Publications

Publications / Journal Article

K-ε Turbulence Model Parameter Estimates Using an Approximate Self-similar Jet-in-Crossflow Solution

DeChant, Lawrence J.; Ray, Jaideep R.; Lefantzi, Sophia L.; Ling, Julia L.; Arunajatesan, Srinivasan A.

The k-ε turbulence model has been described as perhaps “the most widely used complete turbulence model.” This family of heuristic Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) turbulence closures is supported by a suite of model parameters that have been estimated by demanding the satisfaction of well-established canonical flows such as homogeneous shear flow, log-law behavior, etc. While this procedure does yield a set of so-called nominal parameters, it is abundantly clear that they do not provide a universally satisfactory turbulence model that is capable of simulating complex flows. Recent work on the Bayesian calibration of the k-ε model using jet-in-crossflow wind tunnel data has yielded parameter estimates that are far more predictive than nominal parameter values. In this paper, we develop a self-similar asymptotic solution for axisymmetric jet-in-crossflow interactions and derive analytical estimates of the parameters that were inferred using Bayesian calibration. The self-similar method utilizes a near field approach to estimate the turbulence model parameters while retaining the classical far-field scaling to model flow field quantities. Our parameter values are seen to be far more predictive than the nominal values, as checked using RANS simulations and experimental measurements. They are also closer to the Bayesian estimates than the nominal parameters. A traditional simplified jet trajectory model is explicitly related to the turbulence model parameters and is shown to yield good agreement with measurement when utilizing the analytical derived turbulence model coefficients. Finally, the close agreement between the turbulence model coefficients obtained via Bayesian calibration and the analytically estimated coefficients derived in this paper is consistent with the contention that the Bayesian calibration approach is firmly rooted in the underlying physical description.