Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, the University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3T 5V6,
Canada
Abstract: The paper presents an assessment of the performances of RANS turbulence models for simulating turbulent
swirling can-combustor flows with different inlet swirl intensities (i.e. S=0.4 and S=0.81). The predictions compared
against published experimental data reveal that the eddy-viscosity models can not show the central recirculation zone in
the case of a weakly swirling flow. However, although they reveal the existence of this region in a strongly swirling flow,
they are incapable of predicting its correct size. On the other hand, the Reynolds stress models are able to predict the cor-
ner and the central recirculation zones in both flow cases. The predictions of turbulence intensities by using the realizable
k- and the SST k- are comparable to those of the Reynolds stress closures. The shear stresses are not well predicted by
all the tested models. Both the eddy-viscosity and the Reynolds stress closures show relatively less approximation errors
in the weakly swirling flow.
introducing a new eddy-viscosity formula and a new dissipa- types of flows [9,50-51,60-61]. For example, Chen et al. [9]
tion equation that is based on the dynamic equation of the employ the SSG model in simulating confined swirling flows
mean-square vorticity fluctuation [40-41]. Zhu et al. [16] (S=0.85, and 2.25) and report that the SSG model predicts
employ the standard k-, the RNG k-, and the realizable k- the flow adequately in both of the cases. Lu et al. [50] intro-
model in the simulation of coflow jets in a cylindrical duce a modified source term of the transport -equation
combustor. They find that the realizable k- model works based on physical reasoning in that anisotropy is responsible
better than does the standard k- model, while the RNG k- for the turbulent transfer from large- to small-scale eddies in
model does not give improvements over the standard k- regions of predominantly anisotropic turbulence, and that
model. In the shear-stress transport (SST) k- model [42], isotropy controls the turbulent kinetic energy transfer in flow
the definition of the turbulent viscosity is re-defined along regions where turbulence is predominantly isotropic. They
with the addition of a cross-diffusion term in the -equation. find that their new -equation together with the SSG model
These modifications of the SST k- model show better exhibits a strong improvement in the prediction of a weakly
performance over both the standard k- and RNG k- models (S=0.5) swirling flow. It is also reported that the SSG model
[41-42]. Nonetheless, it is reported that the SST k- model performs well in the vicinity of a wall, in spite of the fact
yields excessive radial diffusive transport in both upstream that its formulation does not contain wall-reflection correc-
and downstream of a strongly swirling flow [10]. Engdar et tion terms [50].
al. [21] investigate the performance of the standard k-
The literature reviewed above show that confined swirl-
model and the SST k- model in the simulation of a confined
ing flows are studied experimentally and numerically.
swirling flow. They find that in a swirling flow with S=0.58,
Mainly, the confinement is either a dump (can) combustor or
the standard k- model is not able to predict the central a straight pipe (cylinder). It is demonstrated experimentally
recirculation zone, while the SST k- model shows this that the inlet swirl intensity can alter significantly the swirl-
region.
Other turbulence closure models, such as algebraic Rey- ing flow field characteristics. It can, for example, drastically
nolds stress model (ASM), are used for simulating swirling change the position and size of different regions of the flow,
turbulent flows [8,13,20,25,43-46]. It is shown [44-45] that e.g. the central toroidal recirculation zone (CTRZ) and the
the ASM is not able to simulate properly axisymmetric swirl- corner recirculation zone (CRZ) [11-12,17,62-66]. In a dump
ing flows, because of significant stress transport processes combustor, the CRZ always exists, whereas the CTRZ may
present in this type of flows. However, new modified ver- not occur at low inlet swirl intensities. On the other hand, in
sions of the ASM are employed to simulate several swirling a straight pipe (cylinder), the CRZ does not exist; however,
flow configurations [13,20,25,45-46], which appear to pro- the CTRZ may occur at high swirl intensities. Therefore,
duce better predictions over the standard k- model. Zhang et both the inlet swirl intensity and type of confinement geome-
al. [46] simulate a confined coaxial swirling jet using a new try have an impact on the overall characteristics of a swirling
ASM and compare their results with those obtained via the k- flowfield. It has also been shown that the swirler design (in-
model. They report that the mean and fluctuating velocities let velocity profile) can change the flowfield of a combustor
predicted by the ASM are superior to those of the k- model. [62]. Although there are numerous studies in which some of
The k- is reported to be incapable of showing the central RANS models are employed to simulate swirling flows with
reverse flow, while the ASM reveals the existence of this different inlet swirl intensities (e.g. Ref [50]: S=0.5, S=2.25),
region [46]. a comprehensive parametric study that enables to examining
the performance of these numerical models appears to be
The standard Reynolds stress model (RSM) [47], and its
lacking. For example, two different geometries (i.e. a straight
different versions are also tested for several swirling flow
pipe and a dump combustor) have been used in Ref [50], but
configurations and satisfactory predictions are achieved [6-
9,13,17-19,23,28,48-53]. However, the RSM model is found for each geometry only one single inlet swirl intensity is
tested. In addition, the swirler design (inlet swirling flow
incapable of resolving all the deficiencies of the two-
profile) is also different in both geometries. For instance, the
equation models for simulating turbulent swirling flows [7-
corner recirculation zone does exist only in the dump com-
8,17-18,48-50,54-56]. For example, Tsai et al. [18] find that
bustor geometry. Moreover, in some other numerical works
for a weakly swirling flow (S=0.3) the k- model predicts a
(such as Ref [14]) although it is claimed that only the inlet
faster axial velocity recovery, while the RSM model yields a
swirl intensity is varied, the literature show that either the
relatively slow axial velocity development, though the stress
inlet swirl intensity range is not wide enough to alter the
closure (RSM) performs better in general. It is also reported
main features of the flow field or there is a lack of compre-
that the intensity of turbulence is underpredicted by the
hensive comparative examinations of the performance of
stress model along the centerline [18,49-50]. Hanjalic
different RANS models. Another issue that arises while re-
[39,57] report that both the equations for the dissipation rate
of k and the pressure-strain term are the main source of inac- viewing the literature is the fact that some of the two-
curacy in predicting turbulence quantities. Modified versions equation models (i.e. RNG k-, realizable k-, and SST k-)
have been rarely tested in predicting the mean and turbulence
of the RSM are proposed [50,58-59]. For example, Lumley et
quantities of swirling flows in a can-combustor with differ-
al. [58] model the source term of the transport -equation in
ent inlet swirl numbers.
