Search

A fully developed turbulent flow in a concentric annulus, Re =10,000, ri/ro=0.5, with an inner rotating cylinder in the velocity range N=Uω/Ub=0÷4, is studied via a large-eddy simulation. Also, for comparison, simulations by steady-state, unstatiounary RANS k-ω SST (URANS), and Elliptic Blending Model (EBM) were made. The main focus of this study is on the effect of high rotation on the mean flow, turbulence statistics, and vortex structure. Distribution of the tangential velocity and the Reynolds stress tensor change their behaviour at N>0.5∼1. With rotation increases, the production of tangential fluctuation becomes dominant over axial ones and the position of turbulent kinetic energy maximum shifts towards the wall into the buffer zone. URANS and EBM approaches show good agreement with LES in mean flow, turbulent statistics, and integral parameters. The difference in pressure loss prediction between LES and URANS does not exceed 20%, but the average difference is about 11%. The EBM approach underestimates pressure losses up to 9% and on average not more than 5%. Vortex structures are described well by URANS.

A fully developed turbulent flow in a concentric annulus, Re = 10,000 , r i / r o = 0.5 , with an inner rotating cylinder in the velocity range N = U ω / U b = 0 ÷ 4 , is studied via a large-eddy simulation. Also, for comparison, simulations by steady-state, unstatiounary RANS k- ω SST (URANS), and Elliptic Blending Model (EBM) were made. The main focus of this study is on the effect of high rotation on the mean flow, turbulence statistics, and vortex structure. Distribution of the tangential velocity and the Reynolds stress tensor change their behaviour at N > 0.5 ∼ 1 . With rotation increases, the production of tangential fluctuation becomes dominant over axial ones and the position of turbulent kinetic energy maximum shifts towards the wall into the buffer zone. URANS and EBM approaches show good agreement with LES in mean flow, turbulent statistics, and integral parameters. The difference in pressure loss prediction between LES and URANS does not exceed 20%, but the average difference is about 11%. The EBM approach underestimates pressure losses up to 9% and on average not more than 5%. Vortex structures are described well by URANS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]