Issue |
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 356, 2022
The 16th ROOMVENT Conference (ROOMVENT 2022)
|
|
---|---|---|
Article Number | 04010 | |
Number of page(s) | 5 | |
Section | Airflow Visualization, Measurement and Simulation | |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202235604010 | |
Published online | 31 August 2022 |
Comparing the performance of RANS turbulence models between different cavity flow benchmarks
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Energy and Process Engineering, Kolbjørn Hejes v 1B, NO-7491, Trondheim, Norway
* Corresponding author: elyas.larkermani@ntnu.no
To evaluate the performance of RANS turbulence models, this study compares four different cavity flow benchmarks using the prevailing two-equation turbulence models for indoor airflows, namely the standard and RNG k-ε and the standard and SST k-ω models. A cavity flow consists of one air inlet and one outlet slot. The inlet slot is positioned on the upper left corner of the cavity, whereas the outlet slot is located in the lower right. This cavity flow is representative of mixing ventilation. These four cavity benchmarks differ by their geometry (i.e., the aspect ratio of the room), flow regime and whether the flow is isothermal or not. Measurements of the air velocity and temperature in these benchmarks are used to evaluate the accuracy of the RANS turbulence models. Many existing studies have investigated the airflow and heat transfer over these benchmarks. However, the numerical methods and other relevant CFD parameters are not always described in detail, reducing the transparency and reproducibility of these works. To compare the influence of the RANS turbulence model on the four cavity flows, a same CFD setup is adopted here for all benchmarks. This setup is based on the best practice in RANS, namely a steady second-order spatial discretization on a wall-resolved structured mesh and with a grid convergence analysis. The results show that k-ε models, particularly the standard k-ε model, are best suited in a fully turbulent flow regime without strong pressure gradients. On the opposite, the SST k-ω model performs best in the transitional regime while the k-ε models only give moderate to poor results.
© The Authors, published by EDP Sciences, 2022
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.