a new way. However, their work is not very helpful in simu-
lating complex swirling flows [50]. Speziale et al. [59] pro- Therefore, the present study attempts to provide a com-
pose a new quadratic model for the pressure-strain term prehensive parametric analysis of the performance of the
(SSG) which appears to produce accurate results of various most recognized RANS turbulence models for predicting the
10 The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Shamami and Birouk
main characteristics of a can-combustor swirling flow with where k and are the turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation
different inlet swirl intensities (i.e. S=0.4 and S=0.81). In rate, respectively, which are expressed as
contrast to previous studies, in the present work only the 1
k = ui ui (6)
swirl intensity is varied, as both the swirler design and com- 2
bustor geometry are kept the same. Therefore, only the inlet
swirl intensity affects the numerical predictions of different u i u i (7)
=
models for the two flow cases. The adopted two inlet swirl x j x j
intensities are thought to be representative of the weak and
strong swirling flow characteristics. Also, it is important to The k- model (called KEM in the present study), consists
note that the choice of this particular geometry is driven by of the following transport equations for k and
the fact that the experimental data are readily available for ( U j k )
various inlet swirl numbers [63,67], and also due to its indus- =
( + t ) k
+ 2 t S ij S ij (8)
x j x j k x j
SSG 0.09 3.4 1.8 4.2 0.8 1.3 1.25 Swirl number 0.4 0.81
(1)). The swirl number in this configuration is 0.4. The sec- stream function are plotted for both low and high swirl inten-
ond configuration is an airflow with an inlet average velocity sity flow configurations.
of 30.4 ± 0.3 m/s, which corresponds to a Reynolds number
3.1. Low Swirl Number Flow Configuration
of 1.98 105 based on the combustor inlet diameter. The
swirl number in this case is 0.81. Note that the Reynolds and 3.1.1. Mean Velocity Field
swirl numbers in the second flow configuration are about 1.6
Computational results of the normalized axial velocity
and 2 times those in the first one, respectively, which pro-
are compared against their counterpart’s published experi-
vide a wide range of flow conditions (see Table 3).
mental data in Fig. (2a,b) at typical planes/stations in the
Experimental data for these two flow configurations are near-, mid- and relatively far-fields of the flow. Three dis-
obtained from Refs. [63, 67]. Note that experimental data are tinct regions can be observed; (i) a core region near the cen-
available starting from x/H=0.38 downstream of the combus- terline of the combustor, (ii) a near wall region, and (iii) a
tion sudden expansion. In the simulation exercise, the ex- mixing layer between these two regions. It can be seen that
perimental data at this location are used as the inlet boundary the size of each of these regions varies from one axial plane
conditions. The experimental data for the turbulent kinetic (or station) to another.
energy (k) available at the inlet is used in the simulation. In
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=3
order to calculate the dissipation rate of the turbulent kinetic
energy () at the inlet, the following equation is used: 2.5
2.5
=C 3/ 4
k 3/ 2
/l (18)
2 2
where C is a constant (=0.09), k is the turbulent kinetic
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
energy, and l is the turbulence length scale which can be
approximated as 0.07 of the combustor diameter (l = 0.07D).
1 1
The flow is assumed steady, axisymmetric and isothermal.
Because of the symmetry, only the upper half of the combus-
0.5 0.5
tor is simulated. The computational domain is chosen to be
long enough to ensure complete development of the flow; U/Uref U/Uref
0 0
that is, up to x/H=18 in the first flow configuration and up to -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
x/H=24 in the second one. A zero normal-gradient boundary
3 x/H=5 x/H=8
condition is chosen at the outlet. A two-layer-based, non- 3
equilibrium wall function [78] is used near the wall. In this
2.5
model, the Launder and Spalding's [68] log-law for the mean 2.5
1.5
r/H
sent work, the wall-adjacent cell’s centroid is located at 1.5
(2b) indicates that the stress models produce more accurate x/H=1 3 x/H=3 3
predictions than their counterparts’ two-equation eddy-
viscosity models. For instance, in all the axial stations pre- 2.5 2.5
r/H
r/H
Whereas, Fig. (2b) shows that the Reynolds stress models
1.5 1.5
produce satisfactory predictions (with respect to the experi-
mental data) everywhere including near the centreline. 1 1
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=3
0.5 0.5
1.5 1.5
2.5 2.5
1 1
2 2
r/H
r/H
0.5 0.5
1.5 1.5
U/Uref U/Uref
0 0 1 1
-0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
W/Uref W/Uref
2.5 2.5 0 0
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0
2 2
Fig. (2c). Radial profiles of normalized swirl velocity (S=0.4);
Eddy-viscosity models.
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
1 1 x/H=1 3 x/H=3 3
U/Uref U/Uref
0 0 2 2
-0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 -0.3 0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
Fig. (2b). Radial profiles of normalized axial velocity (S=0.4);
Reynolds stress closures. 1 1
r/H
ment in the combustor. One can say that the maximum tan- 1.5 1.5
gential velocity occurs at the first measurement station,
which is near the flow onset. At subsequent stations beyond 1 1
x/H=10 (not shown in this paper), the swirl profile for all the
models becomes relatively flat, which is a characteristic of a 0.5 0.5
As can be seen in Fig. (2c) at stations close to the dump Figs. (3,4) show that all the tested turbulence models are
plane (i.e. x/H=1), all the two-equation eddy-viscosity mod- able to predict the CRZ. The predicted length of the CRZ by
els predict poorly the tangential flow velocity especially near these models is summarized in Table 4. This Table shows
the wall. However as the flow develops downstream the that the predicted length of the CRZ by the KEM is the best
dump plane, the same models do not perform well in the one when compared with its experimental counterpart. The
inner flow region (i.e. for r/H<1.5). On the other hand, the predicted CRZs by the RNG, RKEM and the SST are longer
Reynolds stress models show reasonably satisfactory predic- than the one found experimentally, while the predicted CRZs
tions of the tangential velocity profiles despite the fact that by the RSM and SSG are shorter than their experimental
they slightly underpredict the maximum tangential velocity counterpart.
in the region between r/H=0.5 and r/H=1.5. Table 4. Measured and Predicted Length of the CRZ for S = 0.4
For this weakly swirling flow, S=0.4, one may conclude
that among the two-equation eddy-viscosity models, the Exp. KEM RNG RKEM SST RSM SSG
KEM and SST show the worst and best predictions of the
mean swirl velocity profiles, respectively. But the predic- 4 3.7 6 5 5 2.7 2.5
tions of SST are still poor as compared to the experimental
data. The predictions of the Reynolds stress models (e.g.
