Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Environmental Modelling & Software

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/envsoft

Sensitivity of turbulent Schmidt number and turbulence model to

simulations of jets in crossflow
Daniel Valero a, b, *, Daniel B. Bung a
a
Hydraulic Engineering Section, FH Aachen University of Applied Sciences, Bayernallee 9, 52066 Aachen, Germany
b
Research Group of Hydraulics in Environmental and Civil Engineering (HECE), Dept. of ArGEnCo, University of Liege (ULg), Chemin des Chevreuils 1, Bat
B52/3 þ1, B-4000 Li

ege, Belgium

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Environmental discharges have been traditionally designed by means of cost-intensive and time-
Received 13 September 2015 consuming experimental studies. Some extensively validated models based on an integral approach
Received in revised form have been often employed for water quality problems, as recommended by USEPA (i.e.: CORMIX). In this
11 April 2016
study, FLOW-3D is employed for a full 3D RANS modelling of two turbulent jet-to-crossflow cases,
Accepted 29 April 2016
including free surface jet impingement. Results are compared to both physical modelling and CORMIX to
better assess model performance. Turbulence measurements have been collected for a better under-
standing of turbulent diffusion's parameter sensitivity. Although both studied models are generally able
Keywords:
Momentum jet
to reproduce jet trajectory, jet separation downstream of the impingement has been reproduced only by
Turbulent Schmidt number RANS modelling. Additionally, concentrations are better reproduced by FLOW-3D when the proper
RANS turbulent Schmidt number is used. This study provides a recommendation on the selection of the tur-
Physical modelling bulence model and the turbulent Schmidt number for future outfall structures design studies.
Numerical modelling © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction can be also found in environmental flows.

Conventionally, design of submerged outfall structures has been
carried out by use of cost-intensive and time-consuming experi-
mental studies which allow a detailed investigation of all relevant
flow parameters when model laws and possible scale effects are
properly considered. Outfall structures are used to discharge ef-
fluents from municipal or industrial plants into rivers or the sea.
Generally, the design of these diffusors aims to enhance the mixing
between the effluent jet and the ambient water body in order to not
exceed critical concentrations. Along the jet trajectory, the near
field (with a free development of the jet) needs to be distinguished
from the far field where boundaries may affect the jet mixing (e.g.
due to attachment at the bottom, the free surface or the banks). In
the near field of submerged outfalls, shear flow takes place slowing
down the jet and generating a turbulent flow. Besides neutrally-
buoyant jets, negatively (e.g. due to high salinity of the jet) or
positively buoyant (e.g. due to high temperature of the effluent) jets
* Corresponding author. Hydraulic Engineering Section, FH Aachen University of
Applied Sciences, Bayernallee 9, 52066 Aachen, Germany
E-mail addresses: valero@fh-aachen.de (D. Valero), bung@fh-aachen.de
(D.B. Bung).
In any case, proper design of these environmental flow dis-
charges is of paramount importance for the environmental sys-
tems' biotic media. Traditionally, outfalls have been designed by
means of physical modelling. However, due to potential scale ef-
fects (particularly when dealing with different densities between
water body and jet) in small scale models and the mostly very large
space being needed to model a river reach (since vertical model
distortion should be avoided to properly reproduce buoyant jets;
Kobus, 1980), numerical methods arise as a feasible and reliable
tool. Hence, different simulation methods have been developed
during last decades. For application to complex buoyant jets,
modelling accuracy of simple non-buoyant jets must be first
addressed.
Simplified mixing zone models are usually employed for the
design of these environmental jets. Cornell Mixing Zone Expert
System (CORMIX) is one of the most validated software packages
used for this purpose (Jirka, 2004, 2007; Bleninger and Jirka, 2008).
CORMIX includes 1) a length scale approach to classify a flow sce-
nario and to account for boundary interaction and 2) an integral
approach using hydrodynamic equations to fulfill conservation
laws and determine jet trajectories and concentrations. A third
method, i.e. passive diffusion, becomes relevant in the far field

