School of Mechanical Aerospace and Civil Engineering The turbulent diffusion of k is usually modelled as a gradient transport process:

„ «
∂ νt ∂k
Diffk = (3)
∂y σk ∂y

where σk is known as the turbulent Prandtl number for the diffusion of kinetic energy, which
Fluid Mechanics - Turbulence is commonly given the value unity.

Thus, with the above one-equation model, l is prescribed algebraically, k is found as the
solution of the transport equation
T. J. Craft
„ «
George Begg Building, C41 Dk ∂ νt ∂k k3/2
= + Pk − (4)
Dt ∂y σk ∂y l

the turbulent viscosity is taken as νt = cµ k1/2 l and is used in the eddy-viscosity formulation
to estimate the Reynolds stresses ui uj .

The algebraic prescription of l is usually analogous to that of the mixing length lm .

Contents:
Transition, Reynolds averaging
Turbulent boundary and shear layers
Mixing-length models of turbulence
One- and Two-equation models
However, different near-wall viscous damping terms can be l
Reading: associated with ε and νt :
J. Mathieu, J. Scott, An Introduction to Turbulent Flow
lε = 2.4y(1 − exp(−Ad y + ))
S.B. Pope, Turbulent Flows
Notes: See T. Craft’s pages on lµ = 2.4y(1 − exp(−Aµ y + ))
http://cfd.mace.manchester.ac.uk/tmcfd
with Ad = 0.016, Aµ = 0.235. y
- p. 3

One-Equation Models of Turbulence

We have seen that while the MLH is attractively simple, it has some serious weaknesses, One advantage of solving an equation for k is that the
making it unreliable for modelling complex flows. turbulence energy, and thus the viscosity, does not
now have to vanish when ∂U/∂y vanishes locally.
We thus go on to explore strategies for removing some of the weaknesses, while still
keeping the model relatively simple. In the example shown, Pk is non-zero either side of
the velocity maximum. Although it will be zero at the
Recall that in obtaining the MLH we wrote peak, k will be non-zero as it will be diffused across
this region.
∂U ∂U
νt = cµ k1/2 l so that uv = −νt = −cµ k1/2 l (1)
∂y ∂y Some transport effects have thus been incorporated
into the turbulence model.
Substituting this into the local equilibrium condition allowed us to obtain an algebraic
expression for k, that could be used in the above expression for νt .

Suppose instead, that we retained the expression νt = cµ k1/2 l, but instead of using local
equilibrium to determine k, this was found by solving a closed form of the turbulent kinetic
energy equation (seen in earlier lectures):

Dk ∂U ∂U
= Diffk − uv − ε = Diffk − uv − k3/2 /l (2)
Dt ∂y ∂y

As before, we can prescribe a variation for the lengthscale, so ε is taken as k3/2 /l. The only
unknown quantity in equation (2) is then the diffusion of k.
- p. 2 - p. 4
 Other One-Equation Models The k -ε Model
Although we have looked at a transport equation for k, other one-equation models have In an earlier lecture we obtained an exact transport equation for k.
been proposed, where the transport equation is for some other variable.
It is also possible to develop an exact transport equation for ε, by manipulating the transport
Amongst others, Barth (1990), Spalart & Almaras (1994) and Menter (1994) have all equations for ui (since ε = ν(∂ui /∂xj )2 ).
developed models that solve for νt itself.
The algebra is long and tedious, and the result is not very useful for direct modelling
There are differences between the various model details, but in general they are based on purposes: it contains mostly unclosed terms, which themselves have to be modelled. Most
combinations of the transport equations for k and ε (the latter to be discussed later). A models in this class are thus devised via a more intuitive and empirical approach.
typical example is that of Menter (1994):
The most widely used form was developed empirically by reference to the k equation:
s„ « » –
Dνt ∂Ui ∂Uj 2 ν2 ∂ νt ∂νt „ «
= c1 νt − − c2 2t + (5) Dε ε ε2 ∂ νt ∂ε
Dt ∂xj ∂xi l ∂xj σν ∂xj = cε1 Pk − cε2 + (7)
Dt k k ∂xj σε ∂xj
| {z } | {z } | {z }
Term 1 Term 2 Term 3
Note that in local equilibrium, this reduces to
!
c1 2
˛ ˛
c1 2 ˛˛ ∂U ˛˛
r“ ”2 The source and sink terms (Terms 1 & 2) ensure that:
∂Ui ∂U
νt = l Ω= l ˛ in simple shear where Ω ≡ ∂xj
− 1∂xj (6)
c2 c2 ∂y ˛ i If kinetic energy is being created by mean shear, the dissipation rate should also
2 increase. Term 1 ensures this.
The above νt transport model thus reduces to Prandtl’s MLH in the limit of local equilibrium. If generation of k becomes zero, k will decrease and ε must, therefore, also decrease
(otherwise k might become negative). Term 2 ensures this.
However, the model does still need a lengthscale to be prescribed – for the destruction term
The turbulent timescale k/ε and model coefficients cε1 and cε2 are associated with the
in the νt transport equation.
generation and dissipation terms.
- p. 5 - p. 7