RSM and SSG), on the other hand, are much closer to the It is found experimentally that the CTRZ starts in the
experimental data. inlet pipe upstream of the dump plane and extends to roughly
7.9 step heights downstream of the dump plane, with a maxi-
3.1.2. Visualization of the Flowfield mum radius of r/H=0.6 at x/H=5.0 [63]. Figs. (3,4) show
The velocity vectors and contours of stream function in that the KEM, RNG, RKEM and the SST cannot predict this
the UV plane at several typical locations representing the important feature of the flow, while the RSM and the SSG
near-, mid- and far-fields of the flow development in the models are able of capturing this feature.
combustor are presented in Figs. (3,4), respectively. The
predictions in Fig. (4) indicate that the flowfield of a turbu-
lent swirling flow in a dump combustor can be characterized
by two distinct regions: (i) a corner recirculation zone (CRZ)
that is caused by the sudden expansion of the cylindrical
combustor, and (ii) a central toroidal recirculation zone
(CTRZ) which is caused by an increase in the swirl intensity
of the swirling flow. According to the experimental data
[63], the CRZ starts in the dump plane and extends to
roughly 4 step heights downstream of the dump plane.
dial direction) CTRZ, as compared to the experiments (see (Fig. 5a) contd…..
Table 5. Measured and Predicted Length and Width of the 2.5 2.5
CTRZ for S = 0.4
2 2
(x/H)max (y/H)max
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
KEM - -
0.5 0.5
RNG - -
0 0
RKEM - - 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
v'/Uref v'/Uref
SST - -
RSM 5 0.75 3 x/H=5 3 x/H=8
2 2
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
predict the CRZ, whereas only the Reynolds stress closures
reveal the existence of the CTRZ. The size of the CRZ is 1 1
reasonably well predicted by the KEM model, while the RSM
model produces slightly smaller CRZ. The RSM shows better 0.5 0.5
r/H
1.5 1.5
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=3
1 1
2.5 2.5
0.5 0.5
2 2
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
w'/Uref w'/Uref
1 1
3 x/H=5 3 x/H=8
0.5 0.5
2.5 2.5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 2 2
u'/Uref u'/Uref
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
3 x/H=5 3 x/H=8 1 1
2 2 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
w'/Uref w'/Uref
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
be seen in the shear layer between the main flow and the (Fig. 5b) contd…..
CRZ. Comparing the values of these two peaks, it can be 3 x/H=5 3 x/H=8
noted that the turbulent activity in the central shear layer is
2.5 2.5
stronger than the activity in the outer shear layer. This char-
acteristic of the flow is captured by all the models. The ex- 2 2
perimental data show a maximum turbulence intensity at
r/H
x/H=3, while all the tested models predict a maximum turbu- 1.5
r/H
1.5
r/H
while the predictions of RSM are competitive with those of 1.5
r/H
1.5
3 0.5
x/H=1 3 x/H=3 0.5
0
2.5 2.5 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
w'/Uref w'/Uref
2 2
3 x/H=5 3 x/H=8
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
2.5 2.5
1 1
2 2
0.5 0.5
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
1 1
u'/Uref u'/Uref
3 3 0.5 0.5
x/H=5 x/H=8
2.5 2.5 0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
w'/Uref w'/Uref
2 2
r/H
1.5 1.5
(S=0.4); Reynolds stress closures.
1 1
authors [50], the value of v and w is under-predicted by
0.5 0.5 the Reynolds stress closures near the centerline in the mid-
field. In the far field, all the numerical predictions of the
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
turbulence intensities are in good agreement with the rela-
u'/Uref u'/Uref tively flat experimental trends (profiles). Similar to the nu-
merical results for the mean velocity components, the predic-
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=3 tions of the Reynolds stress models for the turbulence inten-
2.5 2.5
sities are more accurate than those obtained by the eddy-
viscosity models.
2 2
Profiles of the Reynolds shear stresses presented in Fig.
(5c,d), show that u v changes sign across the combustor.
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
1
The shear stresses in the far-field are insignificant indicating
1
full recovery of the flow inside the combustor. At x/H=1, in
0.5 0.5 the region r/H<1.5, u v is overpredicted by a factor of 3 or
0
more by all the eddy-viscosity models, except the SST. In the
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 mid-field the SST shows good results, especially in the outer
v'/Uref v'/Uref
Assessment of the Performances of RANS Models The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 17
2 2 2 2
r/H
r/H
r/H
r/H
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
3 3 3 x/H=5 3 x/H=8
x/H=5 x/H=8
2.5 2.5
2.5 2.5
2 2 2
2
r/H
r/H
r/H
r/H
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=3
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=3
2.5 2.5
2.5 2.5
2 2
2 2
1.5 1.5
1.5 1.5
r/H
r/H
r/H
r/H
1 1
1 1
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
100 x u'w'/U2ref 100 x u'w'/U2ref
100 x u'w'/U2ref 100 x u'w'/U2ref
3 x/H=5 x/H=8
3 x/H=5 3 x/H=8 3
2.5
2.5 2.5 2.5
2
2 2 2
1.5
1.5 1.5 1.5
r/H
r/H
r/H
r/H
1
1 1 1
0.5
0.5 0.5 0.5
0 0
0 0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
100 x u'w'/U2ref 100 x u'w'/U2ref
100 x u'w'/U2ref 100 x u'w'/U2ref
Fig. (5d). Radial profiles of normalized shear stresses (S=0.4);
Fig. (5c). Radial profiles of normalized shear stresses (S=0.4);
Reynolds stress closures.
Eddy-viscosity models.