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2016.04.030
1364-8152/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228
which is less significant for the present study. This commercial
software package has been widely used for water quality modelling,
e.g. its methodology is supported by the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (USEPA, 1991a, b). However, some limitations are
held in the basic assumption of the employed integral model (e.g.:
Gaussian concentration profiles). Modelling is also limited to very
basic boundary conditions (e.g. rectangular channels, steady
ambient flows and jet discharges, 1st order description of
contaminant degradation). Bounded flows with arbitrary boundary
conditions cannot be reproduced as well as jet re-entrainment of
contaminated recirculated water.
In this regard, other more complex techniques as Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) can fill this gap with a more general
approach. When using CFD techniques, different approximations
are available depending on the turbulence scales solved (Hirsch,
2007). Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS) allows the full solution
of Navier-Stokes equations but is restricted to cases with low
Reynolds numbers for smaller spatial domains given the actual
computational limitations. Large Eddy Simulations (LES) are more
affordable and compete in accuracy although it is still very
expensive for large domain simulations as the ones involved in
typical environmental flows (i.e.: study of Ruiz et al., 2015) or when
complex multi-physics are involved (Gorle  and Iaccarino, 2013).
Also, as mentioned by Piomelli (2014), the advanced level of
competence required to run a LES is an obstacle to its widespread
application. Hence, current engineering approach for a wide range
of complex flows is based on Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes
(RANS) equations as pointed out by Davidson (2015), Bradshaw
et al. (1996) and Spalart (2000) and, consequently, RANS has
become a standard practice in CFD (Tucker and DeBonis, 2014).
Despite existence of more complex models than the eddy viscosity
based ones (i.e.: Reynolds-Stress Transport models or RST), it seems
that CFD community predicts continued use of one and two-
equation turbulence models (Slotnik et al., 2014). Also, RST
models can lack of robustness and are occasionally less accurate
than standard RANS models (Slotnik et al., 2014). A detailed
description of RANS equations can be found in (Pope, 2000;
Ferziger and Peric, 2012). RANS equations are solved aiming to
obtain the mean velocity field. As a consequence of the Reynolds
averaging procedure, some additional assumption is needed to
account for transport of velocity fluctuations. For this turbulent
transport the so called gradient diffusion hypothesis can be
assumed being necessary the definition of the turbulent Schmidt
number (Gualtieri and Bombardelli, 2013; Tominaga and
Stathopoulos, 2007; He et al., 1999; Spalding, 1971). Further dis-
cussion on this parameter can be found in section 3.2.
Otherwise, other approaches based on Lagrangian description of
the flow can be used; however large number of particles can result
on excessive computational costs. Different Lagrangian approaches
for near field modelling and detailed discussion on their accuracy
and performance can be found in Israelsson et al. (2006), Suh
(2006) and Liu and Du (2003).
In this study, two neutrally-buoyant jet-to-crossflow cases
(Rajaratnam, 1976) with different discharge angle have been
analyzed by means of three different methods: 1) physical
modelling, 2) CORMIX package and 3) CFD RANS modelling using
FLOW-3D commercial code. One of the studied cases includes a jet
impingement at the free surface thereby resulting on a complex
three-dimensional flow pattern with forward, lateral and partially
reverse spreading (Bleninger and Jirka, 2008). Moreover, two
widely used eddy viscosity closures for RANS equations (namely
RNG k  є and k  u) have been employed. Results are compared to
both physical data and CORMIX results in order to assess the ac-
curacy and highlight the advantages of the employed techniques.
As pointed out by previous authors, detailed validation of near field
219
models is still an issue (Palomar et al., 2012; Roberts and Tian,
2004) and CFD benchmarking can provide relevant information
for future best practice guidelines (Blocken and Gualtieri, 2012).
To the knowledge of the authors, this is the first conducted study
analyzing sensitivity of turbulent Schmidt number using simulta-
neously these two turbulence models for a jet-to-crossflow case.
The conducted study aims to reduce uncertainty and shortcomings
of the employed techniques and analyze their current limitations
and feasibilities for environmental discharges modelling. Despite
the current study is dealing with water, the results may be of in-
terest for other different types of turbulent environmental flows
where transport of velocity fluctuations must be considered, e.g.
atmospheric flows, density currents or air-water flows. All de-
cisions in the selection of the model, parameters and case studies
fulfill the recommendations of Blocken and Gualtieri (2012) for
model development and evaluation; and consequently the ten
iterative steps of Jakeman et al. (2006), thus ensuring a good
disciplined model practice.
2. Physical model setup
A horizontal flume of 58 cm width located at the hydraulic
laboratory of FH Aachen has been used for the physical tests (see
Figs. 1 and 2). Illumination was established using several halogen
spot lights of 500 Watts each, properly located to achieve homo-
geneous illumination. Inlet boundary condition was composed of
linear tubes and foam in order to ensure an undisturbed inflow
condition. A conical diffusor, located at a distance of 1 m down-
stream the foam, was especially prepared allowing the injection
pipe to be set at a certain angle q0 relative to the stream flow di-
rection (with an inner diameter D ¼ 3 mm, and u0 ¼ 2 m/s average
injection velocity). The other end of the injection pipe was con-
nected to a tank - built using a closed PE pipe with 200 mm
diameter and installed above the flume - which was pressurized by
means of an 8 bars air compressor in order to set a constant in-
jection velocity. The jet velocity (or jet discharge) was measured
before starting the tests by checking the volume discharged over
60 s. The efflux vertical position was fixed at h0 ¼ 5 cm from the
channel bed. Injection inclination q0, as defined in Fig. 3, was set to
45 and 90 , respectively. Photos of both model setups are shown in
Fig. 2. Efflux Reynolds number (based on efflux velocity u0, orifice
dimensions D and fluid kinematic viscosity n) is of the order of
6000; thus being over 2000, which is commonly accepted as the
critical value for the jet to be independent of viscosity in a turbulent
ambient flow (Fischer et al., 1979; Kobus, 1980). Ambient water
flow rate was set to 13 l/s by use of a frequency regulator and an
electromagnetic flowmeter. Flow depth (Ha) was controlled with a
downstream weir and set to 28 cm at the flow region of interest,
Fig. 1. Physical model setup. Pressurized tank over the chute and inlet boundary
condition at the left side of the image.
220 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228

Fig. 2. Investigated cases during the experiments.

Fig. 3. Mesh setup and boundary conditions and ADV profiler measurement.