Two-Equation Models
Term 3 is a simple way to represent diffusion processes, similar to that adopted in the k
In complex flows it is impossible to guess the distribution of length scales. It may be difficult equation.
to define the distance to the wall, and the local level of l is affected by convection and
diffusion processes. The coefficients cε1 , cε2 and σε are taken as constants, to be tuned to a range of flows.

bl thicker on upper larger lengthscale Generally, one might expect that the wider the range of flows considered when tuning these
surface due to apg due to thickening bl
model coefficients, the more applicable the scheme will be to complex, real-life, flow
more uniform situations.
lengthscale
further
l
downstream We now consider how values for these model coefficients might be obtained.
l

One approach to avoid having to prescribe l, building on the modelling already adopted for k,
is to obtain l from its own separate equation.

Here we thus consider how to devise a transport equation for some lengthscale containing
variable of the form ka lb . Since we will also be solving the k transport equation, this will
enable us to obtain l.

The most popular choice of second variable has been ε, the dissipation rate of k. ie a = 3/2,
b = −1. (since ε = k3/2 /l).

Other choices of variable have been proposed, eg a lengthscale L, or frequency f . One

alternative that has been fairly widely tested (at least in aeronautical flows) is ω ≡ ε/k.
- p. 6 - p. 8
 Decaying Grid Turbulence Log-Law Region of an Equilibrium Boundary Layer
A suitable value for cε2 can be found by considering decaying grid turbulence. If a uniform In an earlier lecture we saw that in the fully turbulent, local equilibrium, region of a simple
stream is passed through a turbulence-generating grid, the turbulence energy k will decay boundary layer we should have:
downstream of the grid (since there are no velocity gradients, hence Pk = 0).
1/2 1/2
k Pk = ε |uv | = u2τ |uv |/k = cµ so k = u2τ /cµ
k=cx −n

U and hence
U 1 ∂U uτ
= log(Eyuτ /ν) so = and νt = κyuτ
uτ κ ∂y κy
x

The rate at which k decays with distance downstream of the grid can be measured where the friction velocity uτ ≡ (τw /ρ)1/2 .
experimentally and written as k = cx−n for some positive constants c and n.
As a second constraint we can try to ensure that the modelled ε equation will return the
In decaying homogeneous grid turbulence, Terms 1 and 3 in equation (7) can be neglected above results in a simple boundary layer.
from the ε equation.
The convection term Dε/Dt can be neglected, but diffusion cannot be ignored, since the
The k and ε equations thus reduce to variation of ε near the wall is as y −1 (a lengthscale increasing linearly with wall-distance
implies ε = k3/2 /(2.5y)).
dk d
U = −ε or ε = −U (cx−n ) = cnU x−(n+1) (8)
The ε transport equation in this case then becomes
dx dx
dε ε2 » – „ «2 » „ «–
U = −cε2 (9) Pk2 d νt d(Pk ) (uv )2 ∂U d νt d ∂U
dx k 0= (cε1 − cε2 ) + = (cε1 − cε2 ) + −uv
k dy σε dy k ∂y dy σε dy ∂y