18 The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Shamami and Birouk
region, while the predictions of the KEM and the RKEM in 3 x/H=1 3 x/H=2
the far-field are very close to that of the experiment. On the
other hand, the Reynolds stress models are in fairly good 2.5 2.5
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
x/H=1 and x/H=3 after which it rapidly loses its strength and
0.5 0.5
becomes insignificant. In the near-filed, all the eddy viscos-
U/Uref U/Uref
ity models underpredict u w by a factor of 5 in the inner 0 0
region, except the KEM which shows much more accurate -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
predictions and experiments.
In conclusion, among the eddy-viscosity models, the 1 1
RKEM is the best model in predicting the turbulence inten-
sity components, while more accurate results of the Rey- 0.5 0.5
nolds shear stresses can be obtained by employing the KEM. U/Uref U/Uref
On the other hand, the Reynolds stress closures show supe- 0 0
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
rior results in predicting the turbulence flowfield in this case
study. The performance of the RSM and the SSG is competi- Fig. (6a). Radial profiles of normalized axial velocity (S=0.81);
tive. Eddy-viscosity models.
3.2. High Swirl Number Flow Configuration
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=2
3.2.1. Mean Velocity Field
2.5 2.5
Fig. (6a-d) present a comparison of the predicted profiles
of the normalized axial and tangential velocities with their
2 2
counterparts’ experimental data at typical stations represen-
tative of the near-, mid- and far-fields of the flow.
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
Similar to the weakly swirling flow, it is clear from Fig.
(6a) that the evolution size of the three radial regions (i.e. a 1 1
core area near the axis, a near wall region and a mixing layer
in between) of the axial velocity profiles, which varies as the 0.5 0.5
flow develops downstream the onset point, is generally cap- U/Uref U/Uref
tured by all the two-equation eddy-viscosity models. This 0 0
figure shows that the maximum axial velocity is located ap- -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
proximately halfway between the centerline and the wall in 3 x/H=4 3 x/H=6
the near-field, and shifts towards the wall in the mid- and
far-fields. In addition, Fig. (6a) shows that there are two re- 2.5 2.5
r/H
1.5 1.5
results in the core region and the wall region. On the other U/Uref U/Uref
hand, Fig. (6b) shows that the Reynolds stress models pro- 0 0
-0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2 -0.8 -0.4 0 0.4 0.8 1.2
duce good agreement with the measurements.
Fig. (6b). Radial profiles of normalized axial velocity (S=0.81);
Reynolds stress closures
Assessment of the Performances of RANS Models The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 19
In the mid- and far-field regions, the RNG shows poor none of the two-equation models can predict properly the
predictions, especially in predicting the size of the reverse tangential velocity profiles, in which the RNG and the KEM
flow regions and the axial velocity profiles near the wall. show the worst and the best predictions, respectively.
The Reynolds stress models produce more accurate predic- Whereas the stress models exhibit more accurate predictions
tions than the two-equation eddy-viscosity models in the than the two-equation models. In particular, the SSG per-
mid-field and far-field of the flow. It can be observed that in forms better in the near-field and also at r/H >1.2 in the mid-
the far-field region, as shown in Fig. (6a,b), that the strength field and far-field, while the RSM shows better predictions at
of the flow is near the wall region, r/H>2. In this particular r/H <1.2 in the mid-field and far-field.
region, the RNG, the RKEM and the SST show very poor x/H=1 3 x/H=2 3
predictions, whereas the predictions of the KEM, the RSM
and the SSG are in good agreement with the measurements. 2.5 2.5
r/H
r/H
profiles and their comparison with the experimental data are 2 2
x/H=1 3 x/H=2 3
1 1
2.5 2.5
0.5 0.5
r/H
r/H
W/Uref W/Uref
2 2
0 0
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0
1.5 1.5
x/H=4 3 x/H=6 3
1 1
2.5 2.5
r/H
r/H
0.5 0.5
2 2
W/Uref W/Uref
0 0
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 1.5 1.5
x/H=4 3 x/H=6 3
1 1
2.5 2.5
0.5 0.5
r/H
r/H
2 2 W/Uref W/Uref
0 0
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0
1.5 1.5
Fig. (6d). Radial profiles of normalized swirl velocity (S=0.81);
1 1
Reynolds stress closures.
3.2.2. Visualization of the Flowfield
0.5 0.5
The velocity vectors and contours of stream function are
W/Uref W/Uref
0
presented in Figs. (7,8) at different locations along the com-
0
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 -1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25 0 bustor length. From the experimental data [67], the following
reverse flow regions can be observed: (i) a counter-
Fig. (6c). Radial profiles of normalized swirl velocity (S=0.81); clockwise rotating corner recirculation zone (CRZ), and (ii) a
Eddy-viscosity models.
clockwise rotating central toroidal recirculation zone
It can be seen from these figures that the swirl maximum (CTRZ) which is connected with a central reverse flow re-
velocity is at r/H=1 and remains almost unchanged beyond gion (CRR). It is reported in the experiment [67] that the
x/H=2. The exception occurs in the far-field near the wall size of the CRZ is 1.8 step heights. As we can see in Figs.
region where small changes in the swirl velocity are ob- (7,8), all the tested models can predict the existence of the
served as a result of frictions. At x/H=1, the swirl velocity CRZ in the flowfield. The predicted size of the corner re-
has two local maxima, one at r/H=1, and another at verse flow region (CRR) is in good agreement with the ex-
r/H=1.75. In the experimental work [67], it is reported that periment data for all the turbulence models. Measurements
at x/H=0.38, the flow behaves in a swirling jet-like fashion show that after the corner flow reattachment point, the near
with a weak solid body rotation around the combustor axis. wall flow adjusts itself to be approximately parallel to the
Also, it is mentioned that the forced vortex rotation near the combustor centerline in the far-field. From the predicted
combustor axis increases in strength due to mixing as it is contours of stream function, which is shown in Fig. (8), it is
demonstrated by the increasing swirl velocity gradient. Out- demonstrated clearly that this phenomenon is captured by all
side the core region, swirl velocity decreases in a fashion the turbulence models tested here, except the RNG which
similar to free vortex behaviour. Fig. (6c) shows clearly that shows streamlines non-parallel to the combustor axis in the
20 The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Shamami and Birouk
far-field near the wall region. Also, experimental data [67] The predicted length (in x-direction) and width (in y-
show that the CTRZ starts upstream of the dump plane and direction) of the CTRZ by these models is summarized in
extends to roughly 6 step heights downstream of the dump Table 6. The predicted sizes of the CTRZ by the stress mod-
plane with a maximum radius of r/H=2.4 at x/H=2.5. The els are better than those of the two-equation models. The
centre of this recirculation zone is located approximately at predictions of the CTRZs by the RNG, the RKEM and the
r/H=2.1 and x/H=2.4. SST are much longer than the experimental value. Inade-
quacy of the two-equation models to accurately predict the
size of the CTRZ is mainly due to the isotropic eddy viscos-
ity assumption, while the flowfield is highly anisotropic,
especially in the near-field.