yielding an average ambient velocity ua ¼ 0.08 m/s. The role of measuring techniques as three-dimensional Laser Induced Fluo-
ambient flow is to gradually deflect the turbulent jet into the flow rescence (3D LIF) or Planar Concentration Analysis (PCA), reader
direction while inducing additional mixing. might be addressed to Roberts and Tian (2004) or Weitbrecht et al.
The effluent water has been dyed by adding potassium per- (2008) respectively.
manganate (dilution: 1 g per 9 l water) to allow visual inspection of
the jet trajectory, boundaries and mixing. A Canon EOS 7D camera
3. Numerical models
was used to capture the complete domain from side and top views.
Stickers were located in the bed and side of the channel every 5 cm
3.1. CORMIX
to help later location of the jet boundaries. A high-speed camera
(type: Phantom Miro M120, used sample rate: 200 Hz, duration: 5 s,
This FORTRAN program basically includes the module CorJet
resolution: 1920  1200 px) has been employed in order to gain
which implements an integral model for turbulent buoyant jets
insight in the complex hydrodynamic processes occurring in the
assuming a self-similar distribution (i.e. a Gaussian distribution) of
Zone of Flow Establishment (ZOFE) and the near field. Additionally,
different flow parameters (e.g. velocity, concentration, tempera-
a velocity and turbulence measurement has been carried out by
ture, etc.) over a given cross-section of the jet (Jirka, 2004, 2007).
means of a Nortek Vectrino ADV profiler in the location marked in
This model was originally developed for two-dimensional round
Fig. 3.
jets (Jirka and Fong, 1981). For the assumption of self-similarity, an
For image post-processing, Python open source libraries where
unbounded flow field is required and boundary interaction is
employed, i.e.: NumPy and SciPy for data handling and 2D inter-
consequently not contemplated. CorJet is thus applicable in the
polation (Van der Walt et al., 2011) and Matplotlib for results
near field of a jet or for deep water only; unstable effects such as
plotting (Hunter, 2007). Image distortion has been compensated by
recirculation are not supported. However, for free unbounded jets,
interpolating the coordinates of over 150 reference points for the
this assumption of a known parameter distribution allows an easy
top views and 25 for side views (marked with stickers, as shown in
integration yielding estimation of variables such as volume flux,
Figs. 1 and 2). Light refraction at the air-water interface has also
momentum flux or buoyancy flux. One-dimensional integral fluxes
been taken into account when reference points are not located at
can then be considered to simplify basic three-dimensional hy-
the same plane as the observed concentration field.
drodynamic differential equations. The closure of the resulting 1D
With the described imaging techniques, it is not possible to
differential equation system requires a turbulence model which is
obtain full detailed concentrations but some qualitative analysis
implemented as an empirical entrainment model describing the
can be performed. Computing transversal integrals of the concen-
rate of volume entrained from the ambient water into the jet. This
tration field allows some comparison to averaged intensity ob-
model has been previously validated by experimental studies (Jirka,
tained from the side views (as later shown in section 4.4). In this
2004). The entrainment produces an increase of transported vol-
way, it must be noted that most of the physical data from jets being
ume and therefore a decrease of concentrations. It may be noted
used for model validation has been traditionally reported as visual
that a similar module, i.e. CorSurf, implements the simulation of
information (Bleninger and Jirka, 2008). For more complex
surface discharges.
 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228
In order to take into account boundary interaction at the banks,
bottom and free surface, an additional length scale model with a
coupled empirical flow classification including more than 100 flow
regimes is implemented. Depending on geometrical boundary
conditions, e.g. vertical inclination q0 of the jet, and the comparison
of length scales of hydrodynamic effects from the jet on length
scales of the ambient flow (typically the water depth) a flow regime
is determined and additional modules are consequently run. For
instance, one significant length scale for the classification of the
present study is the jet-to-crossflow length scale
1=2.
Lm ¼ M0 ua
where M0 ¼ u0Q0, being Q0 the jet discharge. Then, based on the
ratio Lm/Ha < 1, a flow regime of a deep layer or weak momentum is
expected for both studied cases.
However, as pointed out in section 1, CORMIX is limited to very
simple boundaries, i.e. rectangular channels; and steady flows.
Detailed discussion on CORMIX accuracy can be found in Palomar
et al. (2012); Loya-Fern andez et al. (2012); Roberts and Tian
(2004); Bleninger and Jirka (2008, 2004, 2007). The model is
known to perform well for simple discharges and has been similarly
validated for a variety of buoyant flows. Usually, inconsistency
among different experimental studies is larger than the deviation of
CORMIX results (Bleninger and Jirka, 2008). As only cases with low
or no unstable recirculation upstream the discharge location are
investigated in the present study, CORMIX is expected to perform
optimally since assumptions of the employed integral method are
fulfilled (Jirka, 2004).
As CORMIX provides jet centreline and Gaussian related physical
parameters, results have been analyzed using previously
mentioned packages NumPy and SciPy and interpolated over a
regular grid. Then, contour surfaces have been obtained using
Matplotlib and compared to FLOW-3D results and physical data in a
comparable format.
3.2. FLOW-3D
RANS numerical models have been set up using FLOW-3D for jet
discharge with q0 ¼ 45 and 90 . For both cases, two different two
equations turbulence models performance has been evaluated. The
first one, i.e. RNG k  є as defined by Yakhot and Orszag (1986) and
Yakhot et al. (1992), has been chosen as it is expected to reproduce
flow separation better than the standard k  є (Speziale and
Thangam, 1992; Bradshaw, 1997; Kim and Baik, 2004), has shown
