was used for other simulations... Bergstrom (1994) used an algebraic stress model with a low Reynolds number model in a two region manner. 1991. Jones and Whittle (1992). They pointed out that this discrepancy was due to the fact that C^ was set as a constant in the model. Simulation of a confined wall jet was part of the study done by Choi et al.. 1992. Patel et al. Choi et al. 39(2):689-698 (1981). 1995a.05 for wall jet simulation while 0.. 1988).09 to 0. One constant in the standard k-e model. Hoff (1990) found that his numerical simulation might not converge if all the grid points were not in a fully turbulent region. As reviewed by Liu et al. (1995a). Knappmiller and Kirkpatrick. the mixing length model by itself was not popular in engineering applications (Nallasamy. 1994.. Launder and Rodi (1983) concluded that the wall jet is a significantly more complex flow than a simply strained boundary layer flow for numerical simulation. 1989. 1980). 1993. 1987). momentum. 1994. 1987). Jet separation and reattachment are commonly encountered in ventilation air flows. It was found that numerical simulations using the standard k-e model predicted a jet spread of about 30% greater than experimental results for a plane-wall jet in stagnant surroundings. Fang and Grot.1980) to simulate a wall jet and the effects of obstacles on the wall jet. The standard k-e model is widely used to predict ventilation air flows (Worley and Manbeck. In more recent studies. the problem of numerical diffusion may dominate the transport process without adequate grid resolution. One is that all the grid points have to be located in the fully turbulent region and wall functions are needed to bridge the solid surface and the first grid point adjacent to the solid surface (Launder and Spalding. and Baker and Kelso (1990).

3. Grid No. However. the LBW model is the same as the LB model. the performance of the LBW model near the solid surface region where y+ < 11. 1988).. and the Lam and Bremhorst low Reynolds number model with wall functions (Chen et al. Chen et al. . Variables used in table 2 are (Launder and Spalding.1 1.5 (y*" calculated as k^^^ymin/^). 2 5 100x52 1.2 (Wilcox. Grid 3 was the densest grid used for the STD model. especially for free shear flows. 2 Grid No.09f^. List of grids used Grid No. 1990).0. The damping functions used also need improvement (Patel et al. F^^eff' ^^^ ^i^ ^^ summarized in table 2 for each equation.08 1. The terms <[). 1 Points inside inlet 1 Mesh* 70x32 X progression factor 1. not all the grid points in grids 4 and 5 were in a Table 4. It had y+ values ranging from 0.5.0.92f2 For STD model (Launder and Spalding.09 1.1 7 26 Grid No.0165Ry)]2/l + 2Q=5\ region where y*" > 11. SELECTION OF GRIDS f2=l-exp(-R^^ ^ ve R„ ymin"" ^^ shortest distance to any solid surface TURBULENCE MODELS Three turbulence models were used: the standard k-e model (Launder and Spalding. The LBW model differs from the LB model in that wall functions are used in the solid surface 692 Five different grids were selected (table 3). For plane-wall jet only. 1984. which requires y+ > 11. 3 Grid No. Table 4 lists the combinations of grids and turbulence models considered. C. All three models were used in this study for the planewall jet. Plane-wall jet simulations using grids 4 and 5 with the STD model did not converge. Chen and Patel.1.. 1974): f^. Cj = 1. Compared with other low Reynolds number model studies using grid points located with y " * " values less than 0. 1974).1. 1 was the coarsest grid which had one grid point inside the inlet.This combination allows the model to be used in low Reynolds number regions and does not require a dense grid in the solid surface region because wall functions are used.8 9 \3y 3x1 U/ lay/ Number of points in x direction by the number of grids in y direction. The main difference between grids was the number of grid points in the jet region. Under this condition. 1974): Ht-C^k2/e G' Table 3.5 is questionable.1 0. The STD model has been used successfully in numerous applications. 4 Grid No. 1981). 1984). the low Reynolds number model proposed by Lam and Bremhorst (1990). referred to as the LBW. TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE .e x p (.1 23 77 Grid No. 1990).08 y progression factor 1. 5 30 120x92 1. using grid 5 may not be dense enough for the LB model (Lam and Bremhorst.kinetic energy. 