Table 6. Measured and Predicted Length and Width of the
CTRZ for S = 0.81
(x/H)max (y/H)max
Exp. 6 2.4
KEM 7.5 2.4
RNG 14 2.75
RKEM 12 2.6
SST 12.5 2.7
RSM 7 2.4
SSG 5.5 2.35
length and width of the CTRZ by the KEM is the best when (Fig. 9a) contd…..
3 x/H=4
compared to the predictions of the other two-equation mod-
els. On the other hand, the size of the CTRZ is much better 2.5
predicted by the stress closures in comparison with the ex-
perimental values. 2
r/H
1.5
r/H
r/H
3 3 1.5 1.5
x/H=1 x/H=2
2.5 1 1
2.5
2 2 0.5 0.5
0 0
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
w'/Uref w'/Uref
1 1
3 x/H=4 3 x/H=6
0.5 0.5
2.5 2.5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
2 2
u'/Uref u'/Uref
r/H
1.5
r/H
3 x/H=4 3 x/H=6 1.5
2.5 1
2.5 1
2 0.5
2 0.5
0
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
w'/Uref w'/Uref
1 1
1.5
r/H
1.5
comparable to those of the RSM and the SSG. In the far- and
1 1 very far-field regions, turbulence activity is weak except for
the reverse flow regions near the centerline. In the experi-
0.5 0.5
mental paper [67], it is mentioned, and not shown, that in the
0 0 very far-field, x/H>6, the peaks occur at the centerline since
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 the mixing near the wall disappears and the reverse flow is
v'/Uref v'/Uref
located only near the centerline. All the employed models
underpredict the values of the turbulence intensities near the
22 The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Shamami and Birouk
centerline in the far-filed; however the SSG shows more ac- (Fig. 9b) contd…..
3 x/H=4 3 x/H=6
curate results in this region.
The features of the radial and tangential turbulent normal 2.5 2.5
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
of these two components of the turbulence intensity, while
the results of the other eddy-viscosity models are in fairly 1 1
2.5 2.5
2.5 2.5
2 2
2 2
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
1
1 1
1
0.5
0.5 0.5
0.5
0
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
u'/Uref u'/Uref 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
w'/Uref w'/Uref
3 x/H=4 3 x/H=6
3 x/H=4 3 x/H=6
2.5 2.5
2.5 2.5
2 2
2 2
r/H
r/H
1.5 1.5
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
1 1
1 1
0.5 0.5
0.5
0.5
0 0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0
0
u'/Uref u'/Uref 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
0 0.25 0.5 0.75
w'/Uref w'/Uref
3 x/H=1 3 x/H=2
Fig. (9b). Radial profiles of normalized turbulence intensities
2.5 2.5 (S=0.81); Reynolds stress closures.
2 2
Profiles of the Reynolds shear stresses presented in Fig.
(9c,d) show that the swirling jet flow is thin near the dump
1.5 plane and then expands to fill the entire combustor in the far-
r/H
r/H
1.5
field [67]. Since the magnitude of the Reynolds shear
1 1 stresses in the mid- and far-field is small, the differences
between the results obtained by using different models are
0.5 0.5
not very large. In the near-field, the eddy-viscosity models
0 0 do not depict the experimental trends of u v . On the other
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.5 0.75
v'/Uref v'/Uref
hand, the stress closures show the same trends as those of the
experiment with different magnitudes.
Assessment of the Performances of RANS Models The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 23
In the prediction of the second Reynolds shear stress, (Fig. 9c) contd…..
3 x/H=4 3 x/H=6
u w , all the models show fairly good results in the near-
field, except in the near-wall region. In the mid-field, none 2.5 2.5
r/H
r/H
numerical results based on the two Reynolds stress closures 1 1
are all better than those obtained by the eddy-viscosity mod-
0.5 0.5
els, especially in the near-field region where the flow is
highly anisotropic. However, even the RSM and the SSG fail 0 0
to reproduce accurate enough results in the near wall region -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3
at some axial locations (e.g. at x/H=2) and also, as men- 100 x u'w'/U2ref 100 x u'w'/U
2
ref
1.5
r/H
1.5
2 2
1 1
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
0.5 0.5
1 1
0 0
-4 0 4 8 12 -4 0 4 8 12 0.5 0.5
2 2
2.5 2.5
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
2 2
1 1
r/H
1.5
r/H
1.5
0.5 0.5
1 1
0
0
-4 0 4 8 12 0.5 0.5
-4 0 4 8 12
100 x u'v'/U2ref 100 x u'v'/U2ref
0 0
-4 0 4 8 12 -4 0 4 8 12
2 2 2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
r/H
r/H
1.5
r/H
r/H
1 1 1.5
1
0.5 0.5 1
0.5
0 0 0.5
-12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3
0
100 x u'w'/U2ref 100 x u'w'/U2ref 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2
100 x u'w'/U2ref
100 x u'w'/U2ref
24 The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Shamami and Birouk
(Fig. 9d) contd….. dict reasonably accurate size of the CTRZ in com-
x/H=4 3 3
x/H=6 parison with the experimental value.