better performance also for impinging jets (Dutta et al., 2013) and
good overall performance for complex hydraulic problems (Bayon
et al., 2016). This model uses different values for equations' pa-
rameters and adds a new term to the є equation. The second,
namely the k  u developed by Wilcox (1998, 2008) which sub-
stitutes the equation for є by another for u ¼ є/k. This model is
known to perform superiorly for many types of flows when
compared to the standard k  є (Pope, 2000; Ferna ndez Oro, 2012)
although it has not been as widely tested as k  є model (Bradshaw
et al., 1996). Furthermore, it has been previously noticed that k  є
significantly overpredicts the spreading of the round jet (Pope,
2000) although is known to be more insensitive to free stream
values. In the question of the choice of a second variable in two-
equations models, freestream sensitivity should be given high
priority (Spalart, 2000). In this study turbulence model parameters
have been used as default. For an in-depth discussion on turbulence
models performance, strengths and limitations, reader might be
addressed to Pope (2000), Spalart (2000), Wilcox (1998) and
Bradshaw et al. (1996).
221
Turbulence modelling allows calculating a turbulent viscosity
as:
k2
nt ¼ Cm
ε
where Cm takes the value 0.085 for the RNG version of the k  є
turbulence model (Yakhot et al., 1992). This viscosity is used as a
variable fluid viscosity accounting for the effect of Reynolds stresses
on RANS equations. When using k  u, turbulent viscosity can be
defined as:
k
nt ¼
u
For advection flux approximation, a second order explicit
scheme was employed including a slope limiter algorithm ensuring
monotonicity preserving of the advected quantities (Van Leer, 1977;
Hirsch, 2007). Resulting linear systems were solved using a Krylov
Subspace method: Generalized Minimal Residual method (GMRES)
as described by (Saad, 2003). Krylov subspace dimension values
ranging between 8 and 12 were chosen based on the simulations'
elapsed time performance. Iterative convergence at each time step
is achieved by reducing residuals four orders of magnitude (104)
following recommendations of ASME (Celik et al., 2008).
Spatial discretization of equations is achieved by means of the
Finite Volume Method (Versteeg and Malalasekera, 2007). For this
reason, a computational mesh must be defined. Simulations carried
out use hexahedral cells held in three different Cartesian meshes
(as sketched in Fig. 3). The first mesh works as a “buffer” mesh of
2 m length, in a similar way to Bombardelli et al. (2011) for the inlet
condition. This “buffer” mesh decreases the cell size smoothly
matching the domain of interest meshes with similar cell sizes.
Thus, uniform flow with ua velocity is imposed upstream and de-
velops along this 2 m coarse mesh (1 cm average cell size) repro-
ducing a more realistic flow field (in terms of velocities and
turbulence quantities) immediately upstream the jet.
Use of such a “buffer” mesh allows the flow to self-develop,
hence reducing the dependence of the solution on the inlet
boundary conditions. Mean flow is fed with turbulence from the
contours up to an equilibrium level, this level has been observed to
correspond to a turbulent kinetic energy k equivalent to a 3.2%
turbulent intensity computed using:
3
k ¼ ðTu Ua Þ2
2
Which is in agreement with Pope (2000), recommending a value
below 5% and with observations of Tachie et al. (2000) for open
channel flow (2.4e3.5%). This value is then used as a boundary
condition in the inlet for subsequent simulations. Similarly, є has
been set at the inlet using the self-developed and self-established
flow value.
Mesh 1 is linked to the “buffer” mesh and uses finer cells. It is
extended 60 cm downstream the jet injector location and 20 cm
upstream (mesh 1 in Fig. 3). As for the “buffer” mesh, all the width
of the channel is also meshed. Mesh 2 is the finest mesh and is
located embedded into the second one but not covering all the
width of the channel. Cell size of 1 mm is set at the injector location
and increases smoothly up to 1.5 mm in the mesh borders, allowing
a correct definition of jet hydrodynamic features in the ZOFE.
Maximum cell size in mesh 2 holds for 5 mm. However, 2 mm cells
are forced in the border with mesh 2. Transition between “buffer”
mesh and mesh 1 has shown little effect upon the jet flow and
trajectories although cell size ratio does not hold for 1:2, as usually
recommended to avoid partial variables interpolation. The defined
222 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228
distances in the employed mesh are greater than the used in the
previous similar study (He et al., 1999), and then little influence
from mesh boundaries might be expected.
Described meshing settings are the result of an iterative process
where meshes have been structurally refined obtaining a Grid
Convergence Index (GCI) under 10% for the maximum velocity
decay in the near field region (and a median GCI below 1%, see
Fig. 4); according to methodology recommended by ASME in Celik
et al. (2008). The GCI is a measure of the percentage the computed
value is away from the value of the asymptotic value (when cell size
tends to zero). It is based on the discretization error estimation
named Richardson extrapolation, which is the most reliable
method to estimate numerical uncertainty (Celik et al., 2008). For
the q0 ¼ 90 case study it has been also studied GCI for the mini-
mum velocity in the recirculation region, which is a representative
aspect of the flow structure and a difficult flow feature for RANS
modelling (Bayon et al., 2016).
As the free surface was constant in the investigated cases its
numerical determination was thus not required. Hence, it has been
considered as a symmetry boundary condition in order to speed up
the simulations. Downstream mesh 1, stagnant pressure gradient is
imposed (noted as pa in Fig. 3). Side and bed of the channel are
modeled as walls. All simulations have been performed until the
whole domain mass-averaged turbulent energy has shown a sta-
tionary trend and additionally the jet boundary did not change
during some seconds.
For transport and diffusion of a contaminant C the following
equation can be employed:
 