1 Grid No. however. For plane-free jets.1 15 48 Grid No. Combination of grids and turbulence models used Grid No. However. However.5 for all the grid points.. only the STD model was used because the three models are essentially the same for free shear flows. 3 8 120x60 1. 4 15 120x74 1.1. The LB model requires a dense grid in the solid surface region and has relatively poor convergence behavior (Patel et al. The y+ values for grid points adjacent to the solid surface (for plane-wall jets only) are also shown in table 3.8 to 9 for the grid points adjacent to the solid surface with all of them located in the region where y+ < 11. As shown in table 3. C^^ = 0.fi-f2-l For LB and LBW models (Lam and Bremhorst.08 1. 1981): f^= [l . the grid is not likely to be as dense as required by the LB model. Grid 5 was the densest grid used with 30 grid points located inside the inlet. The LB model is intended to overcome the problems that the STD model has. A denser grid was not attempted. referred to as the LB. 5 Plane-free Jet STD LBW LB X X X X Plane-wall Jet STD LBW LB X X X X X X X X* X X X* X X Convergence not achieved. The governing equations for each model are listed in table 2 with other equations. it requires all the grid points to be in the fully turbulent flow region and it is not accurate for complex flows. Oe . It uses damping functions to extend its use to the low Reynolds number region and no wall functions are needed..1 Minimum y+t 111 1134 Maximum y+f Grid No. as reported in tiie literature.. referred to as the STD.44f. Ok . the grid used was much denser than grids commonly used for ventilation simulation. 1993.

01447x2-7.0. Central difference scheme was used to discretize the source terms.004744x2-2. 1993).0 x lO"-^. ae/ay = o wall functions (Launder and Spalding. Wilcox. It was found that the STD model was less likely to diverge. 1989. The y direction size was arbitrary yet large enough that little impact was expected on the prediction. plane-free jet CD. V = 0.. so the STD model solution was used as the initial guess for the LB and LBW models.2k3/2 u . 1981. 2) were selected as symmetry lines. 1990) This condition was imposed to eliminate the possibility of unrealistic inflow at the exit. The flow rate was calculated by integrating the velocity profile from the center of the jet (the wall in the case of wall jet) to the point where the air velocity component in the x direction was zero. The convergence criterion was that the residual of the continuity equation should be < 2.5<x<8 x>8 This approximation has a relative error of < 2% in the range of 0 < x < 8 and an absolute error of < 0.4IL (Djilali et al. Lam and Bremhorst. The boundary conditions are listed in table 5. Gan and Awbi.03759x+0. the left (except the inlet) and bottom boundary (AB and AE in fig.0. V . dk/ay = 0.0. the exponential term e~^ was divided into five sections and each section was approximated by a polynomial.9 3. 39(2):689-698 693 . To solve this problem.0 au/ay . Each polynomial was a least square fit of data points of the exponential function for the section.. The polynomials are: e-^« /0.5 5.5) CD. 1995b). V .005uo2. uniform conditions were assumed across the inlet. Bw/dx = 0. 1988).0038 in the range of 0 < x < oo. 1984. dkldx = 0. it was noticed that the LB and the LBW models. A computation domain of 250b in the x direction and 150b in the y direction was used in this study. The e value at the inlet was calculated as 8 = (C^^^^^/^) / 0.0. Chen et al. It was suggested that the inlet conditions might be important to achieve similitude (Liu et al. wall jet. DjilaH et al. The guessed velocity field to start the iteration process may result in divergence using either the LBW or LB models. the inlet condition Ikble 5. are not summarized here because these are not of primary interest for ventilation studies. dz/dx = 0. velocity decay.0.9962-0. TREATMENT OF THE EXPONENTIAL TERMS |B- DOMAIN DF INTEREST During the initial stage of this study. and e . As mentioned earlier.9<x<5. Boundary conditions AB AE BC DE CD. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The predicted results of velocity profile. 