2.5 2.5
• Numerical predictions of the stress closures for the
2 2
turbulence quantities are much more accurate than
those obtained by using the eddy-viscosity models,
r/H
especially in the near-field region where the flow is
r/H
1.5 1.5
• It is found that all the models can predict the CTRZ in l = Turbulence length scale
the strongly swirling flow, although with different P = Pressure
sizes. But, in the weakly swirling flow, only the RSM
Pij = Production term of Reynolds stress transport
and the SSG could predict the existence of the CTRZ
equation
in the flow field. In the weakly swirling flow, the pre-
dicted length (in the axial direction) of the CTRZ by S = Swirl number
the RSM and the SSG are around 40 percent shorter Sij = Mean rate of strain tensor
than that found experimentally, while they are 1.25
and 1.5 times wider (in the radial direction) than the ui, uj, uk = Velocity fluctuation components
measured width of the CTRZ. In the strongly swirling
ui u j = Reynolds stresses
flow, it is found that both the RSM and the SSG pre-
Assessment of the Performances of RANS Models The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 25
Ui, Uj, Uk = Mean velocity components symmetric dump combustor”, J. Propul. Power, Vol. 7(3), pp. 348-
356, 1991.
x = Axial distance to the dump plane [15] J.J. McGuirkand, J.M.L.M. Palma, “The flow inside a model gas
turbine combustor: Calculations”, J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power, Vol.
xi, xj, xk = Space directions 115(3), pp. 594-602, 1993.
[16] J. Zhu, and T.H. Shih, “Computation of confined coflow jets with
Greek Letters three turbulence models”, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, Vol.
19(10), pp. 939-956, 1994.
ij = Mean vorticity tensor [17] C.A. Lin, and C.M. Lu, “Modeling three-dimensional gas-turbine
combustor model flow using second-moment closure”, AIAA J.,
ij = Kronecker operator Vol. 32(7), pp. 1416-1422, 1994.
= Rate of dissipation of k [18] J.H. Tsai, C.A. Lin, and C.M. Lu, “Modeling dump combustor
flows with and without swirl at the inlet using Reynolds stress
ij = Dissipation term of Reynolds stress transport models”, Int. J. Numer. Method Heat Fluid Flow, Vol. 5(7), pp.
equation 577-588, 1995.
[19] J.L. Xia, G. Yadigaroglu, Y.S. Liu, J. Schmidli, and B.L. Smith,
ij = Pressure strain term of Reynolds stress “Numerical and experimental study of swirling flow in a model
combustor”, Int. J. Heat Mass Trans., Vol. 41(11), pp.1485-1497,
transport equation 1998.
= Dynamic viscosity [20] Y. Lei, J. Zhang, and L. Zhou, “Simulation of swirling turbulent
flows of coaxial jets in a combustor”, Numer. Heat Trans. A Appl.,
t = Eddy viscosity Vol. 37(2), pp. 189-199, 2000.
[21] U. Engdar, and J. Klingmann, “Investigation of two-equation
= Density turbulence models applied to a confined axis-symmetric swirling
flow”, ASME-PVP, Vol. 448(2), pp. 199-206, 2002.
k, = k- Based models constants and Reynolds [22] P. Flohr, P. Schmitt, and C.O. Paschereit, “Mixing field analysis of
stress models constants a gas turbine burner”, ASME-FACT, New Orleans, LA, US, pp.
45-53, 2002.
= Kinematic viscosity [23] S. Jakirlic, K. Hanjalic, and C. Tropea, “Modeling rotating and
swirling turbulent flows: A perpetual challenge”, AIAA J., Vol.
= Specific dissipation Rate 40(10), pp.1984-1996, 2002.
[24] X. Wei, J. Zhang, and L. Zhou, “A new algebraic mass flux
REFERENCES model for simulating turbulent mixing in swirling flow”, Numer.
Heat Trans. B-Fund., Vol. 45(3), pp.283-300, 2004.
[1] B.E. Launder, and D.B. Spalding, “Lectures in Mathematical Mod- [25] J. Zhang, Y. Lei, and L. Zhou, “Simulation of coaxial jet interac-
els of Turbulence”, London, UK. Academic Press, 1972. tions in a swirl combustor”, Combust. Sci. Technol., Vol. 176(1),
[2] W.P. Jones, and B.E. Launder, “The prediction of laminarization pp. 23-43, 2004.
with a two-equation model of turbulence”, Int. J. Heat Mass [26] Y.N. Huang, H.Y. Ma, and H.J. Chu, ”Modeling turbulent swirling
Trans., Vol. 15(2), pp. 301-314, 1972. flows based on the algebraic two-equation (k-) approach”, Int. J.
[3] C.G. Speziale, “On nonlinear k-l and k- models of turbulence”, J. Numer. Methods Fluids, Vol. 51(3), pp. 285-304, 2006.
Fluid Mech., Vol. 178, pp. 459-475, 1987. [27] P. Habisreuther, C. Bender, O. Petsch, H. Buchner, and H. Bock-
[4] K.Y. Chien, “Prediction of channel and boundary layer flows with horn, “Prediction of pressure oscillations in a premixed swirl
a low-Reynolds-number turbulence model”, AIAA J., Vol. 20(1), combustor flow and comparison to measurements”, Flow Turbul.
pp. 33-38, 1982. Combust., Vol. 77(1-4), pp. 147-160, 2006.
[5] W. Rodi, “Recent developments in turbulence modeling”, in Iwasa, [28] J.M. Tsao, and C.A. Lin, “Reynolds stress modelling of jet and
Y., Tamai, N. and Wada, A. (Eds.): Proc. of the 3rd Int. Symposium swirl interaction inside a gas turbine combustor”, Int. J. Numer.
on Refined Flow Modeling and Turbulence Measurements, Tokyo, Methods Fluids, Vol. 29(4), pp. 451-464, 1999.
Japan. 1988. [29] R.M. So, S.A. Ahmed, and H.C. Mongia, “An experimental inves-
[6] S. Hogg, and M.A. Leschziner, “Computation of highly swirling tigation of gas jets in confined swirling air flow”, NASA CR 3832,
confined flow with a Reynolds stress turbulence model”, AIAA J., 1984.
Vol. 27(1), pp. 57-63, 1989. [30] P. Bradshaw, B.E. Launder, and J.L. Lumley, “Collaborative test-
[7] W.P. Jones, and A. Pascau, “Calculation of confined swirling flows ing of turbulence models”, J. Fluids Eng., Vol. 118(2), pp. 243-
with a second moment closure”, J. Fluids Eng., Vol. 111(3), pp. 247, 1996.