vC vC v vC
VF þ vi Ai ¼ Ai D
vt vxi vxi vxi
where VF is the cell volume fraction and accordingly Ai is the cell
area in i direction. This formulation is coherent with FAVOR method
employed for the definition of obstacles in the meshed domain
(Hirt and Sicilian, 1985). Generally, D accounts for total diffusion
Fig. 4. Numerical uncertainty for case q0 ¼ 90 (top) and q0 ¼ 45 (bottom).
(molecular and turbulent). But as far as turbulence arise, it is
reasonable to assume that turbulence transport will prevail over
molecular diffusion; hence D z Dt. Definition of this turbulent
diffusion requires an additional relation. The so-called gradient
diffusion hypothesis is herein studied. Gradient diffusion hypoth-
esis assumes that the advective transport of a scalar due to turbu-
lent fluctuations is related to the spatial gradient of the
concentration by means of a turbulent diffusivity. When using the
gradient diffusion hypothesis, definition of the turbulent Schmidt
number (Sct) becomes necessary:
nt
Sct ¼
Dt
As noted by previous authors, this number plays a key role for
turbulent transport in RANS models (Valero et al., 2016; Gualtieri
and Bombardelli, 2013; Tominaga and Stathopoulos, 2007; He
et al., 1999; Spalding, 1971). Performance assessment of more
complex scalar transport models can be found in (Tominaga and
Stathopoulos, 2013; Rossi and Iaccarino, 2009).
No universal values have been accepted by the research com-
munity. Values are usually distributed in the range of 0.2e1.3 with
the specific value depending on the local flow characteristics
(Tominaga and Stathopoulos, 2007). Koeltzsch (2000) deeply
analyzed classic experimental studies and found that values are
comprised between 0.5 and 0.9 for boundary layer flows although
local value depends on height over the wall. Flesch et al. (2002)
reported values ranging from 0.18 to 1.34 for different flow condi-
tions. Launder and Spalding (1974) studied values ranging from 0.2
to 1.5. Gualtieri and Bombardelli (2013) recently analyzed suit-
ability of values comprised between 0.8 and 1.3 and Valero et al.
(2016) showed that using values between 0.7 and 1.4 can reduce
one order of magnitude error in the dispersion width estimation
compared to not considering any turbulent Schmidt number.
Gualtieri (2010) argued feasibility of Sct ¼ 1.0 based on the
assumption that momentum and mass turbulent diffusivities are
 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228
similar since both depend on the same eddies for transport.
The early CFD study of Spalding (1971) recommended the value
of 0.7 for a round turbulent free jet. Same value was employed in
the numerical studies of Li and Stathopoulos (1997) and Wang and
McNamara (2006). Yimer et al. (2002) used LDV to determine Sct of
a turbulent free round jet, reporting increasing values from 0.62 to
1.1 depending on distance to the jet axis. Other interesting
conclusion of the study is that, whereas Sct ¼ 0.7 is the recom-
mended value, Sct ¼ 0.9 (slightly higher) can compensate the
inaccuracies in the calculated velocity field in the RANS simulation.
Nonetheless, this kind of cancellation of errors may not be directly
generalized for all types of flows.
He et al. (1999) recommended Sct ¼ 0.2 for a round jet in a cross
flow. Wu et al. (2001) employed similarly a value of Sct ¼ 0.25 for a
thermal shock flow in a T-junction. Additionally, they based their
decision on previous study of He et al. (1999). However, such small
values could be indeed too low based on Tominaga and
Stathopoulos (2007, 2013) discussions. On the light of previous
authors' results, different values have been tested in this study.
Sct ¼ 0.7 has resulted in excessive diffusion while Sct ¼ 1.4 has
shown better agreement with experimental data. Given the phys-
ical and numerical uncertainty (shown in Fig. 4), Sct values over 0.9
might be already acceptable. Similarly, excessive turbulence peak
value has been obtained in the numerical model, i.e. in the ratio of
1:2 compared to the conducted ADV measurement, what may
justify using higher values of Sct than the physically suggested.
4. Results
4.1. General remarks
The following sections include the results on jet mixing and on
the development of concentration profiles along the jet trajectory.
To evaluate the simulated jet mixing, the isosurface for a C ¼ 0.01
concentration from both, FLOW-3D and CORMIX simulations, are
compared to the boundaries from physical modelling. Extraction of
those jet boundaries is based on later discussion of section 4.4.
It is generally pointed out that CORMIX results accurately pre-
dict jet trajectories as far as flow remains unbounded. Conversely, it
has been observed that CORMIX tends to underestimate the
physical data jet boundaries and thus the contaminant dispersion.
It must be pointed out that CORMIX originally reports the 1/
e ¼ 37% half width of the Gaussian distribution as jet boundary;
which is indeed a concentration changing arbitrary value. On the
other hand, visual observations may correspond to a constant
concentration value when homogeneous illumination is achieved.
In order to ensure a better comparability of both numerical results,
the original assumption for the jet half width is disregarded and full
concentration field is generated using NumPy and SciPy in order to
obtain the 1% concentration isosurfaces from CORMIX results files;
which has been used as jet boundary in the following figures.
4.2. Turbulent Schmidt number sensitivity
Different turbulent Schmidt numbers have been tested, thus
allowing sensitivity analysis. Fig. 5 shows the boundaries of the jet
for Sct ¼ 0.7, which is a typically recommended value in the
experimental literature. This value, based on experimental results,
fails to accurately reproduce turbulent diffusion. It is shown in Fig. 5
that the upper boundary, directly bended by the crossflow, is well
modeled. Indeed, the jet boundary from FLOW-3D is higher than
those from the laboratory experiments and CORMIX, but differ-
ences are rather small given the uncertainty involved of the
employed physical modelling techniques. However, the lower jet
boundary is found significantly lower than the other results in the
223
near field of the diffuser. Turbulent diffusivity is thus too high.
It is remarkable that when the turbulence intensity was
compared to data from the physical modelling obtained with a
Nortek Vectrino ADV profiler, the absolute maximum error (AME,
as described by Bennett et al., 2013) was above 2. However, this
error holds in a very small region of the flow as it is produced by the
peak value. Otherwise, the turbulence intensity in the self-
developed approaching flow was in good agreement with early
experimental studies and the jet trajectories are properly repro-
duced. Similar issues with turbulence related phenomenon in RANS
modelling have been extensively discussed by Slotnik et al. (2014)
for flow separation, bed shear stress differences in Baykal et al.
(2015), turbulent heat transfer in Dutta et al. (2013) or Reynolds
stresses in Kumar and Dewan (2015). Results obtained with
Sct ¼ 1.4 show better agreement with experimental data. While the
upper jet boundary is nearly unaffected by the change of turbulent
diffusivity, experimental data at the lower jet boundary next to the
diffuser is better reproduced. However, given the numerical un-
certainty Sct ¼ 0.9 could already be considered accurate enough,
not differing importantly from solution with Sct ¼ 1.4 (see Fig. 6)
and being closer to physically based Sct value. The turbulence
overprediction must be related to the effective value of Sct number.
In the far field, on the other hand, momentum becomes less
predominant and passive diffusion becomes more relevant, the
turbulent Schmidt number has therefore minor effect and main
component of the contaminant transport is due to mean velocity
(advection).
When analyzing a jet section for different Sct numbers, effect of
this parameter is better observed. In this regard, Fig. 6 shows the
range of employed values for results location x ¼ 0.50 m. Dt ¼ 0.0 is
also represented in order to show importance of turbulent diffusion
modelling. It can also be appreciated non-linearity of results to Sct
value, which reinforces the importance of considering a range of Sct
values in design studies to increase safety levels (i.e.: between 0.9
and 1.4).
4.3. Turbulence model sensitivity
The results obtained with a constant turbulent Schmidt number
of Sct ¼ 1.4 but using two different turbulence models, namely RNG
k  є and k  u, are presented in Figs. 7e9. Fig. 7 presents the side
view on the jet boundaries for q0 ¼ 45 with k  u turbulence
model which can be compared to the results shown in Fig. 5b (for
RNG k  є and Sct ¼ 1.4). In this case, the choice of turbulence model
is not significantly affecting the simulation results. However, for the
most complex modeled jet (q0 ¼ 90 ), some differences in the near
field arise. Turbulent diffusion is additionally higher in the k  u
simulation in the near field while differences become small in the
far field after the surface impingement. However, the main flow
features of this case, i.e. the jet separation and downstream surface
spiral rollers, are better reproduced with the RNG k  є turbulence
model (Fig. 8). The onset of jet separation is well reproduced, while
the spreading sets in too far downstream with the k  u turbulence
model. Despite, for RNG k  є turbulence model the spreading is
still higher than the physically observed. As a result, inner and outer
jet boundaries for both turbulence models tend to be shifted to the
sidewalls. It may be noticed that the described phenomenon is not
present in the CORMIX results, where jet separation does not take
place.
In conclusion to the above conducted sensitivity analysis, a
RANS simulation with RNG k  є turbulence model and turbulent
Schmidt number of Sct ¼ 1.4 gives reasonable results which
compare fairly well to experimental data and CORMIX results. RNG
k  є turbulence model allows capturing the 3D structure of the jet
better, including the jet separation, and the Sct number can
224 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228