- p. 9 - p. 11

Equation (8) gives an expression for ε. Substituting this, and the expression for k, into Substituting in the earlier expressions for uv , k, ∂U/∂y and νt then leads to
equation (9) leads to: 1/2 » „ «–
u2τ cµ d κyuτ d uτ
0 = u4τ (cε1 − cε2 ) + u2τ
c2 n2 U 2 x−2(n+1) 2 2
κ y uτ 2 dy σε dy κy
−U 2 cn(n + 1)x−(n+2) = −cε2
cx−n 1/2 » –
u4τ cµ d u4τ y 1
= (cε1 − cε2 ) +
κ2 y 2 dy σε y 2
After cancelling common factors, we get
1/2
u4τ cµ u4τ
n+1 = 2 2
(cε1 − cε2 ) +
(n + 1) = ncε2 or cε2 = (10) κ y σε y 2
n

From experiments, the decay rate n ≈ 1.1, giving cε2 ≈ 1.9. Cancelling u4τ /y 2 leaves a relation between the model coefficients cε1 , cε2 , and σε :
1/2
cµ (cε1 − cε2 ) 1
Thus, taking cε2 ≈ 1.9 in our model should ensure that it will return the correct rate of decay =−
of turbulence in the absence of any generation. κ2 σε

We thus want to choose model coefficients that satisfy this relation, to ensure the model will
return an appropriate logarithmic velocity profile when applied to a local equilibrium
boundary layer.

The model will now return a lengthscale k3/2 /ε that does increase linearly with wall distance
in a local equilibrium boundary layer. However, in more complex flows it need not always
return this same variation (whereas in the simpler models considered, we imposed such a
variation regardless of local flow conditions).
- p. 10 - p. 12
 The Resultant k -ε Model Other Two-Equation Models
The spreading rates of free shear flows (jets, mixing layers) are rather sensitive to the choice There are a number of alternative two-equation models.
of values for cε1 and cε2 .
Mostly, these still solve a transport equation for k, but use the second equation to solve for
As outlined above, cε2 can be independently fixed from considering the decay of grid something other than ε.
turbulence.
For example, the k-ω model developed by Wilcox (1988), solved the two equations
cε1 is then typically chosen from computer optimization by calibration against free flows (eg. Dk
plane jet or mixing layer). = Pk − ωk + diffusion (14)
Dt

A commonly used set of coefficients is Dω ωPk

= cω1 − cω2 ω 2 + diffusion (15)
Dt k
cµ σk σε cε1 cε2 and defined the turbulent viscosity as νt = cµ k/ω .

The model coefficients in these other lengthscale-determining equations are usually

0.09 1.0 1.3 1.44 1.92
obtained in similar ways to those already outlined for the ε equation.

For handling the near-wall, viscosity-affected, layer most two-equation models also include a
number of ‘damping’ terms - usually dependent on either the turbulent Reynolds number
(Ret = k2 /(εν)) or non-dimensional wall distance y + . However, we will not consider the
details of these here.

- p. 13 - p. 15

Summary
In summary, the model thus requires one to solve transport equations for k and ε:
» –
Dk ∂ νt ∂k For industrial engineering simulations, two-equation models are the most widely used
= Pk − ε + (11)
Dt ∂xj σk ∂xj approach for modelling the effects of turbulence.
» –
Dε εPk ε2 ∂ νt ∂ε
= cε1 − cε2 + (12) The simpler modelling schemes often require substantial ad-hoc, case-by-case input to the
Dt k k ∂xj σε ∂xj
model (eg. prescription of lengthscales).
and uses the linear stress-strain relation:
„ « Although not considered here, even two-equation models have a number of well-known
∂Ui ∂Uj weaknesses when applied to certain important classes of flows (eg. impinging flows, curved
ui uj = (2/3)kδij − νt + (13)
∂xj ∂xi flows, rotating flows, . . . ).

with turbulent viscosity νt = cµ k2 /ε.
It is thus more expensive to apply than zero- or one-equation models.
On the other hand, the two-equation model does not require one to prescribe a lengthscale
throughout the flow, and is thus more convenient to apply to complex flow geometries. One
only has to apply appropriate boundary conditions for k and ε at the flow domain edges.
There are a number of more advanced modelling practices, ranging from simple refinements
to coefficients, or more complex algebraic stress-strain relationships, through to full
second-moment closures where separate transport equations are solved for each of the
Reynolds stress components, ui uj .
A number of the more advanced schemes are now available in commercial CFD packages,
but details of their development is beyond this course.

- p. 14 - p. 16