248-255, 1989. [31] B.E. Launder, C.H. Priddin, and B.I. Sharma, “The calculation of
[8] M.A.R. Sharif, and Y.K.E. Wong, “Evaluation of the performance turbulent boundary layers on spinning and curved surfaces”, J. Flu-
of three turbulence closure models in the prediction of confined ids Eng., Vol. 99(1), pp. 231-239, 1977.
swirling flows”, Comput. Fluids, Vol. 24(1), pp. 81-100, 1995. [32] C.P. Chen, “Multiple-scale turbulence model in confined swirling
[9] J.C. Chen, and C.A. Lin, “Computations of strongly swirling flows jet predictions”, AIAA J., Vol. 24(10), pp. 1717-1719, 1986.
with second-moment closures”, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, Vol. [33] L.D. Smoot, and P.J. Smith, Coal Combustion and Gasification,
30(5), pp. 493-508, 1999. NewYork, USA: Plenum Press, 1985.
[10] M.I. Yaras, and A.D. Grosvenor, “Evaluation of one- and two- [34] C.C. Hwang, G. Zhu, M. Massoudi, and J.M. Ekmann, “Compari-
equation low-Re turbulence models. Part I-Axisymmetric separat- son of the linear and the nonlinear k- turbulence models in com-
ing and swirling flows”, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, Vol. bustors”, J. Fluids Eng., Vol. 115(1), pp. 93-102, 1993.
42(12), pp.1293-1319, 2003. [35] O. Kitoh, “Experimental study of turbulent swirling flow in a
[11] X. Yang, and H. Ma, “Computation of strongly swirling confined straight pipe”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 225, pp. 445-479, 1991.
flows with cubic eddy-viscosity turbulence models”, Int. J. Numer. [36] V. Yakhot, S.A. Orszag, S. Thangam, T.B. Gatski, and C.G.
Methods Fluids, Vol. 43(12), pp. 1355-1370, 2003. Speziale, “Development of turbulence model for shear flows by a
[12] A.S. Nejad, S.P. Vanka, S.C. Favaloro, M. Samimy, and C. Lan- double expansion technique”, Phys. Fluids A-Fluid, Vol. 4(7), pp.
genfeld, “Application of laser velocimetry for characterization of 1510-1520, 1992.
confined swirling flow”, J. Eng. Gas Turb. Power, Vol. 111(1), [37] S.A. Orszag, V. Yakhot, W.S. Flannery, F. Boysan, D. Choudhury,
pp.36-45, 1989. J. Maruszewski, and B. Patel, “Renormalization group modeling
[13] R. Weber, B.M. Visser, and F. Boysan, “Assessment of turbulence and turbulence simulations”, Proc. of the Int. Conference on Near-
modeling for engineering prediction of swirling vortices in the near Wall Turbulent Flows, Tempe, AZ, USA, pp. 1031-1046, 1993.
burner zone”, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, Vol. 11(3), pp. 225-235, [38] G.C. Papageorgakis, and D.N. Assanis, “Comparison of linear and
1990. nonlinear RNG-based k- models for incompressible turbulent
[14] S.C. Favaloro, A.S. Nejad, and S.A. Ahmed, “Experimental and flows”, Numer. Heat Trans. B-Fund., Vol. 35(1), pp. 1-22, 1999.
computational investigation of isothermal swirling flow in an axi-
26 The Open Aerospace Engineering Journal, 2008, Volume 1 Shamami and Birouk
[39] K. Hanjalic, “Advanced turbulence closure models: A view of [60] B. Basara, and B.A. Younis, “Assessment of the SSG pressure-
current status and future prospects”, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, Vol. strain model in two-dimensional turbulent separated flows”, Appl.
15(3), pp.178-203, 1994. Sci. Res., Vol. 55(1), pp. 39-61, 1995.
[40] T.H. Shih, W.W. Liou, A. Shabbir, Z. Yang, and J. Zhu, “A new k- [61] B.A. Younis, T.B. Gatski, and C.G. Speziale, “Assessment of the
eddy-viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows”, SSG pressure-strain model in free turbulent jets with and without
Comput. Fluids, Vol. 24(3), pp. 227-238, 1995. swirl”, J. Fluids Eng., Vol. 118(4), pp. 800-809, 1996.
[41] FLUENT User’s Guide, Fluent Inc., Lebanon NH 03766, USA, [62] S.A. Ahmed, and A.S. Nejad, “Swirl effects on confined flows in
2005. axisymmetric geometries”, J. Propul. Power, Vol. 8(2), pp. 339-
[42] F.R. Menter, “Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for 345, 1992.
engineering applications”, AIAA J., Vol. 32(8), pp. 1598-1605, [63] S.A. Ahmed, and A.S. Nejad, “Velocity measurements in a re-
1994. search combustor - Part1. Isothermal swirling flow”, Exp. Therm.
[43] Boysan, F. and J. Swithenbank, “Numerical prediction of confined Fluid Sci., Vol. 5(2), pp. 162-174, 1992.
vortex flows”, Proc. of the 2nd Int. Conference on Numerical Meth- [64] M.A. Habib, and J.H. Whitelaw, “Velocity characteristics of con-
ods in Laminar and Turbulent Flow, Venice, Italy, pp. 425-437, fined coaxial jets with and without swirl”, J. Fluids Eng., Vol.
1981. 102(1), pp. 47-53, 1980.
[44] S. Fu, P.G. Huang, B.E. Launder, and M.A. Leschziner, “A com- [65] G. Baoyu, T.A.G. Langrish, and D.F. Fletcher, “Simulation of
parison of algebraic and differential second-moment closures for turbulent swirl flow in an axisymmetric sudden expansion”, AIAA
axisymmetric turbulent shear flows with and without swirl”, J. Flu- J., Vol. 39(1), pp. 96-102, 2001.
ids Eng., Vol. 110(2), pp. 216-221, 1988. [66] P. Wang, X.S. Bai, M. Wessman, and J. Klingmann, “Large eddy
[45] J. Zhang, S. Nieh, and L. Zhou, “A new version of algebraic stress simulation and experimental studies of a confined turbulent swirl-
model for simulating strongly swirling turbulent flows”, Numer. ing flow”, Phys. Fluids, Vol. 16(9), pp. 3306-3324, 2004.