Fig. 5. Side view: q0 ¼ 45 , RNG k  є turbulence model.

Fig. 6. Effect of Sct on jet spreading at a given section (x ¼ 0.50 m).

improvement in the determination of scalar concentrations might

be similar although domain of study and time of simulation are
restricted by computational costs.

4.4. Concentration profiles

In order to evaluate the concentration profiles along the jet

Fig. 7. Side view: q0 ¼ 45 , Sct ¼ 1.4, k  u turbulence model.
trajectory and to justify the comparison of physical data with
C ¼ 0.01 boundaries, a comparison of numerical results with images
from the high-speed camera as shown in Fig. 10 is carried out. For
this purpose, homogeneous illumination was achieved by placing
different halogen spot lights. Then, average intensity profiles of the

Fig. 8. Side view: q0 ¼ 90 , Sct ¼ 1.4.

compensate the observed excess of turbulence in the numerical
model. However, this turbulence value might yield accurate mean
velocity profiles estimations not ensuring a satisfactory prediction
of scalar concentration as previously noticed by Rossi and Iaccarino,
2009. Study of Ruiz et al. (2015) obtained better turbulence quan-
tities agreement using a LES approach; however accuracy
images in the ZOFE and the near field can be determined. For
completeness of the study, the standard deviation of these 1000
images is also presented, which allows proper visualization of the
shear regions. In Fig. 10, it can be clearly observed the regions of
higher intensity variation. Out of these regions, negligible con-
centrations might be expected. As it can be observed in Fig. 10,
 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228 225

Fig. 9. Top view: q0 ¼ 90 , Sct ¼ 1.4.

Fig. 10. Zone of Flow Establishment (ZOFE) and near field of the physically modeled jets captured with a high-speed camera. Top: instantaneous intensity; middle: averaged
intensity; bottom: intensity standard deviation.

when background and jet are homogeneously illuminated, the intensity can provide some information on the jet concentrations.
pixel intensity of the background can be easily subtracted and any More specifically on the opacity of the jet, which is related to the
fluctuation on the pixel intensity at the jet is due to concentration total contaminant in the transversal direction (thus the contami-
variations. After extraction of background, remaining jet pixel nant integral, as shown in Fig. 11).
226 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228

(2004), this initial Zone of Flow Establishment (ZOFE) is a transition

region that lacks self-similarity as the initial unsheared profiles
undergo changes in form of peripherally growing axisymmetric
mixing layers until the final jet profiles are reached. For a better
description of turbulence processes taking place at the ZOFE reader
may be addressed to Ruiz et al. (2015).
Average intensity values reported from acquired images are
linked to the opacity of the jet. In order to better compare FLOW-3D
and CORMIX results, transversal integrals of the concentration
fields have been assessed. Although it is not precise for the whole
section's concentration distribution, maximum and minimum
values location of scalar can be therefore identified in Fig. 11.
Although, exact scalar concentration values cannot be reported
since the concentration e intensity transfer function might not be
linear.
Therefore, this allowed determination of C ¼ 0.01 representa-
tiveness for results comparison with physical data observed
boundaries. However, this value might depend on light conditions
and camera properties; and consequently it should not be extrap-
olated to other studies.
Finally, scalar concentration field is shown in Fig. 12 for FLOW-
3D with Sct ¼ 1.4 and RNG k  є turbulence model. For clarity
reasons, transversal maximum values are plotted rather than the
top plane view. It can be observed the deviation from the Gaussian
profile hypothesis even for the considered cases in this study. For
comparison, CORMIX concentrations are also shown in Fig. 13.
Reader may note that when impingement takes place, CORMIX
defines a new jet yielding a superposition of both jets in a small
area.

Fig. 11. Normalized profiles along the jet centerline for q0 ¼ 90 .