1980) u . required about three times the CPU time that the STD model required to complete one iteration. the momentum at DE should be less than or equal to the momentum at the adjacent upstream section* au/ay = 0. To minimize the complication of a solid surface. BOUNDARY CONDITIONS The computation domain is shown in figure 2.5972X+0. if used as proposed with the exponential terms.8146-0. skin friction coefficient. de/dx . ae/ay . and entrainment ratio are presented. Numerous discussions related to these parameters are available (Chen and Patel.1009-0. Uniform condition was assumed at the inlet for all the grids used to ensure comparability between grids.09677x+0. 1989. 1989).0 u = uo. 1988. 1980) method was used to numerically solve the partial differential equations. The parameters k.2204-0.3203x2 0. ak/ay = o.fully turbulent region. Patel et al. dv/dx . dk/Bx = 0.1582x2-0. The 250b was selected to ensure that the size of the domain was long enough to cover the suggested self-similar region of up to 100b (ASHRAE.5) u = 0. k .> 11.. LB model and LBW model (y+ < 11. wall jet STD model and LBW model (y-».9429x+0. The SIMPLER (Patankar.0. DEC 3000 workstations from Digital Equipment Corporation were used for the calculation. The division line between each section was drawn by observing the e~^ curve and minimizing the curvature in each section. The flow rate at any given axial location x was needed for entrainment ratio calculation. 1974. VOL.. k . etc. L = 2b was used in the study. e. Choi et al.2vk/ymin2 (Chieng and Launder. The impact of that assumption on numerical simulation was not known.325xlO-V 0. V = 0.01471x3 0. jet spread. 1980.0. Grids 1 and 2 were not considered for the LB model because the LB model requires a dense grid in the solid surface region. Chieng and Launder. Use of the approximation improved the speed of the LB and the LBW models to a rate comparable of the STD model.0. 1994. The problem was traced to the exponential terms in the Lam and Bremhorst low Reynolds number model. e = 0. however..021xl0-V 0 (10) A X 1 jet> wall boundary (wall jet> or centerllne of j e t ifree symmetry line exit Figure 2-The computation domain. DETAILS OF THE NUMERICAL SCHEME o<x< 1 l<x<3.

694 Figure 5-Results of the plane-wall jet simulation using the LBW model . (2) o Grid 1(70x32) A Grid 2 (100x52) ^ Grid 3 (120x60) . 1973).-" 12 y" 50 100 x/b 150 200 250 (a) .was generally considered to have little impact on the selfsimilar portion (zone 3) of the jet (ASHRAE. The STD model was used with grids 4 and 5.(3) o Grid 4 (120x74) A Grid 3 (120x60) V Grid 2 (100x52) .Grid 4 (120x74) D Grid 5 (120x92) y/yO. TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE . As shown in the figures.5. but convergence was not achieved. and 4) showed good agreement with published data. (5) o Grid 4 (120x74) A Grid 3 (120x60) ^ Grid 2 (100x52) .Grid 4 (120x74) n Grid 5 (120x92) 50..8 Eqn. indicating adequate resolution with grid 2.5 (b) (b) Figure 3-Results of the plane-free jet simulation .(a) velocity decay and (b) velocity profile. Effects of Different Grids. PLANE-FREE JET 30 24 ^ Eqn. The effects using the STD and the LB model were similar 1. V W] Eqn.Grid 1(70x32) 18 The plane-free jet was simulated using the STD model and four of the five grids as shown in table 3. overpredicted the jet spread and entrainment ratio and underestimated the velocity decay. 0. 3.6 0. which was the coarsest grid with one grid point inside the inlet width.0- (b) Figure 4-Resiilts of the plane-free jet simulation .Grid 1(70x32) •Jfi / ^ w 50 100 150 x/b 200 250 The plane-wall jet was simulated using the STD. The results are shown in figures 3 and 4.Grid 1(70x32) Eqn. and LBW models with some or all of the five different grids (table 3). grids 2. (5) o Grid 1(70x32) A Grid 2 (100x52) ^ Grid 3 (120x60) . Narasimha et al. (7) o Grid 4 (120x74) A Grid 3 (120x60) V Grid 2 (100x52) .(a) jet spread and (b) entrainment ratio. Grid 1. 1989. LB. The entrainment ratio showed a slightly lower value than the experimental result (eq.5 y/yO. The velocity decay was virtually the same as equation 5. 6) near the exit. Both grids had grid points in the wall region with y+ < 11. The results of the plane-free jet with adequate grid resolution (grids 2.2 0 1 50 i 100 x/b 1 150 " " i• 200 • 250 250 (a) (a) Eqn.Grid 1(70x32) Eqn. 1983. PLANE-WALL JET . The jet spread prediction is slightly higher (< 10% higher) than the experimental result of equation 3.(a) velocity decay and (b) velocity profile. Launder and Rodi. The effects of different grids using the LBW model are shown in figures 5 and 6. and 4 showed less than 5% difference between each other in the predicted results. 3.4 0.(l) o Grid 4 (120x74) A Grid 3 (120x60) ^ Grid 2 (100x52) .