Heat Trans. B-Fund., Vol. 22(1), pp. 49-62, 1992. [67] S.A. Ahmed, A.Z. Al-Garni, and K.B. Abidogun, “The flowfield
[46] J. Zhang, H. Lu, L. Zhou, and S. Nieh, “Simulation of annular characteristics of a confined highly swirling turbulent flow”, Can.
swirling turbulent flows with a new algebraic Reynolds stress Aeronaut. Space J., Vol. 45(4), pp. 323-334, 1999.
model”, Numer. Heat Trans. B-Fund., Vol. 31(2), pp. 235-249, [68] B.E. Launder, and D.B. Spalding, “The numerical computation of
1997. turbulent flows”, Comput. Method. Appl. M., Vol. 3(2), pp. 269-
[47] B.E. Launder, G.J. Reece, and W. Rodi, “Progress in the develop- 289, 1974.
ment of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. [69] V. Yakhot, and S.A. Orszag, “Renormalization group analysis of
68, pp. 537-566, 1975. turbulence: I. Basic theory”, J. Sci. Comput., Vol. 1(1), pp. 3-51,
[48] S. Hogg, and M.A. Leschziner, “Second moment closure calcula- 1986.
tion of strongly swirling confined flow with large density gradi- [70] D. Choudhury, “Introduction to the renormalization group method
ents”, Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, Vol. 10(1), pp. 16-27, 1989. and turbulence modeling”, Fluent Inc. Technical Memorandum
[49] M. Ohtsuka, “Numerical analysis of swirling non-reacting and TM-107, Lebanon NH 03766, USA, 1993.
reacting flows by the Reynolds stress differential method”, Int. J. [71] F.R. Menter, , M. Kuntz, and R. Langtry, “Ten years of industrial
Heat Mass Tran., Vol. 38(2), pp. 331-337, 1995. experience with the SST turbulence model”, 4th International Sym-
[50] P. Lu, and V. Semiao, “A new second-moment closure approach posium on Turbulence, Heat and Mass Transfer, pp. 625-632,
for turbulent swirling confined flows”, Int. J. Numer. Methods Flu- 2003.
ids, Vol. 41(2), pp. 133-150, 2003. [72] B.J. Daly, and F.H. Harlow, “Transport equations in turbulence”,
[51] L.N. Jones, P.H. Gaskeli, H.M. Thompson, X.J. Gu, and D.R. Phys. Fluids, Vol. 13(11), pp. 2634-2649, 1970.
Emerson, “Anisotropic, isothermal, turbulent swirling flow in a [73] F.S. Lien, and M.A. Leschziner, “Assessment of turbulent trans-
complex combustor geometry”, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, Vol. port models including non-linear RNG eddy-viscosity formulation
47(10-11), pp. 1053-1059, 2005. and second-moment closure for flow over a backward-facing
[52] A.M. Jawarneh, and G.H. Vatistas, “Reynolds stress model in the step”, Comput. Fluids, Vol. 23(8), pp. 983-1004, 1994.
prediction of confined turbulent swirling flows”, J. Fluids Eng., [74] M.M. Gibson, and B.E. Launder, “Ground effects on pressure
Vol. 128(6), pp. 1377-1382, 2006. fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer”, J. Fluid Mech.,
[53] R. Palm, S. Grundmann, M. Weismuller, S. Saric, S. Jakirlic, and Vol. 86, pp. 491-511, 1978.
C. Tropea, “Experimental characterization and modelling of in- [75] S. Fu, B.E. Launder, and M.A. Leschziner, “Modeling strongly
flow conditions for a gas turbine swirl combustor”, Int. J. Heat swirling recirculating jet flow with Reynolds-stress transport clo-
th
Fluid Flow, Vol. 27(5), pp. 924-936, 2006. sures”, Proc. of the 6 Symposium on Turbulent Shear Flows, Tou-
[54] B.E. Launder, and A. Morse, “Numerical prediction of axisymmet- louse, France, pp. 17.6.1-17.6.6, 1987.
ric free shear flows with a Reynolds stress turbulence closure”, in [76] B.E. Launder, “Second-moment closure and its use in modeling
Bradbury, L.J.S., Durst, F., Launder, B.E., Schmidt, F.W. and turbulent industrial flows”, Int. J. Numer. Methods Fluids, Vol.
Whitelaw, J.H. (Eds.): Turbulent Shear Flows, Vol. 1, pp. 279-294, 9(8), pp. 963-985, 1989.
1979. [77] B.E. Launder, “Second-moment closure: Present and future?”,
[55] F.C. Lockwood, and B. Shen, “Performance predictions of pulver- Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, Vol. 10(4), pp. 282-300, 1989.
ized-coal flames of power station furnace and cement kiln types”, [78] S.E. Kim, and D. Choudhury, “Near-wall treatment using wall
P. Combust. Inst., Vol. 25, pp. 503-509, 1994. functions sensitized to pressure gradient”, ASME-FED, Separated
[56] P. Lu, T. Ye, M. Costa, V. Semiao, and M.G. Carvalho, “Prediction Complex Flows, Vol. 217, pp. 273-280, 1995.
with a second moment closure turbulence model and experiments [79] R.I. Issa, “Solution of the implicitly discretized fluid flow equa-
of combined combustion of pulverized coal and propane in a semi- tions by operator-splitting”, J. Comput. Phys., Vol. 62(1), pp. 40-
industrial combustor”, Proc. of the 4th Int. Symposium on Coal 65, 1986.
Combustion, Beijing, China, pp. 356-367, 1999. [80] B.P. Leonard, “A stable and accurate convective modeling proce-
[57] K. Hanjalic, “Second-moment turbulence closure for CFD: Need dure based on quadratic upstream interpolation”, Comput. Methods
and prospects”, Int. J. Comput. Fluid D., Vol. 12, pp. 67-97, 1999. Appl. M., Vol. 19(1), pp. 59-98, 1979.
[58] J.L. Lumley, and B.J. Khajeh-Nouri, “Computational modelling of [81] C.A. Lin, and J.H. Tsai, “Computations of strongly swirling flows
turbulent transport”, Adv. Geophys., Vol. 18A, pp. 169-192, 1974. with second-moment closures”, 16th National Conference on Theo-
[59] C.G. Speziale, S. Sarkar, and T.B. Gatski, “Modelling the pressure- retical and Appl Mechanics, Keelung, Taiwan, pp. 127-134, 1992.
strain correlation of turbulence: An invariant dynamical systems
approach”, J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 227, pp. 245-272, 1991.
Received: December 18, 2007 Revised: January 31, 2008 Accepted: February 14, 2008