Pixel intensities for q0 ¼ 90 at different elevations are shown in

Fig. 11a). As it can be observed in the average image as well, the
concentrations show some skewness in terms of a higher turbulent
diffusion downstream of the jet, and thus a non-Gaussian distri-
bution. Similar results are found by FLOW-3D in Fig. 11b) what does
not happened otherwise for CORMIX results as a consequence of
the basic hypothesis.
It must be also noted that CORMIX gives no results for the ZOFE
very close to the outfall (here up to z ¼ 0.07 m). According to Jirka
Fig. 12. FLOW-3D concentration distributions for q0 ¼ 90 , Sct ¼ 1.4.
 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228
Fig. 13. CORMIX mid plane concentrations for q0 ¼ 90 .
5. Conclusions
In the present study, two jets to crossflow have been modeled
both with FLOW-3D and CORMIX. In order to improve under-
standing of employed RANS techniques, sensitivity to turbulence
model and turbulent Schmidt number has been assessed. For this
purpose, physical data has been collected using techniques such as
high-speed imaging and ADV.
Turbulence model has shown to influence on the determination
of 3D jet structure whereas turbulent Schmidt number affects, non-
linearly, jet diffusion. Modelling of the transport of velocity fluc-
tuations is of paramount importance for turbulent environmental
discharges being noticeably underpredicted jet boundaries when
only modelling advection of the mean flow. In most cases, when
using a two equation eddy viscosity model, turbulence quantities
may allow providing accurate mean velocity distributions; however
turbulence quantities may result excessive when compared to the
physical values. Under these circumstances turbulent Schmidt
number must be an effective value rather than a physically based
one and use of values in the range of 0.9e1.4 might be encouraged;
being 0.9 closer to the physically based Sct value and 1.4 an effective
parameter. As far field turbulence production is limited, turbulent
Schmidt number influence is reduced and hence can be calibrated
by using only near field data.
Furthermore, RANS approach has demonstrated to provide
reasonable results where classical approach hypothesis failed. This
more general approach can help reduce uncertainty in the design of
new outfall structures yielding better environmental policies
fulfillment and safer discharges operation as well as allows
modelling of new complex environmental fluid mechanics
problems.
References
Baykal, C., Sumer, B.M., Fuhrman, D.R., Jacobsen, N.G., Fredsøe, J., 2015. Numerical
investigation of flow and scour around a vertical circular cylinder. Philos. Trans.
R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 373 (2033), 20140104.
Bayon, Arnau, Valero, Daniel, García-Bartual, Rafael, Valle s-Moran, Francisco Jose,
Amparo Lo pez-Jimenez, P., 2016. Performance assessment of Open FOAM and
FLOW-3D in the numerical modeling of a low Reynolds number hydraulic jump.
Environ. Model. Softw. 80, 322e335. ISSN 1364-8152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsoft.2016.02.018.
Bennett, N.D., Crok, B.F.W., Guariso, G., Guillaume, J.H.A., Hamilton, S.H.,
Jakeman, A.J., Marsili-Libelli, S., Newhama, L.T.H., Norton, J.P., Perrin, C.,
Pierce, S.A., Robson, B., Seppelt, R., Voinov, A.A., Fath, B.D., Andreassian, V., 2013.
Characterising performance of environmental models. Environ. Model. Softw.
40, 1e20.
Bleninger, T., Jirka, G.H., 2008. Modelling and environmentally sound management
of brine discharges from desalination plants. Desalination 221 (1), 585e597.
Blocken, B., Gualtieri, C., 2012. Ten iterative steps for model development and
evaluation applied to computational fluid dynamics for environmental fluid
mechanics. Environ. Model. Softw. 33, 1e22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.envsoft.2012.02.001.
Bombardelli, F.A., Meireles, I., Matos, J., 2011. Laboratory measurements and multi-
block numerical simulations of the mean flow and turbulence in the non-
aerated skimming flow region of steep stepped spillways. Environ. Fluid
227
Mech. 11 (3), 263e288.
Bradshaw, P., Launder, B.E., Lumley, J.L., 1996. Collaborative testing of turbulence
models. J. Fluids Eng. 118 (2), 243e247.
Bradshaw, P., 1997. Understanding and prediction of turbulent flowd1996. Int. J.
Heat Fluid Flow 18 (1), 45e54. ISSN: 0142-727X.
Celik, I.B., Ghia, U., Roache, P.J., 2008. Procedure for estimation and reporting of
uncertainty due to discretization in CFD applications. ASME J. Fluids Eng. 130
(7), 1e4.
Davidson, P., 2015. Turbulence: an Introduction for Scientists and Engineers. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Dutta, R., Dewan, A., Srinivasan, B., 2013. Comparison of various integration to wall
(ITW) RANS models for predicting turbulent slot jet impingement heat transfer.
Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 65, 750e764.
Ferna ndez Oro, J.M., 2012. Te cnicas nume ricas en Ingeniería de Fluidos. Ed. Reverte
,
Barcelona, Espan ~ a.
Ferziger, J.H., Peric, M., 2012. Computational Methods for Fluid Dynamics. Springer
Science & Business Media.
Fischer, H.B., List, E.J., Koh, R.C.Y., Imberger, J., Brooks, N.H., 1979. Mixing in Inland
and Coastal Waters. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Flesch, T.K., Prueger, J.H., Hatfield, J.L., 2002. Turbulent Schmidt number from a
tracer experiment. Agric. For. Meteorol. 111 (4), 299e307.
Gualtieri, C., 2010. RANS-based simulation of transverse turbulent mixing in a 2D
geometry. Environ. Fluid Mech. 10 (1e2), 137e156.
Gualtieri, C., Bombardelli, F., 2013. In: Parameterization of the Turbulent Schmidt
Number in the Numerical Simulation of Open-channel Flows. XXXV IAHR
Congress.
Gorle , C., Iaccarino, G., 2013. A framework for epistemic uncertainty quantification
of turbulent scalar flux models for Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes simula-
tions. Phys. Fluids 25, 055105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4807067.
He, G., Guo, Y., Hsu, A.T., 1999. The effect of Schmidt number on turbulent scalar
mixing in a jet-in-crossflow. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 42 (20), 3727e3738.
Hirt, C.W., Sicilian, J.M., 1985. A porosity technique for the definition of obstacles in
rectangular cell meshes. In: Proc. Fourth International Conf. Ship Hydro,
pp. 1e19.
Hirsch, C., 2007. Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows: the Fun-
damentals of Computational Fluid Dynamics: the Fundamentals of Computa-
tional Fluid Dynamics. Butterworth-Heinemann.
Hunter, J.D., 2007. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9,
90e95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MCSE.2007.55.
Israelsson, P.H., Do Kim, Y., Adams, E.E., 2006. A comparison of three Lagrangian
approaches for extending near field mixing calculations. Environ. Model. Softw.