6b). ^ . Figures 6a and 6b show the predicted jet spread and entrainment ratios. Comparing the results of grids 1. no grid showed a clear advantage in terms of better agreement with the experimental results for the plane-wall jet. The jet spread predictions were 20 to 30% higher than the experimental results (fig. The three models showed almost identical results and the results were in good agreement with the published data. making it VOL.8o STD A LBW . the predicted profiles showed a peak velocity closer to the wall than what was observed in experiments.0 to the LBW model. Grid 5 was the densest grid used but it did not have the best performance. As shown later in the results. x/b ranged from 145 to 155). 695 . all predictions were within 10% of the experimental results.(5) 0. with grids 1.(4) J^?-. The velocity profiles were at the location of x/b closest to 150 (depending on the grid. Grid 4 gave the best performance in terms of jet spread prediction.(8) o Grid 1(70x32) A Grid 2 (100x52) V Grid 3 (120x60) . The STD model and LBW model gave identical results. The velocity profiles showed little difference at different locations except the initial part of the jet (up to x/b = 40) and at the exit. and 5 slightly better than the other two grids (fig.(a) jet spread and (b) entrainment ratio. The jet spread predictions with different turbulence models are shown in figure 8a. all of which had y"^ > 11. The results of using other grids were similar to grid 3. the LB model overpredicts the jet spread. All models significantly overpredicted the jet spread.LB Eqii. The LB model overpredicted the jet spread by about 40%.6 0. 2. and 3. Based on the above analysis.4- 10. Grid 4 did not show a clear advantage in entrainment ratio prediction as it did for the jet spread prediction. Predictions using grids 1 and 4 showed slighdy larger errors than the other grids. However. Velocity profiles predicted are shown in figure 5b. The overpredictions of that grid in velocity profile and velocity decay eroded the advantage in jet spread. The effects of different turbulence models using grid 3 are shown in figures 7 and 8.5 and used wall functions. The velocity profiles at x/b « 150 are shown in figure 7b. Effects of Different Turbulence Models.5 (table 3) where LBW is effectively the same as the LB model. The predicted results were all in good agreement with the experimental results. difficult to judge what should be the adequate grid resolution. As shown. Figure 7a showed the velocity decay predictions using different turbulence models.250 100 x/b 150 200 < ^ 250 (a) (b) Figure 7-Results of the plane-wall jet simulation using grid 3 (a) velocity decay and (b) velocity profile. The LB model prediction showed a slightly larger error than the other two models. 39(2):689-698 0. The entrainment ratios were overpredicted by about 30%.Grid 4 (120x74) a Grid 5 (120x92) 250 (b) Figure 6--Results of the plane-wall jet simulation using the LBW model . The 30% difference between the experimental results and the STD model prediction was in agreement with the conclusion of Launder and Rodi (1983).^ ' 1 o Grid 1(70x32) A Grid 2 (100x52) V Grid 3 (120x60) • Grid 4 (120x74) n Grid 5 (120x92) 6 0 w ^ ^^ 100 x/b 150 200 250 50 (a) Eqn. grid 2 showed larger overprediction of jet spread and entrainment than grids 1 and 3. Figure 5a shows the velocity decay using different grids.30 24 = 18 Eqn. The STD model and tiie LBW model gave predictions that were very close to each other and were about 30% larger than the experimental results.k. Further investigation is needed to study if the same grid impact is true for jets with separation. Changing from grid 4 to grid 5 also changed the predicted results. The reason may be that all the grid points adjacent to the wall boundary for grid 5 have y+ values less than 11. They concluded 1. The predictions were within 10% of the experimentally measured profile for most of the jet and within 30% at the outer region of the jet where the velocity was low. 6a). 4.