21 (12), 1631e1649.
Jakeman, A.J., Letcher, R.A., Norton, J.P., 2006. Ten iterative steps in development
and evaluation of environmental models. Environ. Model. Softw. 21, 602e614.
Jirka, G.H., Fong, H.L.M., 1981. Dynamics and bifurcation of buoyant jets in crossflow.
J. Eng. Mech. Div. 107, 479e499.
Jirka, G.H., 2004. Integral model for turbulent buoyant jets in unbounded stratified
flows. Part I: single round jet. Environ. Fluid Mech. 4 (1), 1e56.
Jirka, G.H., 2007. Buoyant surface discharges into water bodies. II: jet integral model.
J. Hydraul. Eng. 133 (9), 1021e1036.
Kim, J.J., Baik, J.J., 2004. A numerical study of the effects of ambient wind direction
on flow and dispersion in urban street canyons using the RNG keε turbulence
model. Atmos. Environ. 38 (19), 3039e3048.
Kobus, H., 1980. Hydraulic Modelling. Bulletin 7. German Association for Water
Resources and Land Improvement, Parey, Hamburg.
Koeltzsch, K., 2000. The height dependence of the turbulent Schmidt number
within the boundary layer. Atmos. Environ. 34 (7), 1147e1151.
Kumar, R., Dewan, A., 2015. Partially-averaged NaviereStokes method for turbulent
thermal plume. Heat and Mass Transfer 1e13.
Launder, B.E., Spalding, D.B., 1974. The numerical computation of turbulent flows.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 3 (2), 269e289.
Li, Y., Stathopoulos, T., 1997. Numerical evaluation of wind-induced dispersion of
pollutants around a building. J. Wind Eng. Ind. Aerodyn. 67, 757e766.
Liu, L., Du, S., 2003. A computationally efficient particle-puff model for concentra-
tion variance from steady releases. Environ. Model. Softw. 18 (1), 25e33.
Loya-Fern andez, A., Ferrero-Vicente, L.M., Marco-Me ndez, C., Martínez-García, E.,
Zubcoff, J., Sanchez-Lizaso, J.L., 2012. Comparing four mixing zone models with
brine discharge measurements from a reverse osmosis desalination plant in
Spain. Desalination 286, 217e224.
Palomar, P., Lara, J.L., Losada, I.J., 2012. Near field brine discharge modeling part 2:
validation of commercial tools. Desalination 290, 28e42.
Piomelli, U., 2014. Large eddy simulations in 2030 and beyond. Philos. Trans. R. Soc.
A 372 (20130320). http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0320.
Pope, S.B., 2000. Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.
Rajaratnam, N., 1976. Turbulent Jets. Elsevier.
Roberts, P.J., Tian, X., 2004. New experimental techniques for validation of marine
discharge models. Environ. Model. Softw. 19 (7), 691e699.
Rossi, R., Iaccarino, G., 2009. Numerical simulation of scalar dispersion downstream
of a square obstacle using gradient-transport type models. Atmos. Environ. 43
(16), 2518e2531.
Ruiz, A.M., Lacaze, G., Oefelein, J.C., 2015. Flow topologies and turbulence scales in a
jet-in-cross-flow. Phys. Fluids 27, 045101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4915065.
Saad, Y., 2003. Iterative methods for sparse linear systems. Siam.
Slotnik, J., Khodadoust, A., Alonso, J., Darmofal, D., Gropp, W., Lurie, E., Mavriplis, D.,
2014. CFD vision 2030 study: a path to revolutionary computational
228 D. Valero, D.B. Bung / Environmental Modelling & Software 82 (2016) 218e228
aerosciences. NASA/CRe;2014e218178.
Spalart, P.R., 2000. Strategies for turbulence modelling and simulations. Int. J. Heat
Fluid Flow 21 (3), 252e263.
Spalding, D.B., 1971. Concentration fluctuations in a round turbulent free jet. Chem.
Eng. Sci. 26 (1), 95e107.
Speziale, C.G., Thangam, S., 1992. Analysis of an RNG based turbulence model for
separated flows. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 30 (10), 1379eIN4.
Suh, S.W., 2006. A hybrid approach to particle tracking and EulerianeLagrangian
models in the simulation of coastal dispersion. Environ. Model. Softw. 21 (2),
234e242.
Tachie, M.F., Bergstrom, D.J., Balachandar, R., 2000. Rough wall turbulent boundary
layers in shallow open channel flow. J. Fluids Eng. 122 (3), 533e541.
Tominaga, Y., Stathopoulos, T., 2007. Turbulent Schmidt numbers for CFD analysis
with various types of flow field. Atmos. Environ. 41 (37), 8091e8099.
Tominaga, Y., Stathopoulos, T., 2013. CFD simulation of near-field pollutant
dispersion in the urban environment: a review of current modeling techniques.
Atmos. Environ. 79, 716e730.
Tucker, P.G., DeBonis, J.R., 2014. Aerodynamics, computers and the environment.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A 372, 20130331. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2013.0331.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991a. Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control. Office of Water, Washington,
DC.. EPA/505/2-90-001.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1991b. Assessment and
Control of Bioconcentratable Contaminants in Surface Waters. Office of Water,
Washington, DC.. EPA-833-D94-001.
Van der Walt, S., Colbert, S.C., Varoquaux, G., 2011. The NumPy array: a structure for
efficient numerical computation. Comput. Sci. Eng. 13, 22e30. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1109/MCSE.2011.37.
Valero, D., Bung, D.B., Oertel, M., 2016. Turbulent dispersion in bounded horizontal
jets. RANS capabilities and physical modeling comparison. In: E-Proceedings of
the 4th IAHR Europe Congress, Liege Belgium 27e29 July 2016.
Van Leer, B., 1977. Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. IV. A new
approach to numerical convection. J. Comput. Phys. 23 (3), 276e299.
Versteeg, H.K., Malalasekera, W., 2007. An introduction to computational fluid dy-
namics: the finite volume method. Pearson Education.
Wang, X., McNamara, K.F., 2006. Evaluation of CFD simulation using RANS turbu-
lence models for building effects on pollutant dispersion. Environ. Fluid Mech. 6
(2), 181e202.
Weitbrecht, V., Socolofsky, S.A., Jirka, G.H., 2008. Experiments on mass exchange
between groin fields and main stream in rivers. J. Hydraul. Eng. 134 (2),
173e183.
Wilcox, D.C., 1998. Turbulence Modeling for CFD. DCW industries, La Canada, CA.
Wilcox, D.C., 2008. Formulation of the k-omega turbulence model revisited. AIAA J.
46, 2823e2838.
Wu, H., Chen, T., Luo, Y., Wang, H., 2001. Numerical simulation of transient 3-D
turbulent heated jet into crossflow in a thick-wall T-junction pipe. J. Therm. Sci.
10 (1), 46e51.
Yakhot, V., Orszag, S.A., 1986. Renormalization group analysis of turbulence. I. Basic
theory. J. Sci. Comput. 1 (1), 3e51.
Yakhot, V., Orszag, S.A., Thangam, S., Gatski, T.B., Speziale, C.G., 1992. Development
of turbulence models for shear flows by a double expansion technique. Phys.
Fluids A Fluid Dyn. 4 (7), 1510e1520 (1989e1993).
Yimer, I., Campbell, I., Jiang, L.Y., 2002. Estimation of the turbulent Schmidt number
from experimental profiles of axial velocity and concentration for high-
Reynolds-number jet flows. Can. Aeronaut. Space J. 48 (3), 195e200.