The STD model and the LBW model gave comparable results. All three turbulence models gave prediction of velocity decay and velocity profile close to the published data. The overprediction is likely to be smaller than that of an unconfined jet because the surroundings also affect jet expansion. • Published data on unconfined plane-free and planewall jets were summarized. It was found that the jet velocity decay. it is concluded that the LB model is not as good as the other two models for wall jet prediction. the STD model did not converge if grid points were not in the fully turbulent region (grids 4 and 5)."QS s * ^l "C^ > . the LBW model was better than the other two models. This is especially true for jet spread prediction. The STD model and the LBW model showed almost identical results which were better than the LB model.| -t^dt G k Jo P Q Rk Rt turbulence model functions turbulence generation specific turbulent kinetic energy momentum flux at the inlet mean pressure volumetric flow rate turbulence Reynolds number (k^/^y/x)) turbulence Reynolds number [k2y/(ve)] 696 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE . half of the inlet height for plane-free jet Ci. numerical simulation using the STD model showed that adequate grid resolution was reached with five grid points in the inlet for the jet studied. CH turbulence model constants error function: erf erf(x) = . but in the outer 'free-shear-layer' region beyond the velocity maximum".^ 6 0 M DO " ^ ^ 100 x/b 150 200 250 50 • (a) r^*"*" j^' ^ ^ . This damping is "not just in the immediate vicinity of the surface. NOMENCLATURE VARIABLES b jet inlet height for wall jet.C2. the LB and LBW models took about three times as long to complete one iteration compared with the standard k-e model. The LBW model had an advantage in that it could be used for a region where the flow was not fully turbulent. no one grid showed a clear advantage over the others among the five grids used. Error due to inadequate grid resolution may have offset other errors for the coarse grids."A 6^ o STD A LBW LB Eqn. But they all overpredicted the jet spread and entrainment ratio significantly (20 to 40%).(4) 24 = 18 i . For the plane-wall jet. The overprediction in jet spread and entrainment ratio may also exist in room air movement involving wall jets. Because of the exponential terms used in the low Reynolds number model. Using a polynomial approximation to replace exponential terms significantly improved the speed of the low Reynolds number model used. indicating a need for better turbulence models to predict plane-wall jets. The solution was in good agreement with the experimental results. A room of the same length will have a smaller overprediction with a lower room height because the jet's expansion is more likely to be restricted. Further studies on turbulence models are needed to improve the performance of jet spread prediction. Based on this analysis. For the plane-free jet. • that "the main cause of this discrepancy is the wall's damping of the normal velocity fluctuations". jet spread. The LBW and LB model did not show any improvement over the STD model in terms of better agreement with the published data. A grid that was too coarse (one grid point inside the inlet) overpredicted jet spread and underpredicted velocity decay for the plane-free jet.(8) o"* Y J L / _ 50 • 100 150 (b) 200 250 Figure 8-Resiilts of the plane-wall jet simulation using grid 3 . experimental results showed that the plane-wall jet has 30% less jet spread and entrainment ratio than the corresponding plane-free jet.LB Eqn. For the plane-wall jet. The LB model gave the worst performance for the grids tested and the STD model may not converge if all the grid points are not in the fully turbulent region.(a) jet spread and (b) entrainment ratio. However. The overprediction in jet spread resulted in the overprediction of the entrainment ratio (fig.30 CONCLUSIONS • o STD A LBW . Similar conclusions were also drawn by Cazalbou and Bradshaw (1993). velocity profile. 8b). and jet entrainment ratio were well established by experimental and analytical studies. Contrary to the common practice that an unconfined plane-wall jet can be treated as one half of the free jet.

Chen. Turbulent transport in wall-bounded flows. Spalding. 1950. Advances in computational fluid dynamics: A review from a ventilation simulation perspective. S. Transactions of the A^A^" 31(6): 1804-1814. Gan. Ph. Patankar. Fluid Mech. C. Narasimha. Hoff and D. M. A modified form of the k-e model for predicting wall turbulence. . 1988.y < > 1 ^ V Mt ^t'^e P 11 SUBSCRIPTS r generalized source term velocity components jet velocity decay or peak velocity dimensionless distance from the solid surface location where u = u^^/l minimum distance to any solid surface dissipation rate of k coordinates generalized variable laminar dynamic viscosity laminar kinematic viscosity turbulent viscosity diffusion Prandtl numbers density diffusion coefficient ^ = y/yo. P. Aerospace Sci. 1974. Mich. 39(2):689-698 697 . Williams and R. Chon and J. Chen. 1980. 95-4476. Comparison of numerical predictions of horizontal nonisothermal jet in a room with three turbulence models . 1993. Jones. Joseph. ASHRAE Trans. Maghirang. 1994. 1991. 1989. A. Bergstrom. and H. E. AIAA J. P. VOL. St. Joseph. Gartshore and M. Calculation of convective heat transfer in recirculating turbulent flow using various near-wall turbulence models. G. H. Murakami. England: E&FNSPON. J. B. 19:81-128. 1990. 1981. A. L. Awbi. Numerical Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow. ASHRAE Trans. I. On validation of computational fluid dynamics procedures for room air motion prediction. Awbi. 113:579-586. Liu. T. Cazalbou. diss. Parametric analysis of turbulent wall jets in still air. J. Rev. J. S. and DSM. Ga. Bradshaw. St. Launder. Salcudean. Significant questions in predicting room air motion. and D. 1981. 1990. Application of computational fluid dynamics in room ventilation. D. Turbulence models and their applications to the prediction of intemal flows: A review. ASAE Paper No. Launder. Lam. Bremhorst. Mich. Minneapolis. M. Narayan and S. B. The turbulent wall jet. Myers. AAIW. Y. G. London. Transactions of the A&4£: 36(5): 1449-1459. Rodi. Chen.I. and A. Q. Fluids Eng. Plane non-isothermal air jets discharging along a smooth ceiling. Grot. C. H. ASHRAE Transactions 98:929-939. E. J. Ng. 1988. ASAE Paper No. B. Computational fluid dynamics for building air flow prediction . and G. Cambridge. The turbulent wall jet-measurements and modeling. and P. Near-wall turbulence models for complex flows including separation.. and V. 1973. Warhaft. ASM. N. A numerical study of indoor air quality and thermal comfort under six kinds of air diffusion. and Z.: ASAE. 1980. B. and R. ASHRAE Transactions 100(2): 697-704. Tuve. Nallasamy. Hoff. 26(6):641-648. of Minnesota. Parthasarathy. Development of a robust finite element CFD procedure for predicting indoor room air motion. Chen. C. C. Transactions ASHVE56:A59-An%. Joseph. andEng. C . Q. Modeling particle transport in slot-inlet ventilated airspaces. 1989. An application of the k-epsilon turbulence model to predict air distribution in a slot-ventilated enclosure. Kirkpatrick.k-£ EVM.. T.U.: ASAE. J. Nakagawa. Moser and A.: ASAE. Building and Environment 29(4): 261-273. On the calculation of turbulent heat transport downstream from an abrupt pipe expansion. L. Computer Methods in Applied Mech. S. 1994. Physics of Fluids 5(12):3233-3239.5 ymin £ x. E. K. J. Turbulent flow in a channel with a wavy wall. Timmons and Z. Manbeck. 77:354-359. S. Numerical prediction of a turbulent fountain in a room. Albright. and K. J.T. Koestel. Spalding.. Computers & Fluids 15(2): 151-194. K. Building and Environment 29(4):449-459. 19:53-74. 1969. Walker and G. turbulent flow by a low-Reynolds-number k-8 model. Ooka. St. Djilali. J. Bradshaw. Joseph. S. C. B. A. M. K. Numerical simulation of the performance of building ventilation systems. ASHRAE Handbook (Fundamentals). Mich. The Theory of Turbulent Jets. K. Numerical Heat Transfer. V. Computational determination of the behavior of a cold air ceiling jet in a room with a plume. Rev. and R. H. ASHRAE Transactions 96(1): 760-774. A. Kelso. Q. J. D. Evaluation of model coefficients using direct numerical simulations. Eustis. G.. 1992. 1990. T. Basic Eng. ASAE Paper No. Aeronautical J. C . 1994. J. 1994. Suter.. P. 15:429-459. . Building and Environment 24:73-84. B.. L. S. T. Press. The Physics of Fluids 15(1): 20-30. B. B. 1983. 1990. Yoon.. M. 1992. Numerical Heat Transfer 3:189-207. Baker. Turbulence model for boundary layers near walls. 1987. H. and W. Hermann and G. H. ASHRAE Transactions 96(l):564-573. Chieng. Mass. Jiang. ASHRAE Transactions 96(2): 361-366. 1963. R. 1995b. Fluid Mech. St. N. 1989. E. M. J. V. ASHRAE Transactions 97:38-48. Prediction of buoyant. A. 1995a. Launder. Plane turbulent wall jet flow development and friction factor. D. S. Black. Ann. Huber. 1987. J.: ASHRAE. P. White. A. N. Atlanta. 1991. E. and B. Fang. Moser and P. H. Unpub. 1993..Current status and capabilities. and H.. Ventilation of Buildings. and D. D. R. Patel. J. ASHRAE.5 turbulent effective grid number at inlet X location t off ij 0 X REFERENCES Abramovich. Choi. P. Kato and R. J.D. Three-dimensional air speed and temperature distributions in a scaled-model livestock confinement facility.. Albright. Whittle.. Y. Prog. New York: McGraw-Hill.: The M. Transactions ofASME 103:456-460. 100(2):669-676. Schauer and R.. S. Turbulent secondary flows. 1991. A comparison of three proposed ventilation criteria. Baker. Murakami. Mich. B. Transactions ofASME 85:47-54. . Kelso. ASHRAE Transactions 98(1):203-217. 1972. Kato and H. Univ. 1990. Knappmiller.. 69-450. Part A 16:189-212. 1994. Building and Environment 27:321-338. 1992. The numerical computation of turbulent flows. Environment Control for Animals and Plants. Patel. 1963. Numerical prediction of horizontal nonisothermal 3-D jet in room based on the k-e model. 100(2):677-684. 95-4642.: ASAE. Bundy. Q. 3:269-289. V Um s y^ yo. Comparative study of ventilating jets from various types of outlets. Numerical simulation of the indoor environment.

Transactions oftheASAE 13(2):77-81. G. 7. D. Review of the theoretical relationships of isothermal ventilating air jets. Rodi and G. and H. 1988. N. Comparison of two-equation turbulence models for boundary layers with pressure gradient. Transactions ASHVE 59:261-279. 234:669-690. Wilson. AMAy. 62:873-877. W. 10:481-495. J. Napier Polytechnic. Amsterdam. U. Horev. C. Walker. and C. 1992. W. 1961. The effect of rectangular obstacles on the diffusion of wall jet. Transactions oftheASAE 38(l):231-239. M. 1970. Persson. 31:1414-1421. Fluid Mech.. I. Setrak. Modeling particle transport and air flow in ceiling inlet ventilation systems. On the applicability of various scaling laws to the turbulent wall jet. A.Patel. C . D. Rodi. Turbulent Jets. M. and W. of the Royal Aeronautical Soc.. P. 1976. New York: McGraw-Hill. L.und Stojfubertragung 3:85-95. 1970. A. A. Manbeck. Wilcox. Viscous Fluid Flow. B. 698 TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASAE . thesis. 30:1314-1320. and its application to free jets. G. H. Turbulent flow past a backward-facing step: A critical evaluation of two-equation models. 1991. 1992. Esmay and S. Speziale. Schwarz. 1995. The two-dimensional turbulent wall-jet. 23:1038-1319. N. AMA 7. B. Thangam. S. Cosart. J. Katz and E. Ph. Worley. The Netherlands: Elsevier. Air velocities in ventilating jets. Transactions oftheASAE 20:517-522. Turbulence models for near-wall and low Reynolds number flows: A review. 1984. Warme. 1953. J. S. Y. W and D. White. AIAA J. Scheuerer. Sigalla. Spalding. F. V. 1977. A two-parameter model of turbulence. of Fluid Mech. Rajaratnam. Tuve. L. Wygnanski. Wall-jet velocity and temperature profiles resulting from a ventilation inlet. 1993. 1958.D. Measurements of skin friction in a plane turbulent wall jet. J.K.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful