SUnhale PDF

APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS OF RANS BASED TURBULENCE
MODELS FOR BLUFF BODY AERODYNAMICS

By

Sanket Anil Unhale

A Thesis In
Mechanical Engineering

Submitted To the Graduate Faculty
Of Texas Tech University In
Partial Fulfillment Of
The Requirements For
The Degree Of
Master of Science

Thesis Committee:
Dr. Darryl James
Dr. Christopher Letchford
Dr. Siva Parameswaran

October, 2004
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the course of this project and the research, I have acquired an
impressive indebtedness. It is virtually impossible to acknowledge everyone who
has contributed to this research, but I wish to express my sincere gratitude to
several people in particular. I am thankful to my thesis committee members Dr.
Darryl James, Dr. Christopher Letchford and Dr. Siva Parameswaran for their
encouragement and advice throughout the preparation of this thesis.
This research would not have materialized without the help of my
committee chairperson, Dr. James, who always looked after my best interest. His
guidance and willingness to help not only on this thesis but also throughout my
career is deeply appreciated. I would never have become involved in this
fascinating field of CFD had it not been for his guidance. Dr. Letchford has been
more than just the committee member, and his guidance was extremely valuable
throughout my studies and research at Texas Tech.
Financial support provided by Dr. Letchford and Dr. James under NIST‐
sponsored program is gratefully acknowledged. I am also grateful to Dr.
Parameswaran for not only supporting me financially but also providing me a
very interesting research opportunity in CFD and biomechanics for a span of
time. Without such support I would not be able to complete my graduate degree
with such achievements.
Last but not the least, I am highly indebted to my family, friends and
relatives for their unending encouragement and support in countless ways which
brought me to this stage of life, and made me who I am.
ii
CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................. ii
ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ xii
NOMENCLATURE ......................................................................................................xiii
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Objectives .........................................................................................................5
1.2 Outline ..............................................................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................. 7
2.1 Bluff Body Aerodynamics..............................................................................7
2.2 Surface Roughness Effects ...........................................................................18
3. MODELING TURBULENCE.................................................................................. 24
3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................24
3.2 Brief History of Turbulence Modeling.......................................................25
3.3 Basic Concepts ...............................................................................................27
3.3.1 Reynolds Averaged Navier‐Stokes Equations (RANS).....................27
3.3.2 Reynolds Stresses ....................................................................................28
3.3.3 The Eddy Viscosity .................................................................................29
3.4 The Turbulent Kinetic Energy Equation....................................................31
3.5 The Standard k‐ε Model...............................................................................33
3.5.1 Transport Equations ...............................................................................33
3.5.2 Turbulent Viscosity.................................................................................33
3.6 The RNG k‐ε Model ......................................................................................35
iii
3.6.2 Effective Viscosity ...................................................................................36
3.6.3 Inverse Effective Prandtl Numbers ......................................................36
3.6.4 Modification of Strain Dependent Term..............................................37
3.7 The Realizable k‐ε Model.............................................................................38
3.8 Calculation of Different Terms in k‐ε Model Transport
Equations........................................................................................................40
3.8.1 Modeling Production of Specific Turbulent Kinetic
Energy.......................................................................................................40
3.9 The Standard k‐ω Model..............................................................................40
3.9.3 Modeling of Production of Turbulence ...............................................42
3.9.4 Modeling of Turbulence Dissipation ...................................................42
3.10 The SST k‐ω Model .......................................................................................44
3.10.3 Turbulent Prandtl Numbers..................................................................45
3.10.4 Modeling of Production of Turbulence ...............................................45
3.10.5 Modeling of Turbulence Dissipation ...................................................46
4. MODEL DETAILS.................................................................................................... 48
4.1 Model 1 ...........................................................................................................48
4.1.1 Computational Domain .........................................................................48
4.1.2 The Boundary Conditions......................................................................49
iv
4.2 Model 2 ...........................................................................................................51
4.2.1 Computational Domain .........................................................................51
4.2.2 The Boundary Conditions......................................................................52
4.3 The Grid..........................................................................................................53
4.4 Solver Settings ...............................................................................................56
4.4.1 Discretization Schemes...........................................................................57
4.4.2 Pressure Velocity Coupling ...................................................................58
4.4.3 Convergence Criteria..............................................................................59
4.4.4 Near Wall Treatments ............................................................................59
4.4.5 Wall Functions Approach ......................................................................60
4.4.6 Two‐layer Modeling ...............................................................................61
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 63
5.1 Development of Equilibrium Boundary Layer.........................................63
5.2 Results for Model 1 .......................................................................................66
5.2.1 Distribution of Surface Pressure ...........................................................67
5.2.2 Distribution of Turbulent Kinetic Energy ...........................................71
5.2.3 Distribution of the Turbulence Dissipation Rate................................75
5.2.4 Distribution of Turbulent Viscosity......................................................79
5.2.5 Distribution of Strain Rate .....................................................................82
5.2.6 Roof and Wake Recirculation Patterns ................................................86
5.2.7 The wind loading ....................................................................................93
5.3 Discussion on Turbulence Models .............................................................95
5.3.1 The Standard k‐ε Model.........................................................................96
5.3.2 The RNG k‐ε Model ................................................................................97
5.3.3 The Realizable k‐ε Model.......................................................................98
v
5.3.4 The Standard k‐ω Model........................................................................99
5.3.5 The Shear Stress Transport k‐ω Model ..............................................100
5.4 Rough wall modification ...........................................................................103
5.4.1 Description of the model......................................................................103
5.4.2 Test cases for rough wall formulation ...............................................105
5.5 Results for model 2 .....................................................................................109
5.5.1 Distribution of surface pressure .........................................................109
5.5.2 Distribution of turbulent kinetic energy............................................113
5.5.3 Distribution of turbulence dissipation rate .......................................116
5.5.4 Distribution of turbulent viscosity .....................................................119
5.5.5 Distribution of the strain rate ..............................................................122
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 126
REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 130
APPENDICES
A. UDF CODE FOR 2D MODELS ............................................................................ 138
B. UDF CODE FOR 3D MODELS ............................................................................ 143
vi
ABSTRACT
Computational Wind Engineering (CWE) is becoming more popular in the
wind engineering community, for prediction of the wind loads on buildings and
structures. The most important and basic requirement of CWE is successful
modeling of turbulent flow in the simulated atmospheric boundary layer. Many
turbulence models have been proposed and tested for a variety of flows, but they
are not accurate enough to simulate the bluff body aerodynamics accurately.
In the similar context, five two‐equation turbulence models based on the
isotropic eddy viscosity concept and Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS)
modeling approach were tested for the flow around sharp edged building
models using Fluent as the solver. The numerical results were compared with the
experimental findings in wind tunnel simulations and full scale measurements
available in the literature. The results illustrate inaccuracy of the turbulence
models to predict the pressure distribution along the building surfaces. The
results were analyzed and the effects of different turbulence parameters used in
the modeling and analysis were discussed. Each turbulence model was
individually reviewed for the correctness of its predictions and the best model in
this set was chosen. This model was further applied to different obstacle
geometry in different experimental conditions to minimize the effects of unique
experimental condition on analysis.
One of the major problems encountered in the modeling was the type of
near wall treatment used for simulation. Development of equilibrium boundary
layer in the wind tunnel was used as a test condition for studying the deficiencies
in different types of near wall modeling approaches. It was concluded that the
vii
standard approach of wall functions was insufficient to estimating the effects of
roughness on the wall boundary on the mean flow. A new rough wall model
proposed by Durbin et al [58] was implemented using the user defined functions
capability of Fluent. This model was tested on a variety of flows; like flow
through pipe, flow over a backward facing step, etc. This flow was then applied
to the models tested in this project to analyze the effects on the rough wall model
used for modeling near wall effects. Overall agreement between the
computational predictions and experimental findings was acceptable.
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
4.1 Computational domain for model 1.................................................................49
4.2 Inlet boundary conditions for model 1 ............................................................50
4.3 Computational domain for model 2.................................................................52
4.4 Inlet boundary conditions for model 2. ...........................................................53
4.5 The grid for numerical models. (a) Model 1 ‐ rough case (b) Model 1 ‐
smooth case (c) Model 2 ‐ rough case (d) Model 2 ‐ smooth case ................54
4.6 Grid independence test ‐ variation of wall shear stress along the
centerline of the wind tunnel floor...................................................................56
5.1 Velocity and turbulence intensity profiles, at inlet and outlet of the
wind‐tunnel section, without obstruction, after multiple steps of
patching inlet boundary conditions with outlet boundary conditions.......65
5.2 Centerlines on the surfaces of the cubical model used for analysis of
the results in (a) streamwise direction (b) spanwise direction.....................66
5.3 Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the streamwise
centerline of cube faces.......................................................................................68
5.4 Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the spanwise
5.5 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent kinetic energy (k) along
the streamwise centerline of cube faces...........................................................72
5.6 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent kinetic energy (k) along
the spanwise centerline of cube faces ..............................................................73
5.7 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate (ε)
along the spanwise centerline of cube faces....................................................76
5.8 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate (ε)
along the spanwise centerline of cube faces....................................................77
5.9 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity (µt/µ) along
the streamwise centerline of cube faces...........................................................80
5.10 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity (µt/µ) along
the spanwise centerline of cube faces ..............................................................81
ix
5.11 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the streamwise
5.12 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the spanwise
5.13 Schematic representation of the mean flow around a surface‐mounted
cube [8]..................................................................................................................86
5.14 Vectors of streamwise velocity components around the cube, along the
center section plane, for the k‐ε model variants. ............................................87
5.15 Distribution of wall shear stress along the floor centerline behind the
cube. ......................................................................................................................89
5.16 Profiles of the streamwise velocity in the recirculation zone behind the
cube, plotted at different locations in streamwise direction.........................91
5.17 Profiles of the streamwise velocity in spanwise direction in the wake
region behind the cube.......................................................................................92
5.18 Profiles of the mean velocity and turbulence intensity at the inlet
boundary and object location for the Texas Tech wind tunnel model......102
5.19 Relation between the non‐dimensional geometric and hydrodynamic
roughness lengths. ............................................................................................104
5.20 Equilibrium velocity profile in rough pipe flow. Comparison of results
obtained using Durbin’s model and Fluent’s default wall functions
approach with the experimental data of Nikuradse [70] ............................105
5.21 Mesh and geometry of the model for backward facing step flow .............106
5.22 Velocity distribution in the recirculating flow over a backward facing
step. The experimental results are taken from Kim and Chung [71]. .......107
5.23 Velocity and turbulence intensity profiles at the object location, in the
empty wind tunnel section ..............................................................................108
5.24 Centerlines on the surfaces of model 2 used for analysis of the results
in (a) streamwise direction (b) spanwise direction ......................................110
5.25 Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the streamwise
centerline of semi‐cube faces ...........................................................................111
5.26 Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the spanwise
x
5.27 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence kinetic energy along
the streamwise centerline of semi‐cube faces ...............................................114
5.28 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent kinetic energy along the
spanwise centerline of semi‐cube faces .........................................................115
5.29 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate along
the streamwise centerline of semi‐cube faces ...............................................117
5.30 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate along
the spanwise centerline of semi‐cube faces...................................................118
5.31 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity along the
streamwise centerline of semi‐cube faces......................................................120
5.32 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity along the
spanwise centerline of semi‐cube faces .........................................................121
5.33 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the streamwise
5.34 Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the spanwise

xi
LIST OF TABLES
5.1 Wake reattachment lengths for the numerical and experimental results...90
5.2 Coefficients of drag and lift on the cube surfaces obtained with
different turbulence models. .............................................................................95

xii
NOMENCLATURE
Cp Coefficient of pressure
F Body force per unit volume
h Height of the building model
H Height of the wind tunnel section model
I Turbulence intensity
k Kinetic energy of turbulent fluctuations
P Static pressure
r Geometric roughness length
Re Reynolds number
Ret Turbulent Reynolds number
t Time
u Velocity in x‐direction
u* Friction velocity
u+ Non dimensional velocity scale
v Velocity in y‐direction
w Velocity in z‐direction
x, y, z Cartesian co‐ordinates
y+ Non dimensional distance from wall
y0 Hydrodynamic roughness length

xiii
Greek symbols
ε Turbulence dissipation rate
κ von Karman constant = 0.41
µ Dynamic viscosity
ν Kinematic viscosity
νt Eddy viscosity/turbulent viscosity
ρ Fluid density
τ Shear stress
ω Specific dissipation rate

Subscripts
ref Reference parameter
∞ Free stream flow parameter

Overheads
(bar) Mean component
′ (Prime) Fluctuating component
xiv
CHAPTER I
1. INTRODUCTION
Fluid‐structure interaction has been an area of interest for researchers over
the years. Wind Engineers have always tried their best to get exact interpretation
of the flow behavior and the response of the building to it, using wind tunnel
experiments. With emergence of computers in the modern era, many
mathematicians, physicists and engineers have developed models for fluid flow,
and engineers started working towards numerical solution of the flow domain to
analyze the fluid structure interaction. This project is a part of the same venture
to try and predict exact behavior of the flow, which can be compared with
experiments.
Most of the wind load information available in the literature and the
building design codes is mainly based on the data available from wind tunnel
experiments and full scale studies. The research in the boundary layer wind
tunnel has its own limitations though, which include Reynolds number
limitations, in accurate modeling of wind flows over curved surface, natural
ventilation or diffusion of pollutants within a partially open enclosure, and
inability to model wind flows in atmospheric boundary layers with various
stability conditions. In the framework of the Computational Wind Engineering
(CWE), dealing with the application of methodologies used in the Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to classical wind engineering problems, the numerical
solutions which have been developed have potential to overcome these
limitations. [1]
1
Bluff body aerodynamics, particularly building aerodynamics is one of the
prominent research areas in wind engineering. Knowing the wind field provides
architects and engineers with accurate prediction and analysis of wind loads on
the buildings, concentrating mainly on the decoupled fluid‐structure interaction
and its overall effect on the buildings and safety of the occupants. Due to
complexity of overall topography of urban terrain, and different shapes and sizes
of buildings, wind engineers are studying interference effects, shielding effects,
etc., along with individual building shape and orientation in order to compile
accurate data for design considerations.
The efforts to study wind load on buildings are largely concentrated on
the study of flow structure and pressure distribution on and around bluff bodies
such as cube, prisms and cylinders, because of the simplicity in modeling these
shapes and interpreting the aerodynamic behavior of the system. A lot of
experimental work has been done to study wind loads on cubical models and
rectangular prisms. Full scale studies for cubical model in an atmospheric
boundary layer have been done as well. [11, 12]
CWE approach provides information not only about the wind loads and
pressures as predicted using the physical models but also describes the flow field
around the model completely with velocity, temperature and stress‐strain data
which helps in better understanding the physical behavior of the flow and
building response. Also CWE saves money, time and resources while testing
different models resulting from “what‐if” scenarios, over wind tunnel
experiments.
The flow field around bluff bodies is characterized by random
fluctuations, separation, stagnation, circulation and vortices. Almost all the
2
phenomena that are considered to be difficult to resolve in the field of fluid
mechanics are present in this flow structure.[2] Further the distribution of the
strain rate tensor can be highly anisotropic, and changes spatially and temporally
which makes the numerical modeling difficult. These flow characteristic can be
accurately resolved for low Reynolds number flows using a technique called as
Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS), but that is well beyond the capacity of the
computing resources presently available.
Researchers in the CWE community try to use simple models based on the
statistically averaged flow equations modeling the mean flow, with closure
describing effect of turbulent stresses on the behavior of the mean flow.
Unfortunately the assumptions made to achieve simplicity of the modeling
equations often limit the accuracy of the simulation, and though the model
performs well for some flows e.g. flow through pipes or open channel, it fails in
areas of high strain in the bluff body flow field.
Presently most widely used engineering turbulence models are based on
Reynolds averaging, which typically involve transport equations for flow
variables for velocity, kinetic energy, etc. These models implement isotropic
eddy viscosity assumption for attaining closure to the averaged equations. This
assumption is one of the major causes of poor predictions by the two equation
models in CWE, as reported in the literature. The study of different second
moment closure models and Reynolds stress equation models can demonstrate
better results than the Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) models, but are
not as accurate as desired and are still mode computationally expensive than
RANS based models. Recently Large Eddy Simulations (LES) studies have
shown promising results in terms of resolving the anisotropic characteristic of
3
the flow field. But LES models are highly dependant upon the boundary
conditions, which need to be accurately measured and specified, and
computationally expensive. RANS based modeling approach coupled with the
eddy viscosity concept are still the models of choice for many engineering
simulations. In order to improve the predictions from such models, especially in
wake regions, detailed experimental data needs to be coupled to the appropriate
terms in the turbulence closure models.
For turbulence modeling purposes the flow domain is often subdivided
into different flow regimes. The fluid flow close to a smooth or solid wall, which
is laminar in nature, is influenced by the kinematic viscosity of the fluid. This
low Reynolds number flow regime is called the viscous sublayer since viscous
forces are dominant over flow momentum. The flow further away from the solid
wall is turbulent, and is seldom affected by the fluid viscosity, and the Reynolds
stresses dominate. The two equation RANS turbulence models can use the
universal log‐law to describe velocity distribution in the turbulent flow regime,
and use the wall functions approach to estimate the flow variables in the viscous
sublayer instead of integrating the transport equations up to the wall. This
approach is resource friendly and saves time and computational cost for
modeling the turbulent flow. But the wall functions approach is erroneous as it is
unable to properly resolve the near‐wall region in modeling the separating flows.
The model also fails to describe the flow field especially when the solid
boundary within the flow is rough. A lot of experimental work has been done to
study the effects of wall roughness on the mean flow, but the current models
incorporated in commercial solvers often do not resolve the turbulent flow over
4
rough surfaces accurately, which in turn affects the accuracy of the entire flow
field.
1.1 Objectives
Thus in view of these limitations for separated flows the aim of this work
is to analyze the available turbulence models and study different aspects and
parameters, involved in modeling the turbulent flow, in order to improve the
presently available models with respect to applications for wind engineering
flows. A modification in the current two layer modeling approach, for accurately
estimating the roughness effects, was tested and implemented for different
models.
1.2 Outline
The general outline of this thesis is as follows:
Chapter II includes the literature review, which consists of two
subsections concentrating on bluff body aerodynamics and surface roughness
effects on the mean flow.
Chapter III describes basics of turbulent flow and different models used in
this study. All the models described here are RANS two equation models with
variations in transport equations and certain parameters.
Chapter IV consists of details about the models which were analyzed, the
type of grid or mesh used for computational domain and the CFD techniques
applied in the analysis and solver settings. It also discusses the tests used to
confirm convergence and grid independence of the numerical solution of the
flow field.
5
Chapter V is the results and discussion section, which gives details of the
results obtained during the course of this study and its comparison with the
available experimental data.
Chapter VI concludes the research and suggests the possible advances in
the current work for future studies.
6
CHAPTER II
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Bluff Body Aerodynamics
Bluff body aerodynamics always served as an area of interest for
physicists, mathematicians and engineers. Due to its practical implications and
interesting flow structure, an enormous amount of literature is available and
large amount of literature is published every day. Lots of experimental work and
wind tunnel studies were conducted in the initial phase of research on bluff body
aerodynamics. The wind tunnels used earlier were built for aerodynamic studies,
and the approach velocity was uniform. After revolutionary work done by wind
engineers, the importance of properly simulating the atmospheric boundary
layer in the wind tunnel became evident. Thereafter almost all of the wind
engineering research is based on boundary layer wind tunnel (BLWT).
One of the earliest efforts in terms of investigation of the flow field around
bluff bodies in a wind tunnel were those of Baines [3]. He tested variety of
models in a wind tunnel with uniform approach flow and simulated atmospheric
boundary layer flow. He observed distinct differences in the pressure
distribution and streamline distribution for boundary layer type flow in case of
tall buildings, cube and walls of different aspect ratios. Deducing that the
building design does not need a very accurate pressure distribution
measurement, he stated some general rules for consideration of wind loads in
case of building design.
Castro and Robins [4] were first to concentrate the analysis of the bluff
body aerodynamics on a cubical model. They did an enormous number of
7
experiments to collect data about the flow field around the cube. Dividing their
study into two main components, uniform flow and boundary layer flow, they
analyzed effects of wind direction perpendicular to the cube surface and at 45O to
the cube surface. One of the important aspects of their paper is the large amount
of data accompanied with physical description. They studied the pressure
distribution along the cube surfaces, and velocity distribution around cube and
in the wake region. This data has been a benchmark for many researchers for
validation of the numerical solution.
Sakamoto and Arie [5] did a comprehensive set of experiments on cubical
models placed in a zero gradient boundary layer flow generated over a smooth
wind tunnel floor. They analyzed the effects of flow direction between 0O and 45O
on cubical models with six different non dimensional scales (h/δ) within range of
0.4 to 0.99. In addition to measurements of pressure along cube surfaces and
wind tunnel floor, and flow visualization using standard oil film technique, they
calculated the drag and lift forces acting on the cube for each configuration and
determined empirical formulae for the same.
During the same year, Hunt [6] published results for his experiments
studying effects of scale of the simulated atmospheric boundary layer on the
overall flow structure and pressure distribution on cubical models. Two different
boundary layers of linear scales of 1/180 and 1/360 were calibrated in the wind
tunnel. It was observed that with increasing Reynolds numbers, the roughness
effects amplify the flow and generate more shear‐layer curvature, which in turn
shortens the reattachment lengths behind the cube. The authors noted the
appearance a peak negative pressure at the leading edges of the cube, which was
absent in results of Baines [3] and Castro and Robins [4]. They attributed this to
8
the arrangement of pressure taps on the cube, which might have “skipped” this
feature. The authors concluded that the velocity profile at model position is an
important parameter influencing the pressure distribution, and hence general
test cases might not depict correct wind loading on different buildings, and the
model scale should match the simulation scale for better results.
To explore the effects of wind direction and upstream turbulence intensity
on the reattachment length of the trailing wake; Ogawa, Oikawa and Uehara [7]
conducted field tests and wind tunnel experiments on a cube. They observed that
the non‐dimensional wake length increases with increasing angle of incidence
and decreasing upstream turbulence intensity. Using statistical techniques they
found that wind direction had the largest positive correlation and turbulent
intensities had the largest negative correlation with the non‐dimensional
reattachment length.
In addition to measuring the pressure distribution along the model
surfaces, Martinuzzi and Tropea [8] used different flow visualization techniques
to study the structure of the vortices around bluff bodies. They conducted
experiments on prismatic models with same square cross‐section with varying
depth. The effects of spanwise aspect ratio were evident in terms of interaction of
the horseshoe vortex and recirculation vortex. It was shown that for higher
aspect ratios the flow essentially remains three dimensional as the spanwise
velocity components are sufficiently large. This study made a data bank
contribution for the reference of future studies and validation of the results.
Similar to the previous work, Metzger and Klewicki [9] performed
experiments on a cube placed in a zero pressure gradient boundary layer flow
normal to one of the cube surfaces. They tried to investigate Reynolds number
9
effects on the formation and behavior of the horseshoe vortex. Two tests were
carried out in a wind tunnel while one model was tested in a full‐scale field
study. In comparison with previous experimental work, they found one order of
magnitude difference in the time scale of propagation of the wave of oscillations
in the horseshoe vortex. Reynolds number was one of the parameters affecting
the results, and authors did not completely investigate other parameters which
might have influenced the results.
Wind tunnel simulations have their own limitations for model scale
experimental studies as mentioned in the Introduction. They are often dependant
on proper scaling of Reynolds number, wind shear, intensities and scales of
turbulence, and also the blockage effects. A comparative study program was
initiated by the Windtechnologische Gesellschaft WTG. Hölscher and Niemann [10]
reported the comparison and results of the test. Twelve different laboratories
from Germany, Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland
participated in the test, in which all testing centers were asked to simulate a fixed
boundary layer profile and measure surface pressures. The simulated profiles of
mean velocity and turbulent intensities and the pressure distribution showed
deviation from one center to another, and from the averaged value of all centers.
But the authors reported the deviation to be within an acceptable range.
A more appropriate way to validate both wind tunnel results and
numerical simulations is by comparing them with the full‐scale results. In order
to provide full‐scale data for validation, a 6 m cube was constructed at the Silsoe
Research Institute, Silsoe, UK. Richards, Hoxey and Short [11, 12] presented
surface pressure distributions and compared them with the wind‐tunnel results
obtained by the previous researchers. It was observed that the surface pressure
10
distribution on the windward wall agrees well for all the wind tunnel test cases
considered with the full‐scale results. But for the roof, side wall and leeward
wall, the full‐scale pressure coefficients are more negative than the wind tunnel
results. The authors ascribed this discrepancy to the scaling effects and
differences in the Jenson numbers for each study.
Computational Fluid Dynamics became a very popular technique after the
arrival of personal computers. The numerical solutions for aerodynamic flows
like flow around airfoil and for simple fluid mechanic flows like flow in an open
channel were accurately modeled and solved. This success motivated wind
engineers to try and numerically simulate the flow around buildings. In spite of
being a young field of research, a lot of development occurred in terms of
predicting the behavior of flow around bluff bodies. Accurate turbulence
modeling being the key for wind engineering flows, modifications in the existing
turbulence models have been suggested, as well as many new models were
proposed. The computational wind engineers are constantly testing, analyzing
and validating turbulence models, in order to achieve accuracy in estimation of
correct pressures and wind loads on the buildings.
After an initial phase of two dimensional modeling, researchers started
analyzing three dimensional flows. In a divisional note on using PHOENICS for
the computational modeling, Richards [13] explained the step by step technique
of computational modeling of flow around buildings. Though the focus of this
report was on using PHOENICS, it provided a comprehensive background to
computational wind engineering. The 2D results were in line with the smoke
visualization observations, for points of separation and reattachment. Even the
3D results agreed well with the measured pressure distribution along the
11
windward roof slope of the house, while error for pressure predictions for
leeward roof slope was within acceptable range.
Baetke and Werner [14] tested standard k‐ε model for flow around a
surface mounted cube, and LES on a square rib. In comparing the computational
results with the experimental results of Castro and Robins [4], they obtained
agreement for the uniform upstream flow case. For the thick upstream boundary
layer, the authors report slow pressure recovery on the roof of the cube. They
also mentioned that the flow did not separate at the leading edge of the cube,
and the spatial resolution was not dense enough to capture the separation bubble
and other flow characteristics. They mentioned need of improved second
moment closure for the RANS equations to attain accuracy in the numerical
prediction of the wind engineering flows. In a similar study Paterson and Apelt
[15] reported excellent agreement between the numerical and experimental
results. They used a different formulation for calculation of pressure coefficient
while comparing the results with those of Castro and Robins [4]. They also
studied the effect of different velocity profiles and corresponding roughness
heights on the reattachment lengths and overall flow structure, and concluded
that changing the turbulence level in the approach flow has effects on the overall
flow pattern of the same order of magnitude as, but smaller than, the effects of
changing both the velocity profiles and the turbulence intensity in the approach
flow.
One of the attempts to improve numerical predictions by using a non‐
linear eddy viscosity expression instead of the linear Boussinesq approximation
was by Basara and Younis [16]. They used a quadratic model to simulate flow
over a backward facing step and a two dimensional square rib. They reported
12
better results using the non linear model compared to the linear model. In a
series of numerical experiments over more than a decade, Murakami, Mochida
and their colleagues [17‐23] did extensive work in terms of modeling turbulent
flows around bluff bodies. They not only tested almost all available turbulence
models but also proposed a modified k‐ε model [22] for application to the wind
engineering flows. They analyzed the standard k‐ε model for its accuracy and
applicability, and published the common flaws and inconsistencies present.
Murakami also tested the Algebraic Stress Model (ASM), Differential Stress
Model (DSM) and LES for the wind engineering flows. Making note of all the
deficiencies observed in all the different turbulence models, they concluded that
LES would be the best turbulence model for simulation of wind engineering
flows, provided enough computational power exists.
Due to increasing popularity and advances of the computational
techniques, the computational wind engineering community around the globe
gathered at the First International Symposium on Computational Wind
Engineering in Tokyo, Japan in 1992. Many researchers presented their
computational work on variety of wind engineering areas. Rodi [24], Murakami
[19], Leschziner [25] and Laurence [26] reviewed the status of turbulence models
and their applications to the field of bluff body aerodynamics. Abe, Nagano and
Kondoh [27] proposed a modified version of the Nagano‐Tagawa low‐Reynolds
number model for improved predictions of the “attached” wall‐turbulent flows.
They proposed use of Kolomogorov velocity scale to account for the low‐
Reynolds number effects, instead of the friction velocity and modified model
constants. Evaluating the model with the test case of flow over a backward facing
13
step, the authors reported good agreement between the experimental results
published in the literature and their computations.
After testing the TEMPTEST (Transient Energy Momentum and Pressure
Equations Solutions in Three dimensions) model applied to engineering and
geophysical problems Zhang, Huber, Arya and Snyder [28] studied the effects of
incident wind shear and turbulence level on the flow behavior. Their results
underestimated the strength of the recirculation zone behind the cube for
uniform upstream flow. They reported that the shear and turbulence in the
upstream flow causes reduction in the size and strength of the leeward vortex,
while the upwind shear promotes the vortex at the front of the building.
Based on the measurements at the full scale for a 6 m cube at the Silsoe
Research Institute, Richards and Hoxey [29] defined appropriate boundary
conditions for the application of k‐ε model to CWE. Stressing the need to model a
homogeneous boundary layer in the computational domain, they suggested the
modified formulation of k and ε for the inlet boundary conditions. The full scale
measurements led to evaluation of the von‐Karman constant along with the
model constants Cµ and σε. Frank and Mauch [30] simulated the flow around low
rise and high rise buildings using LES. They found very good agreement
between the LES results and experimental data of Castro and Robins [4].
Stathopoulos and Zhou [31] modeled flow around L shaped buildings using a k‐
ε model. They implemented so called zonal treatment for specifying the
boundary conditions for k and ε. The well documented deficiency of the k‐ε
model of not predicting flow separation at the leading edge was once again
observed. The numerical results matched well with the experimental
observations for the flow direction normal to the front surface of the model,
14
while for the oblique case, the suctions computed on the stepped roof were
underestimated.
Delaunay, Lakehal and Pierrat [32] used a k‐ε model through PHOENICS
to investigate the flow field around a variety of bluff bodies. A cube, a house
model, a bridge model and a hoarding model was tested during this work. The
results did not agree well with the experimental results, and the reasons
suggested were inability of k‐ε model to simulate recirculating flows, and use of
wall functions in a non‐developed boundary layer. They also mentioned that the
inlet boundary condition could not be reproduced exactly, which might have
caused the disagreement in the results. In an interesting study during the full‐
scale measurements on low‐rise portal framed buildings, Hoxey, Robertson,
Basara and Younis [33] studied the effects of variation in building shapes and
sizes on the flow structure with CFD in comparison with full scale
measurements. The variations in the models of house were in terms of eaves
height between 2 and 6 m, house spans between 7 and 28 m and the roof angles
of 14O and 28O. Among the three test cases the pressure distribution agreed with
the full scale results except for the windward sloping roof of the building with
low eaves height. Encouraged with the agreement of the computational and
experimental results, the authors presented the flow patterns and pressure
distributions for other models to aid the structural design of buildings.
The two equation turbulence models solve the transport equations for
turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation, in addition to momentum for the mean
flow quantities. Qasim [34] presented two methods to calculate the fluctuating
pressures from the information available from solution of the k‐ε model. The test
case used was the Texas Tech Building with wind approaching at the angles of
15
attack of 0O and 90O. The 3D results compared better with the experimental data
than the 2D results, probably because the 2D models are unable to resolve the
inherent 3D structure of the flow. He also reported that his results were closer to
the wind‐tunnel measurements compared to the full scale data. He concluded
that the second of the two models tested would provide accurate results without
need of additional computational resources.
In another comprehensive comparison, Rodi [35] used standard k‐ε and its
variants, the Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) and the LES to resolve vortex
shedding past a square, in a 2D flow, and flow structure around a cube as a 3D
case. In general performance of the standard k‐ε model was very poor due to
overestimation of k in the stagnation region. The variants like Kato‐Launder
modification did improve the results, but LES was clearly best in terms of
resolution of the entire flow field. It was reported though that for the 2D case,
individual runs with LES had a lot of differences between themselves, and the
explanation offered was low Reynolds number or low turbulence levels in the
flow. Yu and Kareem [36] and Shah and Ferziger [37] also reported good
agreement between LES simulation results and experimental findings. But they
also mentioned that using LES does not guarantee success, and LES can yield
incorrect results, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Brzoska, Stock and Lamb
[38] studied standard k‐ε, modified k‐ε and standard k‐ω models, by applying
those to many different model cases. The results for the 2D backward facing step
were close to within 3% of the experimental velocity measurements, while for the
2D front facing step they were very poor. The Kato‐Launder modification was
once again reported to improve the predictions over standard k‐ε model.
16
Realizing a need to validate the numerical simulations and turbulence
models with the full scale results instead of wind‐tunnel tests, Wright and Easom
[39] and Easom [40] tested a variety of turbulence models applied to a full scale
model of the 6 m cube at the Silsoe Research Institute. With a good
comprehensive description of different turbulence models, CFD techniques and
solution procedures, they tested standard k‐ε, RNG k‐ε, MMK k‐ε, standard k‐ω,
DSM, and LES with the full scale data. None of the RANS models could predict
good agreement with the experimental results, and the non‐linear k‐ε models
and second moment closure models faced problems with the stability issue when
higher order discretization techniques were used. LES was mentioned as a
promising turbulence model with an inherent need of computational resources
for accurate resolution of the entire flow field.
A competition was held at the Computational Wind Engineering 2000
Conference, where the participants were asked to model the atmospheric
boundary layer in the absence of model, the flow field around the Silsoe 6 m
cube with wind approaching from 0O and 45O to one face of the cube. Three
completed attempts were compared with the full scale results and presented by
Richards, Quinn and Parker [41]. All solutions failed to accurately predict the
pressure distribution on the roof, sides and back of the cube for the 0O case, and
all solutions under‐predicted the high suctions at the windward roof edge for the
45O case. Performance of the RNG k‐ε model was better than other models tested
in the competition.
In the recent International Conference on Wind Engineering, many
authors [42‐44] reported similar work on the flow around cubes and buildings.
Though they did not report any significant improvement, they validated
17
different turbulence models and discretization techniques which would certainly
help future researchers.
This work is a part of the same effort to test, and improve the accuracy of
various turbulence models available commercially. The numerical results
obtained will be analyzed for better understanding the effects of different
turbulence models on the parameters describing the flow.
2.2 Surface Roughness Effects
In basic turbulence research much attention has been given to the
structure of the turbulence boundary layer over a smooth wall with zero
pressure gradient. By contrast, the corresponding boundary layer over a
rough wall has received far less attention – a situation which at first sight
appears justifiable on the grounds that one should try to understand wall‐
bounded flow with the simplest possible boundary condition before
introducing complexities such as roughness, pressure gradients,
curvature, and so on. (Raupach, Antonia and Rajagopalan [45])
The influence of surface roughness on the overall structure of the
turbulent boundary layer has been the topic of interest in fluid mechanics for a
long time. Since the comprehensive experimental study of Nikuradse [70] on the
flow through rough pipes, many physicists and engineers have studied this
topic. The existence of trees, shrubs, and buildings causes similar effects on the
structure of the atmospheric boundary layer. Wind engineers and meteorologists
also did a lot of experiments in order to understand the effect of surface
roughness on turbulent flow properties. Understanding the need for good
experimental data which would aid for both engineers as well as meteorologists,
Raupach, Antonia and Rajagopalan [45] analyzed the experimental data and
published a review, concentrating particularly on the rough‐wall turbulent
boundary layers without consideration of significant advection, thermal and
18
other body forcing or curvature. The hypothesis of wall similarity, that rough‐
wall and smooth‐wall boundary layers at high Reynolds numbers are
structurally similar outside the viscous sublayer was reported to be supported by
the reviewed measurements. Also it was reported by Smalley, Antonia and
Djenidi [46] that the rough wall boundary layers are more likely for self‐
preservation as compared to the smooth wall boundary layers.
In an effort to further examine the effects of surface roughness on the
turbulent boundary layer structure, Krogstad and Antonia [47] carried out
experiments in which they compared the measurements for two rough‐wall
boundary layers and with a smooth‐wall boundary layer. Different arrangements
were used to impart roughness to the wind‐tunnel floor. In the first case, they
used a woven stainless steel mesh screen glued to the aluminium wind‐tunnel
floor, which was equivalent to a sand‐grain roughness length scale of 4.96 mm.
In the second case, they obtained the equivalent sand‐grain roughness of 9.7 mm
by gluing many lateral rods of diameter 1.6 mm and length 3.2 mm regularly
spaced in the streamwise direction to the floor. After a detailed scrutiny of the
observations, the authors concluded that the surface roughness considerably
affects the entire flow field, though it is not evident from the mean velocity
profiles. Thus in modeling the flow over rough surfaces, it is inappropriate to
consider the mean velocity distribution alone. They also showed that the
production of turbulent kinetic energy and dissipation of the same, near the wall,
depends on the type of roughness elements.
To examine possible differences between smooth and rough walls,
Antonia and Krogstad [48] and Smalley, Leonardi, Antonia, Djenidi and Orlandi
[49] further analyzed the Reynolds stress anisotropy and the influence of surface
19
roughness on that. They reported that the Reynolds stress was less anisotropic
for the wire mesh case, and was highly anisotropic for the smooth wall. Also they
observed that the small‐scales are more closely isotropic for the three‐
dimensional roughness than the two‐dimensional roughness and the smooth
wall. Comparing the data from other publications, involving both experimental
data and numerical results, the authors [49] also studied the anisotropic invariant
map (AIM) signature for different types of roughness. They concluded that in the
near wall region the AIM signature varies considerably over one roughness
wavelength, reflecting the significant changes in turbulence state occurring
between consecutive roughness elements, which can pose a challenge to
modelers and engineers.
Interested by the challenge as mentioned by the experimentalists,
modelers and computational fluid dynamics researchers started considering the
near‐wall region or the low‐Reynolds number region as one of the important
zones in turbulent flow. Many models have been proposed and tested for
modeling the flow close to wall. Many of the models use a two‐layer
approximation, where they divide the flow domain into two regions. The region
close to the wall where viscous effects are important is called as the viscous
sublayer, and a far field region where Reynolds stresses dominate is called as the
log‐law region. In an effort to consider the near wall effects, these models use a
one equation model, like the mixing length model, in the viscosity dominated
region and the standard two‐equation models in the far field region. Rodi [50]
and Speziale, Abid and Anderson [51] reviewed the performance of various two
equation turbulence models, with a modification for low‐Reynolds number
region. Both the papers made an observation that the two‐equation models i.e. k‐
20
ε and k‐ω models with wall functions do not predict the low‐Reynolds number
effects accurately. They justify the use of a damping function close to the wall
and thus using only a one‐equation model in this region.
One such improvement was suggested by Zhang, Faghri and White [52].
They proposed a new damping function; similar to van Driest’s damping
function [60]. The effect was to shorten the viscous region as the roughness will
cause vigorous mixing and increased turbulence, and the damping function will
become subsequently small. The tests of the models were very successful and the
authors were able to compare their predictions with rough‐wall log‐law profiles,
near smooth‐wall behavior of various turbulence parameters for a range of
Reynolds numbers in 5 × 104 to 5 × 106. Also though the model does not include
any term in consideration of the secondary flow, it does predict the friction
coefficient with only 10 percent error.
Utnes and Meling [53] suggested use of the boundary conditions
involving the linear‐logarithmic elements in order to account for the roughness
effects. They used the two‐layer k‐ε model for accurate resolution of the near‐
wall flow properties. Instead of using zero turbulent kinetic energy condition at
the wall, they suggested use of a different near‐wall boundary condition for k.
They used a new formulation for the interpolation function for blending the
linear and logarithmic formulations in the viscous sublayer and log‐law region.
The authors applied the model to developing channel flow and flow around a
circular cylinder. The velocity distribution of their model compared well with the
DNS data, except for some deviations in the channel center, while the kinetic
energy profiles deviated more. Also they state that this model is suitable for
21
finite elements approach and that it has same limitations as the usual wall
functions approach.
In addition to the effects of roughness and temperature variations on the
velocity profile, Avelino, Silva Freire and Kakaҫ [54] analyzed the changes
occurring in the temperature profiles. Using the k‐ε model with modified log‐law
boundary condition, the authors analyzed the flow subjected to step changes in
roughness and temperature after traveling over the smooth surface. The
roughness elements consisted of equally spaced transverse rectangular slots.
Three different sets of dimensions were used for the slots, making three different
types of roughness geometry. The numerical results agreed well with the
experimental results in the case of velocity profiles at different streamwise
locations, while the temperature profiles were not well predicted numerically.
Miyake, Tsujimoto and their colleagues modeled turbulent flow over a
rough‐wall using the DNS. They published the results [55, 56] in order to provide
data for validation for future use. The test case was flow through a channel with
2D ribs on the floor as roughness elements. They reported that they were
successful in reproducing the rough‐wall property for the sand‐grain roughness,
and confirmed that the wall drag on the rough wall is composed of much larger
profile drag as compared to the friction drag. As more velocity fluctuations are
generated due to the friction drag compared to the profile drag, turbulence looks
suppressed on a rough‐wall flow compared to smooth‐wall flow when
normalized with total drag. Interpreting these results, the authors concluded that
this depicts the enhancement of turbulence due to roughness. Also they observed
that the logarithmic layer manifests itself for thermal field as well in the layer
22
close to the wall. The surface roughness also helps in modification of the
turbulent mixing process.
Lakehal and Rodi [57] presented a comparison of various two equation
turbulence models using wall functions and two‐layer models. They applied
these models to flow over a cubical obstacle. The two‐layer approach improves
the predictions considerably, but at the expense of computational time by a
factor of 25 compared to the calculations with the wall functions approach. All
the models overpredicted the length of the separation wake behind the cube.
Again they reported to have obtained good results with the LES.
One more two‐layer model using one equation model within the viscous
sublayer was proposed by Durbin, Medic, Seo, Eaton and Song [58]. With a very
descriptive overview of the parameters in the two‐layer model, they presented
the results of the tests on a flat plate boundary layer and a ramp model. The
results obtained by this model were close to the experimental observations. This
model is used as a reference for this work and since Fluent provides a way to
implement user defined modifications or patches in the solver, this work focused
on implementing this roughness model for defining the effects of surface
roughness on the overall flow structure. The two‐layer approach used in Fluent
and the model formulation is similar, which made the efforts of incorporating
this model in Fluent as a user defined function easier. The details about
implementation and tests of this model are included in chapters IV and V.
23
CHAPTER III
3. MODELING TURBULENCE
3.1 Introduction
“Turbulent flows, which are of great practical importance, are three‐
dimensional and time‐dependent. The practical need for computation of
turbulent flows is pressing; to meet it, ‘turbulence models’ have been invented.”
(Launder and Spalding [59]) In recent years, as computers developed both in
speed and capacity, the technique of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD)
became popular. Though the researchers succeeded in developing methods to
solve the differential equations for fluid dynamics, even for three‐dimensional
and time‐dependent flows, there is no universal model for turbulent flows that
can be practically applied to all problems; the reasons being lack of
computational resources and data storage capacity to handle fine details of
highly fluctuating turbulent flows. So the techniques of approximating the
unknown terms in the equations of turbulent fluid motion were adopted by
researchers by employing dimensional analysis and physical reasoning to “close”
the modeling equations. Typically these turbulence models consist of a set of
differential equations and a set of algebraic constants, which are solved in
conjunction with the Navier‐Stokes equations to closely simulate the real
turbulent flow behavior.
In this chapter, a brief history of turbulence models is discussed followed
by a description of some two‐equation turbulence models which were used for
analysis in this research.
24
3.2 Brief History of Turbulence Modeling
The start of the concept of time‐averaged Navier‐Stokes equations was
made by Reynolds in 1895, which had gained a lot of importance with time, and
the technique now is often referred as Reynolds averaging. Earliest attempts to
model turbulence started with the concept of modeling the turbulent stresses as
similar to the molecular gradient‐diffusion process. Boussinesq introduced the
concept of eddy viscosity. This concept is well accepted in the fluid dynamics
community, although it has no physical basis, and the concept is also called as
the Boussinesq approximation. The physics of the viscous flows was still an
unknown field until Prandtl postulated the ʺboundary layerʺ in 1904. He
published his research on turbulence where he came up with computation of
eddy viscosity in terms of the mixing length, which was analogous to the mean
free path of gaseous molecules. The mixing length hypothesis (now referred as
zero‐equation model or algebraic model) was the first attempt to model the
behavior of turbulence.
Prandtl proposed a model, in which the eddy viscosity depends upon the
kinetic energy of the turbulent fluctuations, k. This improvement conceptually
accounts for the flow history as it affects the turbulent stresses. This is the
beginning of the one equation turbulence models. This concept makes the
turbulence model realistic; however it is unable to provide the turbulent length
scale, and is thus ʺincomplete.ʺ In other words, the model still depends upon the
flow information in order to obtain a solution. Ideally, no prior knowledge of any
property of the turbulent flow should be required, other than the boundary
conditions and the initial conditions, in order to obtain a solution.
25
The first ʺcompleteʺ model, in this sense, was proposed by Kolomogorov.
He introduced a second parameter, the rate of dissipation of energy in unit
volume and time, ω and an additional equation to estimate it. Thus the two‐
equation models originated. Many researchers started working on the two‐
equation models in the quest for a universal model that could be applied to all
types of flows. The most extensive work has been done by Launder and Spalding
[59] as the originators of the k‐ε model, and their successors. The k‐ε model is the
most widely used turbulence model, though many inadequacies have been
reported.
Chou and Rotta in late 1940s started a completely different stream of
models, without using the Boussinesq approximation. Rotta proposed a model
with a differential equation for the Reynolds‐stress tensor. These types of models
are categorized as stress‐transport models. For a three‐dimensional flow, the
stress‐transport model introduces seven equations, one for the turbulent scale
(length scale or equivalent) and six for the components of the Reynolds‐stress
tensor.
A lot of research work is still going on in the area of turbulence modeling,
and new models are being developed and tested. Recent advances in the
computational power have led to new techniques such as Large Eddy Simulation
(LES) and Direct Numerical Simulation (DNS). The accuracy of turbulence
models is improving day by day, with modifications to existing models, and
birth of new models and concepts. This section was based on the walkthrough
given in Wilcox [60] on pp. 21‐25.
26
3.3 Basic Concepts
The numerical solution of any fluid mechanics problem requires the
solution of the general equations of viscous fluid motion i.e. the continuity
equation and the Navier‐Stokes equation. These equations are a set of nonlinear
partial differential equations with appropriate boundary conditions. The
continuity equation and the general form of the Navier‐Stokes equations, in
tensor notation, are given by:
∂ρ ∂ ( ρ ui )
+ = 0 (3.1)
∂t ∂xi
∂ ( ρ ui ) ∂ ( ρ ui u j ) ∂P ∂ ⎡ ⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞ ⎤
+ =− + ⎢ µ ⎜⎜ i + ⎟⎥ + F (3.2)
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎟⎠ ⎥⎦
The leftmost term in equation (3.2) is the instantaneous acceleration term; the
next one is the convection term. The first term on the right hand side is the
pressure gradient term followed by the viscous dissipation term. F denotes the
body forces. For incompressible flows ρ is constant and the equations are
simplified. For derivation of these equations please refer to Schlichting [61].
3.3.1 Reynolds Averaged Navier‐Stokes Equations (RANS)
Various fluctuating flow parameters can be averaged based on the
averaging concepts proposed by Reynolds. Three forms of the averaging
technique, which are most prominently used in the turbulence modeling
research, depending upon the type of flow being analyzed, are time averaging,
spatial averaging and ensemble averaging. Averaged forms of the Navier‐Stokes
equations are referred to as the Reynolds Averaged Navier‐Stokes (RANS)
equations. For a fully developed flow or stationary turbulence, often the time
27
averaging or ensemble averaging technique is employed. The models based on
RANS equations calculate mean quantities and the fluctuating quantities are
accounted through the additionally modeled variables. Thus these equations
model transport of large eddies, and require coarse grids which make the model
computationally economical. A whole range of models from two‐equation
models to the stress‐transport models are categorized as the RANS models.
3.3.2 Reynolds Stresses
The instantaneous velocity at any point is assumed to be made up of a
mean component (denoted by the over bar) which varies slowly with time (fully
developed flow) and a fluctuating component (denoted by the prime).
ui = ui + ui′ (3.3)
Hence to incorporate effects of turbulent motion to the standard mean flow
equation; equation (3.3) is substituted into equations (3.1) and (3.2) and time
averaged to obtain the mean flow equation. Since turbulent fluctuations are
random in magnitude and direction, its time average is zero. Thus the fluctuating
components for the linear terms in equations (3.1) and (3.2) will become zero.
The convective term in the momentum equation, i.e., (3.2) is non‐linear as it is a
product of two velocities. Applying the averaging process to the term as follows:
ui u j = (ui + ui′)(u j + u′j )

ui u j = ui u j + ui u′j + ui′u j + ui′u ′j (3.4)
ui u j = ui u j + ui′u′j = ui u j + ui′u′j
Thus the RANS momentum equation is given by:
∂ ( ρ ui ) ∂ ( ρ ui u j ) ∂P ∂ ⎡ ⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞ ⎤
+ =− + ⎢ µ ⎜⎜ i + ⎟⎟ − ρ ui′u′j ⎥ + F (3.5)
∂t ∂x j ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣ ⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠ ⎥⎦
28
The equation (3.5) is identical to the laminar flow equation (3.1), but differs only
in one term, − ρ ui′u ′j which represents additional momentum transfer due to
turbulent fluctuations. This term is called as the Reynolds stress or turbulent
stress tensor, given by:
⎡ u ′2 u ′v′ u ′w′⎤
⎢ ⎥
ui′u ′ j = ⎢ v′u ′ v′2 v′w′ ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎢ w′u ′ w′v′ w′2 ⎥
⎣ ⎦
The diagonal terms represent normal stress while the shear stress terms appear
in a symmetric upper and lower diagonal positions.
The turbulence models try to predict the behavior of the Reynolds stresses
and their interaction with mean flow variables. Thus it’s a main goal of the
turbulence model to accurately represent these stresses for all types or turbulent
flows.
3.3.3 The Eddy Viscosity
The methods for the calculation of the turbulent flow, temperature
and concentration fields developed so far are based on empirical
hypotheses which endeavor to establish a relationship between the
Reynolds stresses produced by the mixing motion and the mean values of
velocity components together with suitable hypotheses concerning heat
and mass transfer. The momentum equations for the mean motion as well
as the differential equation for temperature cannot acquire a form which is
suitable for being integrated unless assumptions of this kind have been
introduced beforehand (Schlichting [61], pp. 544)
Boussinesq proposed first such a hypothesis in the form of eddy viscosity
approximation. This concept is analogous with the kinematic viscosity in
Newton’s law for the laminar flow, which is given by:
29
∂u
τl = µ (3.6)
∂y
“It is experimentally observed that turbulence decays unless there is a
shear in isothermal incompressible flows. Furthermore turbulent stresses are
found to increase as the mean rate of deformation increases.” (Versteeg and
Malalasekera [62], pp 63) Thus the eddy viscosity or Boussinesq approximation
leads to a linear relationship between turbulent or Reynolds stresses and mean
strain rate as given by:
⎡ ∂ui ∂u j ⎤
τ t = − ρ ui′u ′j = µt ⎢ + ⎥ (3.7)
⎣⎢ ∂x j ∂xi ⎦⎥
The term µt is called the apparent or eddy viscosity due to its analogy with the
laminar viscosity µ. We know that the energy dissipation and mass transport
mechanisms for laminar flow depend greatly on the fluid viscosity. Since the
turbulent motion enhances the mixing and hence the two mechanisms, it was a
natural choice for Boussinesq to relate the turbulent stresses with the eddy
viscosity. [62]
It is important to note here that the laminar viscosity (µ) is a fluid
property, while eddy viscosity (µt) is not a fluid property. In fact it can be
regarded as a flow characteristic. The eddy viscosity needs to be modeled in
order to “close” the RANS momentum equation. In other words the eddy
viscosity is determined semi‐empirically and substituted in the RANS
momentum equation to obtain a solution. The discussion of some of the ways to
model the eddy viscosity, and in turn the turbulent flow follows.
30
3.4 The Turbulent Kinetic Energy Equation
Prandtl, in his mixing length theory proposed an equation for
computation of a velocity scale, which is based on the kinetic energy per unit
mass of the turbulent fluctuations:
1 1
k= ui′ui′ = (u ′2 + v′2 + w′2 ) (3.8)
2 2
And in terms of the turbulence length scale (l) and specific turbulent kinetic
energy (k), the eddy viscosity is given as:
µt ∝ l k (3.9)
Since the eddy viscosity is dependent on k, it needs to be calculated from the
transport equation given by:
∂( ρ k ) ∂k ∂u ∂ ⎡ ∂k 1 ⎤
+ ρu j = τ ij i − ε + ⎢µ − ρ ui′ui′u ′j − p′u ′j ⎥ (3.10)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j ∂x j ⎣⎢ ∂x j 2 ⎥⎦
The quantity ε is the dissipation per unit mass and is defined by:
µ ∂ui′ ∂ui′
ε= (3.11)
ρ ∂xk ∂xk
For details of derivation of these equations and detailed discussion please refer
to Wilcox [60].
The different terms in equation (3.10) are representative of physical
processes occurring within the turbulent flow. The terms on the left hand side
are the unsteady term and the convection term, which represent the rate of
change of k with time and space. The first term on the right hand side, the
production term is the rate at which the kinetic energy is transferred from the
mean flow to the turbulence; it can be seen as the rate of work done by the mean
strain rate against the turbulent stresses. The next term i.e., dissipation represents
31
the rate at which turbulent kinetic energy is converted into internal thermal
energy or the mean rate at which work is done by the fluctuating part of the
strain rate the fluctuating viscous stresses. The first term in the bracket is the
molecular diffusion term, which represents diffusion of turbulence energy by the
fluid’s natural molecular transport. The triple correlation term is the turbulent
transport and the last term is the pressure diffusion. Together these two terms
represent the transport of turbulent energy due to turbulent fluctuations, and are
modeled as:
1 µ ∂k
ρ ui′ui′u′j + p′u′j = − t (3.12)
2 σ k ∂x j
The unsteady term, convection and molecular diffusion are exact terms,
while production, dissipation, turbulent transport and the pressure diffusion
terms involve unknown correlations that need to be specified in order to “close”
the equation. Thus the final form of the transport equation for specific turbulent
kinetic energy is given as:
∂( ρ k ) ∂k ∂u ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂k ⎤
+ ρu j = τ ij i − ε + ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ (3.13)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j ∂x j ⎣⎢⎝ σk ⎠ ∂x j ⎦⎥
This equation forms a basic equation for a turbulence parameter, k, and
needs one more turbulence parameter like ε, to complete the model in order to
evaluate the turbulent viscosity.
The description of individual turbulence models used for analysis in this
project follows. The major part of the description is referenced from the Fluent
Users Guide [63] and the reader is directed to the same for details about each
model.
32
3.5 The Standard k‐ε Model
The standard k‐ε model of Launder and Spalding [59] is by far the most
popular and most widely used turbulence model. It is a semi‐empirical model,
and consists of two transport equations. One for the specific turbulent kinetic
energy (k) and one for the turbulent dissipation rate (ε). The transport equation
for k is the same as equation (3.13), while that for ε is derived from physical
reasoning and resembles the equation for k. Various specifications for this model
are given as [63]:
3.5.1 Transport Equations
∂ ( ρ k ) ∂ ( ρ kui ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂k ⎤
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + Gk + Gb − ρε + S k (3.14)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎣⎢⎝ σk ⎠ ∂x j ⎦⎥
∂ ( ρε ) ∂ ( ρε ui ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂ε ⎤ ε ε2
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + C1ε (Gk + C3ε Gb ) − C2ε ρ + Sε (3.15)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎣⎢⎝ σε ⎠ ∂x j ⎦⎥ k k
where,
Gk = generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to mean velocity gradients
Gb = generation of turbulent kinetic energy due to buoyancy
C1ε, C2ε and C3ε = constants
σk, σε = turbulent Prandtl numbers for k and ε
Sk, Sε = source terms
Refer section 3.8 for details on calculations of these terms.
3.5.2 Turbulent Viscosity
With known turbulent kinetic energy, k and dissipation rate ε, the
turbulent viscosity is calculated as:
33
k2
µ t = ρ Cµ (3.16)
ε
The standard k‐ε model constants are:
C1ε = 1.44, C2ε = 1.92, Cµ = 0.09, σk = 1.0 and σε = 1.3
These values have their origin in experiments in water and air for fundamental
turbulent shear flows including homogeneous shear flows and decaying
isotropic grid turbulence. Although these values are standard values, and have
worked fairly well for different flows, they can be changed or altered if needed,
and are by no means universal.
The standard k‐ε model is the most widely used model, mainly because of
its low computational cost and its stability. One important thing to note is that
this model is based on an assumption that the flow is fully turbulent. Thus this
model is truly suitable for fully turbulent flows, although this model has proven
satisfactory for applications like confined flows where the normal Reynolds
stresses are relatively unimportant. In case of flows like those encountered in the
wind engineering, the k‐ε model is often inaccurate.
Many authors have discussed various shortcomings of this model, [17‐19,
40] like inaccurate prediction of k around surface mounted cube, especially at the
leading edge. This results in improper representation of the flow field and
pressure distribution around the cube. Also it has been proved in wind‐tunnel
experiments that the normal stress u′u′ dominates in the area of the roof, and
v′v′ dominates along with w′w′ over u′u′ in the wake and recirculation region.
Thus the turbulent flows encountered in the field of wind engineering are highly
anisotropic, and the isotropic eddy viscosity assumption in the k‐ε model fails to
predict the effect of anisotropy on flow variables. [40]
34
Though the k‐ε model has been reported to be inaccurate in modeling of
the wind engineering flows, it forms the basis of the modern two‐equation
turbulence models. Also in order to analyze various parameters like strain rate,
turbulent viscosities, etc., and the effects of different modeling techniques on
these parameters, the standard k‐ε model was used in this project with other
models. Full testing of the standard k‐ε model and comparison with
experimental results, are presented in chapter V.
3.6 The RNG k‐ε Model
A variant of the standard k‐ε model is derived from the instantaneous
Navier‐Stokes equation using a mathematical technique called “renormalization
group” (RNG) methods. The model resulting based on analytical derivation is
different from the standard k‐ε model in constants and some additional terms
and functions in the transport equations for k and ε [63].
For detailed information about the renormalization group method and the
RNG k‐ε model please refer to Yakhot and Orszag [64]. The specifications for the
RNG k‐ε model are as follows [63].
∂ ( ρ k ) ∂ ( ρ kui ) ∂ ⎛ ∂k ⎞
+ = ⎜⎜ α k µeff ⎟ + Gk + Gb − ρε + S k (3.17)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎟⎠
∂ ( ρε ) ∂ ( ρε ui ) ∂ ⎛ ∂ε ⎞ ε ε2
+ = ⎜⎜ α ε µeff ⎟ + C1ε (Gk + C3ε Gb ) − C2ε ρ − Rε + Sε (3.18)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎝ ∂x j ⎟⎠ k k
where, Gk, Gb, Sk and Sε are same terms as that of the standard k‐ε, while
αk and αε = inverse effective Prandtl numbers for k and ε
35
3.6.2 Effective Viscosity
A differential equation for the turbulent viscosity is obtained from the
scale elimination procedure in the RNG theory.
⎛ ρ 2k ⎞ ⎛ νˆ ⎞
d⎜
⎜ εµ ⎟⎟ = 1.72 ⎜ 3 ⎟ dνˆ (3.19)
⎝ ⎠ ⎜ νˆ − 1 + C ⎟
⎝ ν ⎠
where,
µeff
νˆ = µ and Cν ≈ 100 (3.20)
where µ is the dynamic viscosity of the fluid. Equation (3.19) is integrated to
obtain variation of the effective turbulent transport with the effective Reynolds
number, which theoretically allows better performance for the low‐Reynolds
number and near wall flows. For the higher Reynolds number region, equation
(3.19) results in the same equation as Eq. 3.16. The difference lies in the value of
the constant Cµ = 0.0845, which is derived from the RNG theory, and is very close
to the empirical value of 0.09.
3.6.3 Inverse Effective Prandtl Numbers
The RNG theory results in the following formula for calculation of the
inverse effective Prandtl numbers, α k and αε.
0.6321 0.3679
α − 1.3929 α + 2.3929 µ mol
= (3.21)
α 0 − 1.3929 α 0 + 2.3929 µeff
Where α0 = 1.0. In the high Reynolds number region where µmol/µeff << 1 the
inverse effective Prandtl number take value of, α k = αε ≈ 1.393.
36
3.6.4 Modification of Strain Dependent Term
The RNG k‐ε model involves an extra term in the transport equation for
the turbulence dissipation rate. The term Rε is given by:
⎛ C η 3 (1 − η η0 ) ⎞ ε 2
Rε = ⎜ µ ⎟⎟ ρ (3.22)
⎜ 1 + βη 3
⎝ ⎠ k
where,
Sk
η≡ ,η0 = 4.38, β = 0.012 (3.23)
ε
ε2
This term compared with the term C2ε ρ in the ε equation, takes into
k
account the effects of rapid strain in complex turbulent flows. i.e., when η < η0
the Rε term is positive, and it adds to the C2ε term resulting in similar predictions
as that of standard k‐ε. But for highly strained flows where η > η0, Rε term is
negative, and decreases the effective contribution from ρε2/k, thus predicting
lower effective viscosity than the standard k‐ε model.
The model constants for RNG k‐ε model are:
C1ε = 1.42, C2ε = 1.68, Cµ = 0.0845
The RNG k‐ε model has been shown to have better predictions than the
standard k‐ε model for three dimensional, high Reynolds number flows [39, 40],
but still this model has not been tested for a variety of flows, and has little
information available in the literature compared to the standard k‐ε model. Also
this model, being a variant of the k‐ε model, is based on the isotropic eddy
viscosity concept, and hence might not attain the desired accuracy.
37
3.7 The Realizable k‐ε Model
The realizable k‐ε model is yet another variation of the standard k‐ε model
proposed by Shih, Liou, Shabbir and Zhu [65]. The term “realizable” reflects
model’s ability to satisfy mathematical constraints on normal stresses and remain
consistent with the physics of turbulence. This is achieved by making the term Cµ
variable instead of keeping it constant. Also the dissipation rate calculations are
enhanced by using new eddy‐viscosity formula with variable Cµ and a new
transport equation for ε based on the dynamic equation of the mean‐square
vorticity fluctuation [63].
∂ ( ρ k ) ∂ ( ρ ku j ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂k ⎤
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + Gk + Gb − ρε + S k (3.24)
∂t ∂xi ∂xi ⎢⎣⎝ σk ⎠ ∂x j ⎦⎥
∂ ( ρε ) ∂ ( ρε u j ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂ε ⎤ ε2 ε
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + ρ C S ε − ρ C + C1ε C2ε Gb + Sε (3.25)
∂t ∂x j ∂x j ⎣⎢⎝ σε ⎠ ∂x j ⎦⎥
1 2
k + νε k
where,
⎡ η ⎤ Sk
C1 = max ⎢ 0.43, ⎥ and η = (3.26)
⎣ η + 5⎦ ε
where, all the terms, Gk, Gb, C2, C1ε, C2ε, C3ε, σk, σε, Sk and Sε have the usual
meaning as discussed previously.
The equation for calculation of the turbulent viscosity is same as that for
standard k‐ε and RNG k‐ε models i.e.
k2
µ t = ρ Cµ (3.16)
ε
38
In this model Cµ, is a variable and is calculated from the equation:
1
Cµ = (3.27)
ku *
A0 + As
ε
where,
% Ω
u * = Sij Sij + Ω %
ij ij (3.28)
% = Ω − 2ε ω
Ω ij ij ijk k
(3.29)
Ωij = Ωij − ε ijk ωk
Where Ωij represents the mean rate‐of‐rotation tensor viewed in a rotating
reference frame with an angular velocity of ω k. The model constants are:
A0 = 4.04 and As = 6 cos φ
cos −1 ( 6W ) Sij S jk S ki
φ= ,W =
3 Sij Sij
Where Sij is the mean strain rate tensor. Thus Cµ is the function of the mean strain
and rotation rates, the angular velocity of the system rotation, and k and ε.
Model constants for the realizable k‐ε model are:
C1ε = 1.44, C2 = 1.9, σk = 1.0, σε = 1.2
The realizable k‐ε model is substantially modified when compared to the
other two variants discussed before. An important observation is that equation
(3.25) does not contain production of k i.e. Gk term; this omission is believed to
represent the spectral energy transfer better. Also the destruction term (the term
involving C2) does not have any singularity (when k → 0), which means that it
never becomes infinite.
39
3.8 Calculation of Different Terms in k‐ε Model
Transport Equations
The production of k, effects of buoyancy, effects of compressibility, etc.,
that appear in all different variations of the k‐ε model are discussed in this
section. All the transport equations and different terms are taken from the Fluent
manual as it was used for analysis in this project. For details please refer to
Fluent [63].
3.8.1 Modeling Production of Specific Turbulent
Kinetic Energy
The production of specific turbulent kinetic energy (k) is represented by
the term Gk in the transport equations. This term is identical in all three
variations of the k‐ε model discussed before. From the exact equation for the
transport of k, i.e. equation (3.13) this term is given by:
∂u j ∂u j
Gk = −τ ij = − ρ ui′u′j (3.30)
∂xi ∂xi
Thus based on the Boussinesq approximation, Gk can be calculated as,
Gk = µt S 2 and S ≡ 2 Sij Sij (3.31)
3.9 The Standard k‐ω Model
Like the standard k‐ε model, the standard k‐ω model is a semi‐empirical
model based on the transport equations for specific turbulent kinetic energy (k),
and specific dissipation rate (ω), which can be written as the ratio of ε to k. First
proposed by Kolomogorov, this model remained in obscurity until Saffman
40
formulated it again. Wilcox [60] has been a leading investigator of the k‐ω model.
The specifications for this model are given as [63]:
∂ ( ρ k ) ∂ ( ρ kui ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂k ⎤
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + Gk − Yk + S k (3.32)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣⎝ σk ∂
⎠ j ⎥⎦
x
∂ ( ρω ) ∂ ( ρωui ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂ω ⎤
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + Gω − Yω + Sω (3.33)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣⎝ σω ∂
⎠ j ⎥⎦
x
Where,
Gk = generation of the k due to mean velocity gradients
Gω = generation of ω
Yk and Yω = dissipation of k and ω due to turbulence
Sk and Sω = source terms
The turbulent viscosity or the eddy viscosity is calculated as,
ρk
µt = α * (3.34)
ω
This is identical to Eq. 3.16 used in the standard k‐ε model. The coefficient α* acts
as a damping coefficient for the turbulent viscosity as given by,
⎛ α 0* + Ret Rk ⎞
α =α ⎜
* *
∞ ⎟ (3.35)
⎝ 1 + Ret Rk ⎠
where,
ρk β
Ret = , Rk = 6, α 0* = i , βi = 0.072 (3.36)
µω 3
41
3.9.3 Modeling of Production of Turbulence
The production of k is represented by the term Gk and is evaluated in the
same way as that for the k‐ε models. Thus,
Gk = µt S 2 (3.37)
Where S is the modulus of the mean strain rate tensor calculated as indicated in
the Eq. 3.31. The production of ω is represented by the term Gω and is calculated
as:
ω
Gω = α Gk (3.38)
k
The coefficient α is given by:
α ∞ ⎛ α 0 + Ret Rω ⎞
α= ⎜ ⎟ (3.39)
α * ⎝ 1 + Ret Rω ⎠
where Rω = 2.95, and α* and Ret are obtained using Eqs. 3.37 and 3.38
respectively.
3.9.4 Modeling of Turbulence Dissipation
The dissipation of k, represented by Yk is given by:
Yk = ρβ * f β * kω (3.40)
And the different terms are given by:
⎧ 1 χk ≤ 0
⎪ 1 ∂k ∂ω
fβ* = ⎨1 + 680 χ k2 where χ k = (3.41)
⎪1 + 400 χ 2 χk ≥ 0 ω 3 ∂x j ∂x j
⎩ k
β * = β i* ⎡⎣1 + ζ * F ( M t ) ⎤⎦ (3.42)
42
⎛ 4 ⎛ Re ⎞ 4 ⎞
⎜ +⎜ t ⎟ ⎟
⎜ 15 ⎜⎝ Rβ ⎟⎠ ⎟
βi* = β ∞* ⎜ 4 ⎟
(3.43)
⎜ ⎛ Ret ⎞ ⎟
⎜⎜ 1 + ⎜⎜ R ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ β ⎠ ⎠
And the constants are given by:
ζ * = 1.5, Rβ = 8, β∞* = 0.09 (3.44)
The dissipation of ω is represented by Yω and is calculated as:
Yω = ρβ f β ω 2 (3.45)
where,
1 + 70 χω Ω ij Ω jk S ki 1 ⎛ ∂ui ∂u j ⎞
fβ = where χω = and Ω ij = ⎜ − ⎟⎟ (3.46)
1 + 80 χω (β ω )
*
∞
3
2 ⎜⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎠
⎡ βi* * ⎤
β = βi ⎢1 − ζ F (M t )⎥ (3.47)
⎣ βi ⎦
The compressibility function F(Mt) is given by:
⎧ 0 Mt ≤ Mt0
F (M t ) = ⎨ 2 (3.48)
⎩M t − M t 0 Mt ≥ Mt0
2
where,
2k
M t2 = , M t 0 = 0.25, a = γ RT (3.49)
a2
The model constants are:
α ∞* = 1, α ∞ = 0.52, α 0 = 1 9 , β ∞* = 0.09, β i = 0.072, Rβ = 8

Rk = 6, Rω = 2.95, ζ * = 1.5, M t 0 = 0.25, σ k = 2.0, σ ω = 2.0
Easom [40] has done some analysis on the applicability of this model to
wind engineering flows, and stated that the results are sensitive to inlet
conditions of ω. The parameter ω is easier to integrate than ε, thus maintaining
43
the low computational requirement. The analysis of this model compared to
experimental results and other turbulence models is presented in chapter V.
3.10 The SST k‐ω Model
The shear stress transport (SST) k‐ω model is a variant of the standard k‐ω
model, with modification in the definition of the turbulent viscosity that accounts
for transport of the principal turbulent shear stress. This model also contains an
additional cross diffusion term in the transport equation for ω, and modifications
for applications of the model in the near wall as well as far field domains. For
detailed discussion of the model please refer to Menter [66] and Fluent [63].
The SST k‐ω model has transport equations similar to that of the standard k‐ω
model. Thus,
∂ ( ρ k ) ∂ ( ρ kui ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂k ⎤
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + Gk − Yk + S k (3.50)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣⎝ σ k ⎠ ∂x j ⎥⎦
∂ ( ρω ) ∂ ( ρωui ) ∂ ⎡⎛ µt ⎞ ∂ω ⎤
+ = ⎢⎜ µ + ⎟ ⎥ + Gω − Yω + Dω + Sω (3.51)
∂t ∂xi ∂x j ⎢⎣⎝ σ ω ⎠ ∂x j ⎥⎦
Where the terms Gk, Gω, Yk, Yω, Sk and Sω have the same meaning and
Dω is the added cross diffusion term
σk and σε = turbulent Prandtl numbers

The turbulent viscosity for the SST k‐ω model is calculated as:
44
ρk 1
µt = (3.52)
ω ⎡ 1 ΩF2 ⎤
max ⎢ * , ⎥
⎣ α α1ω ⎦
Where,
Ω = 2Ωij Ω ij (3.53)
The term Ωij is the mean rate of rotation tensor, defined in equation (3.51).
3.10.3 Turbulent Prandtl Numbers
The turbulent Prandtl numbers are calculated from following equations:
1
σk = (3.54)
F1 σ k ,1 + (1 − F1 ) σ k ,2
1
σω = (3.55)
F1 σ ω ,1 + (1 − F1 ) σ ω ,2
The blending functions are given by,
F1 = tanh(Φ14 ) and F2 = tanh(Φ 22 ) (3.56)
⎡ ⎛ k 500 µ ⎞ 4ρ k ⎤
Φ1 = min ⎢ max ⎜⎜ , ⎟
2 ⎟
, + 2 ⎥
⎢⎣ ⎝ 0.09ω y ρω y ⎠ σ ω ,2 Dω y ⎥⎦
(3.57)
⎛ k 500 µ ⎞
Φ 2 = max ⎜⎜ , 2 ⎟
⎟
⎝ 0.09ω y ρω y ⎠
⎡ 1 1 ∂k ∂ω ⎤
Dω+ = max ⎢ 2 ρ ,10−20 ⎥ (3.58)
⎢⎣ σ ω ,2 ω ∂x j ∂x j ⎥⎦
3.10.4 Modeling of Production of Turbulence
The production of k, given by Gk is same as that of the standard k‐ω
model. And it can be determined from Eq. 3.41. Production of ω is represented
by Gω and is given by:
45
α
Gω = G (3.59)
νt k
Where, α is given by the equation (3.44). It is noted that the formulation differs
from the standard k‐ω model. Also the term α ∞ needed in calculation of α is
based on the formula:
α ∞ = F1α ∞ ,1 + (1 − F1 )α ∞ ,2 (3.60)
Where,
β i ,1 κ2 β i ,2 κ2
α ∞ ,1 = − and α ∞ ,2 = − (3.61)
β ∞* σ ω ,1 β ∞* β ∞* σ ω ,2 β ∞*
where κ is the von‐Karman constant taken to be 0.41.
3.10.5 Modeling of Turbulence Dissipation
The term Yk represents dissipation of k and is given by:
Yk = ρβ *kω (3.62)
The dissipation of ω is given as:
Yω = ρβω 2 (3.63)
The term β* is calculated from Eq. 3.46, and the term β is calculated from Eq. 3.51.
The difference between the standard k‐ω and SST k‐ω lies in the constant βi
which is now given by the equation:
β i = F1β i ,1 + (1 − F1 ) β i ,2 (3.64)
Where βi,1 = 0.075 and βi,2 = 0.0828 and F1 is calculated from Eq. 3.60
The SST k‐ω model is based on both the standard k‐ε model as well as the
standard k‐ω model. In order to achieve blending of the two, the standard k‐ε
model is transformed in terms of k and ω. This procedure results in an additional
term, called as the cross diffusion term defined as:
46
1 ∂k ∂ω
Dω = 2(1 − F1 ) ρσ ω ,2 (3.65)
ω ∂x j ∂x j
All the constants have the same values as that of the standard k‐ω model, except
the following constants.
σ k ,1 = 1.176, σ ω ,1 = 2.0, σ k ,2 = 1.0, σ ω ,2 = 1.168
(3.66)
α1 = 0.31, βi ,1 = 0.075, βi ,2 = 0.0828
The SST k‐w model is not widely tested and verified for the flow
encountered in wind engineering. Since it has modified terms which enhance its
performance, for low Reynolds number flows as well as the high Reynolds
number flows, it is used here to compare the results with other models and
verify those with experimental data.
47
CHAPTER IV
4. MODEL DETAILS
The numerical experiments in this project were primarily based on the
experimental data available in the literature. Hence the models and the
computational domains were selected such that they can be compared with the
experimental setup and the available details. This chapter discusses the details of
model geometry, grid geometry, and the CFD techniques used for the analysis.
Two different models were constructed for two different sets of
experimental data. First set (referred to as Model 1 hereafter) correspond to the
paper of Castro and Robins [4], The second set (referred to as Model 2 hereafter)
was taken from the thesis of Morse [67], which was accompanied with the
necessary experimental details by private communication.
4.1 Model 1
4.1.1 Computational Domain
The computational domain for model 1 is shown in Fig 4.1. It is interesting
to note that the experiments were done in a wind tunnel of section 2.7 m × 9.1 m,
which is very large. To reduce the requirement of computational resources, a 2 m
× 2 m cross‐section was chosen in the numerical experiments, taking care that the
blockage ratio, defined as the ratio of frontal area of the body to the cross
sectional area of the wind tunnel, was less than 5%.
48

Figure 4.1: Computational domain for model 1
The dimensions of the cube were same as the experiments i.e., 0.2 m each side
(h). The inlet plane was 6h upstream of the obstacle and the outlet plane was 18h
downstream, which provided enough domain area to analyze wake and
recirculation regions. The geometry of the model constructed for simulation is
shown in Fig 4.1.
4.1.2 The Boundary Conditions
For all the turbulence models analyzed using model 1, the mean inlet
velocity and turbulence intensity profiles were extracted from Castro and Robins
[4]. Additionally all the two‐equation models required inlet data for k and ε or k
and ω, which was extracted from the turbulence intensity profiles and mean
velocity using the following formulae. [61]
49
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
y/ δ
y/δ
0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 5 10 15
u/u max TI (%)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.2: Inlet boundary conditions for model 1. (a) Velocity profile (b) Turbulence
intensity profile, versus vertical distance normalized with boundary layer thickness.

(u′2 + v′2 + w′2 )

I= (4.1)
u∞
The specific turbulence kinetic energy and dissipation rate, based on the
turbulence intensity is given by,
u′2 + v′2 + w′2 3

k= = ( I u )2 (4.2)
2 2
(u* )3
ε= (4.3)
κ ( y + y0 )
Where κ = 0.41 and y0 = 0.0128 m. The k‐ω models require specification of the
specific turbulence dissipation rate (ω) in lieu of the dissipation rate (ε), which
was calculated for the from the relation,
ε = 0.09ωk (4.4)
50
The faces of the cubical obstacle are regarded as walls without any
roughness, while the floor of the wind‐tunnel section was a rough wall with a
roughness height of 0.0004 m. The case with roughness boundary condition
specified for the floor wall was called as a “rough” case. The “smooth” case
corresponds to a smooth wall boundary condition, which is the default condition
in Fluent. The top and side boundaries of the wind tunnel section were
symmetry boundaries, to minimize the effects of “shrinking” the wind tunnel
section from its actual experimental size to a smaller size.
4.2 Model 2
4.2.1 Computational Domain
The second model was based on the results of the experiments of Morse
[67] which were conducted in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL) wind
tunnel facility of the Texas Tech University. The modeled wind tunnel had the
cross sectional dimensions of 4’ × 6’, which match with the actual cross sectional
dimensions of the physical wind tunnel.
The building model was semi‐cubical with dimensions of 12 cm × 12 cm ×
5 cm. Thus the blockage ratio was 0.3% which was well below the critical value
of 5%. The distance of the inlet plane on the upstream side of the building was 9h
and the outlet plane was placed 17h downstream of the building. The
computational domain for model 2 is shown in Fig 4.3.
51

Figure 4.3: Computational domain for model 2
4.2.2 The Boundary Conditions
The inlet boundary conditions for this model were calculated from the
available data of the velocity profile and the turbulence intensity profile at the
model section of the physical wind tunnel. Equations (4.3) to (4.5) were used to
calculate the turbulence parameters. The profiles of the mean velocity and
turbulence intensity are as shown in Fig 4.4. The building faces, top boundary
and side boundaries of the wind tunnel were modeled as walls. The bottom
surface of the wind tunnel was again modeled as a “rough” surface and a
“smooth” surface for analysis.
52
1 1
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
y/ δ
0.5
y/δ
0.5
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 0 5 10 15 20
u/umax TI (%)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.4: Inlet boundary conditions for model 2. (a) Velocity profile (b) Turbulence
intensity, profile versus vertical distance normalized with wind tunnel height.

4.3 The Grid
“The discrete locations at which the variables are to be calculated are
defined by the numerical grid which is essentially a discrete representation of the
geometric domain on which the problem is to be solved.” (Ferziger and Perić,
[68], pp. 26) A grid or mesh is one of the most important aspects in a numerical
simulation, and a good or optimal grid should be capable of capturing all details
of the flow throughout the domain. A structured grid is more economical and
more accurate than an unstructured grid; and was preferred in these cases as the
flow directions were parallel to the wind‐tunnel boundaries.
The important aspect of grid generation in the turbulence modeling is to
consider the type of near wall treatment implemented to resolve the flow in the
53
region near any wall. The “rough” bottom wall cases require the use of wall
functions approach, which employs semi‐empirical formulae i.e., wall functions,
to model the flow within the viscosity affected near wall region. One aspect of a
good grid is the value of y+, which is the normalized distance normal to the wall,
for the first cell adjacent to the wall is between 30 and 60. Other grid
considerations are grid shape, aspect ratio and volume change.
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 4.5: The grid for numerical models. (a) Model 1 ‐ rough case (b) Model 1 ‐ smooth
case (c) Model 2 ‐ rough case (d) Model 2 ‐ smooth case
The “smooth” cases used Fluent’s enhanced wall treatment approach,
which actually integrates the flow variables up to the wall. Assuming
appropriate aspect ratio a good hexahedral grid in this approach corresponds to
54
the y+ value of first cell approaching one. The enhanced wall treatment approach
requires considerably higher computational resources because of the solution of
flow equations and/or modules within the viscosity affected region as well. For
detailed description of both types of near wall treatments refer to section 4.4.4.
The grid for both the models and for both the cases is shown in fig 4.5. The
grid generated was fine or dense near the obstacle, and expanded away from the
model to a more coarse structure. Aspect ratios in the flow directions were fine
or smaller (1.05) and volume changes were less than 8 in any direction. This
reduces the computational costs without compromising the accuracy near the
building, where flow separation exists.
Grid adaptation was one of the major steps in validating the model for
analysis. The grid was adapted multiple times based on the y+ values of near wall
cells until the y+ values were within the limiting range as described earlier.
Adaptation based on the change in cell volume and velocity gradients in the flow
followed then, until a grid independent solution was obtained i.e., until the
solution remained unchanged with further grid adaptation. To test grid
independence, the wall shear stress along the centerline on the bottom surface of
the wind tunnel and faces of the building was plotted after each converged
solution. After each adaption a comparison was made in the shear stress
distribution of two consecutive solutions, and the procedure continued till these
plots matched. An example of the adaption process and the shear stress
distribution for significant steps is shown in fig 4.6.
The grid resulting from this procedure was very dense near the obstacle,
especially in the regions of flow recirculation, and became coarse away from the
model.
55
0.12
285,200 Cells
1,076,024 Cells
0.1
1,111,220 Cells
0.08
τ w (N/m )
2
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
x/h
Figure 4.6: Grid independence test ‐ variation of wall shear stress along the centerline of
the wind tunnel floor
4.4 Solver Settings
The commercial CFD software, Fluent was used as a solver for the
different model equations described in Chapter 2. The main advantage of using a
commercial solver is that the code is already validated for a number of cases, and
one can rely on the documentation for application of the code to different
problems. Different turbulence models used and the boundary conditions were
discussed previously. Other specific settings and methods used for these test
runs are described here.
The equations were solved implicitly using a segregated solver setting.
Implicit method implies that the calculation of unknown variables is based on
simultaneous solution of many equations, for a variable and for different control
56
volumes, involving both known and unknown values. Segregated solver means
that the momentum equations were solved separately and not simultaneously.
4.4.1 Discretization Schemes
The philosophy of the finite difference method is to replace the partial
derivatives appearing in the governing equation of fluid dynamics with
algebraic difference quotients, yielding a system of algebraic equations
which can be solved for the flow‐field variables at the specific, discrete
grid points in the flow. (Wendt [69], pp. 85‐86)
Fluent uses a finite volume approach, which involves integrating the
modeling equations over the control volume to obtain the algebraic equations for
each control volume. Also the discretization schemes are required to
approximate the values of the solution variables at locations other than the cell
center, or nodes. Among the different types of methods available, the upwind
schemes are known to provide better convergence for convective terms where
grid sizes are not very small. The first order upwind scheme is based on the
assumption that the cell center value of any variable represents a cell averaged
value, which is valid throughout the cell and thus is equal to the value at the cell
face. [63] This method is numerically diffusive i.e., the truncation error term
resembles diffusive flux and causes production of numerical diffusion in cases of
the multidimensional flows, when the flow is oblique to the grid. Thus the rapid
variations in the flow will not be predicted properly, or a very fine grid will be
required to estimate the flow variables accurately. (Ferziger and Perić [68], 72)
In the second order upwind differencing scheme, the values of the
variables at the cell faces are determined from the Taylor series expansion of the
cell centered solution about the cell centroid. Thus higher accuracy is achieved in
57
the calculations. Hence the second order upwind scheme is preferred over the
first order scheme, and was used in this project.
4.4.2 Pressure Velocity Coupling
In general purpose flow computations we also wish to calculate the
pressure field as part of the solution so its gradient is not normally known
beforehand… if the flow is incompressible the density is constant and
hence by definition not linked to the pressure. In this case coupling
between pressure and velocity introduces a constraint on the solution of
the flow field: if the correct pressure field is applied in the momentum
equations the resulting velocity field should satisfy continuity. (Versteeg
and Malalasekera [62], pp.136)
The pressure‐velocity coupling in the incompressible flow modeling is
resolved by using iterative solution methods. In this project, we have used the
SIMPLE algorithm which is a standard pressure‐velocity coupling method. In
this algorithm, pressure field and velocity field are guessed initially. The velocity
field is used to calculate the convective fluxes while the pressure field is used to
solve the momentum equations. The pressure correction equation which is
deduced from the continuity equation is solved to obtain the pressure correction
field. This is used to update the velocity and pressure fields iteratively till
convergence is achieved. (Versteeg and Malalasekera [62], pp.136)
In case of complex flows, this method might lead to instabilities and hence
slow convergence, in which cases the SIMPLEC algorithm can be implemented.
Also PISO algorithm is very useful in transient analysis. But in this case, since the
convergence was achieved to satisfactory level and the analysis was steady state,
SIMPLE algorithm was preferred. For details about all available settings please
refer to Fluent [63].
58
4.4.3 Convergence Criteria
The CFD technique requires iterating the solution of the fluid flow
equations till it is converged. The iterations are stopped when the solution
remains the same within the accuracy of the selected convergence criteria. The
most widely used method to check solution convergence is the error residuals,
which is the difference between the values of a variable in two consecutive
iterations normalized by largest absolute residual for first five iterations. The
solution is said to be converged when the residuals are below a set tolerance
limit.
In these tests the convergence was based on the residuals as well as the
surface integral of mass imbalance for the outlet boundary. The iterations were
stopped when the mass imbalance was steady i.e., not changing with iterations.
At that point it was confirmed that the residuals were well below the general
accepted tolerance of 1 × 10‐3.
4.4.4 Near Wall Treatments
The presence of walls and obstacles significantly affects the turbulent
flow. Very close to the wall, the kinematic viscosity of the fluid dampens velocity
fluctuations, while away from the wall the turbulence increases rapidly due to
production of k because of large gradients in mean velocity. This near wall region
is very important region for the numerical solution, as this is the region where
large gradients in solution variables exist, and rigorous momentum and other
scalar transports occur. Hence accurate representation of the flow in near wall
region will lead to accurate presentation of the entire flow field.
59
The near wall region is theoretically subdivided into three regions. The
region closest to the wall, where the viscous forces dominate and the flow is
dominated by molecular viscosity is called as the “viscous sublayer”. In the
outermost region momentum dominates over viscosity, and hence the turbulent
viscosity dominates. In the intermediate region both the viscous forces and
turbulence are equally important. Generally two approaches are used to model
the near wall region as given below, which is based on the information given in
[58 and 63].
4.4.5 Wall Functions Approach
Standard turbulence models do not resolve the viscous sublayer and
buffer region. These models employ semi‐empirical formulae called “wall
functions” instead to bridge the region between a wall and the fully turbulent
region. The standard wall functions consist of a law‐of‐the‐wall for mean
velocity, and formulae for other turbulence properties. The law‐of‐the‐wall is
given by:
u+ =
1
k
( )
Ey + + B (4.5)
Where B ≈ 5 for smooth walls and,
u u
u+ ≡ ≡ (4.6)
τw ρ u*
yP u*
y+ ≡ (4.7)
ν
Generally the law‐of‐the‐wall is valid for 30 < y+ < 60. In Fluent the law‐of‐the‐
wall is applied for y+ > 11.225, below which the following linear relationship is
used.
60
u+ = y+ (4.8)
The semi‐empirical formulae for the turbulence parameters are given by,
u*2
k= (4.9)
Cµ
u*3
ε= (4.10)
κy
The wall functions approach saves the computational resources
considerably for the high‐Reynolds number flows, and hence are widely used in
the industry. But they prove to be insufficient to solve for the low‐Reynolds
number flows, where the flow properties near wall region affect the entire flow
structure. In such situations the enhanced wall treatment or two‐layer turbulence
models are employed as described below.
4.4.6 Two‐layer Modeling
The two layer modeling approach, also referred as the enhanced wall
treatment approach in Fluent, is a popular technique used in the CFD
community to resolve the flow properties in the near wall region. It subdivides
the flow domain into two main regions, the viscosity affected region and the
fully turbulent region. The criteria differentiating these two regions is typically
dictated by a turbulent Reynolds number,
y k
Re y = (4.11)
ν
Where y is the minimum distance from a wall to the cell node. Fluent uses
a value of 200 to separate the near wall region from the rest of the turbulence
flow. Standard two‐equation models are used to resolve the fully turbulent
region, while the mixing length approach is used to resolve the near wall region.
61
In the mixing length model, the momentum equation and the transport equation
for k is same as eq. (3.14), while the dissipation rate is calculated as,
k 3/ 2
ε= (4.12)
lε
And the eddy viscosity is based on the formula,
µt = ρ Cµ k lν (4.13)
The terms lε and lν are the mixing lengths given by the van Driest model,
(
l ε = Cl yeff 1 − e
− Re y Aε
); (
lν = Cl yeff 1 − e
− Re y Aν
) (4.14)
Where the constants are given by,
Cl = κ Cµ−3/ 4 , Aµ = 70, Aε = 2Cl (4.15)
A blending function is used to blend the turbulent viscosities calculated in the
near wall region and the fully turbulent region. For details about this modeling
approach, please refer to the Fluent users’ guide [63].
The two layer model is effective for a very fine mesh near the wall,
typically based on y+ < 5. Thus it requires a lot of computational resources,
especially with complicated geometries, to be able to resolve the complete flow
field. In this work both the approaches were applied to the test cases and the
details about the results and analysis are found in following chapter.
62
CHAPTER V
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The study of the flow around buildings aims particularly at the pressure
distribution on the building and the forces acting consequently. In addition to the
estimation of building loads, the numerical experiments also resolve important
flow feature around the buildings, which helps in designing building not only
from an engineering point of view but also from architectural and aesthetic
points of view. CFD engineers are also interested in the flow structure and
turbulence characteristics, as it aids in better understanding and development of
semi‐empirical turbulence modeling. In this chapter the different turbulent flow
parameters are discussed in accordance with their effect on the flow behavior.
The analysis of these parameters also helps in understanding the flow mechanics
as modeled by various RANS models.
5.1 Development of Equilibrium Boundary Layer
Regardless of the manner of its generation, any flow that is fully
aerodynamically rough, horizontally homogeneous, and relatively free
from any pressure gradients, constitutes a suitable model for the
atmospheric boundary layer. (Ludwig and Sundaram in CAL Report VC‐
2740‐S‐1, as referenced by Richards and Hoxey [29], pp. 145)
Simulation of the atmospheric boundary layer is an important aspect of
wind engineering flows. As one of the vital steps in this work, the development
of an equilibrium boundary layer in an empty wind tunnel was studied. The
computational domain was section of the wind tunnel used by Castro and
Robins [4], which was 2.7m × 9.1m section. To reduce the computational costs, a
small or numerical wind tunnel section of dimensions 2m wide, 2m tall and 5m
63
long was modeled with the grid size of 38 × 50 × 94. To reduce the effect of
decreasing flow domain from actual physical dimensions, the ceiling and side
boundaries were made symmetry boundaries. The inlet boundary conditions,
specified in terms of profiles of mean velocity and turbulence intensity (shown in
Fig. 4.2), for each step were patched from the outlet boundary conditions of
previous step, till the velocity profiles converged to a constant profile at the
outlet. The results of this study are shown in Fig. 5.1.
Two different approaches available in Fluent were tested in this study, the
standard wall functions and the enhanced wall functions. Fluent provides an
option to specify the roughness value for boundaries in the standard wall
function approach; this option is not available in the enhanced wall functions
approach and therefore without implementing a user defined function hook, a
smooth wall profile results, which causes acceleration of the flow close to the
wall between the initial inlet boundary conditions and outlet profiles.
The inlet boundary conditions were based on the measurements of
equilibrium ABL simulations in the wind‐tunnel, the rough‐wall functions
approach was expected to simulate equilibrium ABL with acceptable accuracy as
shown in Fig. 5.1. Although the acceleration near the floor boundary was less for
model 1, it was a concern to try to further reduce the inaccuracy of predictions
and it was decided to implement, test and analyze the two‐layer rough wall
formulation proposed by Durbin et al [58] in order to modify the existing
enhanced wall functions approach in the Fluent. Increased fidelity is expected in
the wake and separation regions as compared to the wall functions approach
because of better near‐wall modeling.
64
1
Inlet
0.9
Wall functions
0.8
0.7
0.6
y/H
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u/umax
1
0.9 Inlet
0.8 Wall functions
0.7
0.6
y/H
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15
TI
Figure 5.1: Velocity and turbulence intensity profiles, at inlet and outlet of the wind‐
tunnel section, without obstruction, after multiple steps of patching inlet boundary
conditions with outlet boundary conditions.
65
Detailed description of the modification proposed by Durbin et al [58] in
the two layer approach and the results of implementation of that formulation in
current work are given in section 5.5.
The results presented for model 1 are for a cubical building and ABL
profile as presented in Castro and Robins [4] using the rough wall‐functions in
Fluent. The results for model 2 and ABL profile presented in Morse [67] will
utilize a two‐layer rough wall formulation proposed by Durbin et al [58].
5.2 Results for Model 1
The results presented in this section are based on the measurements or
calculations of various parameters located on the centerlines of the surfaces of
the cubical model. These centerlines are shown in fig. 5.2. The Reynolds number
based on model height was about 106 for this test case.

(a) (b)
Figure 5.2: Centerlines on the surfaces of the cubical model used for analysis of the
results in (a) streamwise direction (b) spanwise direction
The experimental results presented by authors were plotted on the same
surface centerlines, thus making the comparison of the numerical and
experimental results easier.
66
5.2.1 Distribution of Surface Pressure
The surface pressure distribution for a cubical obstacle placed in turbulent
boundary layer has been studied by numerous researchers and the important
characteristics of the pressure profiles revealed. The main areas of interest are the
high positive pressure at the stagnation region on the front surface of the
building, high negative peak at the windward edges of all surfaces and pressure
recovery due to reattachment on the roof and sides of the cube. Turbulence
models are often judged for accuracy based on the comparison of their
predictions with experimentally observed values. It was shown by Richards et al
[11, 12] that the experimental results vary considerably compared to the full scale
observations as well as within different wind tunnel tests. In this study the
computational results are compared with the experimental measurements
reported by Castro and Robins [4] and the full scale results of Richards et al [11]
are also plotted for reference. The experimental results presented here are
reproduced from the figures presented in the published data, and are not the
actual numerical data points. Hence some data points may not correspond
exactly with the actual measurements, due to the interpretations made while
analyzing the data.
The observable differences in the pressure coefficients for the wind‐tunnel
results and full scale measurements are present along the roof, side and leeward
surfaces of the cube. The pressure coefficients are calculated as,
P − Pref
CP = (5.1)
1 2
ρ uref
2
67

1 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0
0.9
-0.2
0.8
0.7 -0.4
0.6 -0.6
0.5 Exp -0.8 Exp
y/h
Cp
SKE SKE
0.4 -1
RNG RNG
0.3 -1.2 RKE
RKE
SKW
0.2 SKW -1.4
SST
SST
0.1 -1.6 FS
FS
0
-1.8
-1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
Cp x/h
(a.) Windward Surface (b.) Roof
1 1
68
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 Exp
0.5 Exp 0.5 SKE
y/h
y/h
SKE 0.4 RNG
0.4
RNG RKE
0.3 RKE
0.3
SKW
0.2 SKW 0.2
SST
SST 0.1
0.1 FS
FS
0 0
-0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Cp Cp
(c.) Leeward Surface (d.) Side Surface
Figure 5.3: Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the streamwise centerline of cube faces; centerlines
are located as shown in fig. 5.2.

0.8
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0.7 0
Exp
0.6 SKE
-0.1 RNG
0.5
RKE
0.4 -0.2 SKW
SST
0.3
Cp
Exp
-0.3
Cp
0.2 SKE
RNG
0.1
RKE -0.4
0 SKW
-0.1 SST -0.5
FS
-0.2
-0.6
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
x/h
z/h
(ah.) Windward Surface (bh.) Roof
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
0 0
69
-0.1
-0.05
-0.2
-0.1
-0.3
-0.15 -0.4
-0.2 -0.5
Cp
Cp
Exp Exp
SKE -0.6 SKE
-0.25
RNG -0.7 RNG
-0.3 RKE RKE
SKW -0.8
SKW
-0.35 SST -0.9 SST
FS FS
-0.4 -1
z/h x/h
(ch.) Leeward Surface (dh.) Side Surface
Figure 5.4: Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the spanwise centerline of cube faces; centerlines
are located as shown in fig. 5.2
Here the reference pressure (Pref) is the static pressure outside the boundary
layer, close to the wind tunnel top boundary, and reference velocity (uref) is the
mean velocity at the cube height in an undisturbed boundary layer.
The numerical results, as shown in Figs. 5.3(a) and 5.4(a), obtained with all
the models in this study are in good agreement with the experiments for the
windward surface, except for the location of the point of maximum pressure. The
numerical results predict the maximum pressures nearer to the roof than the
experimental observations. On the roof all the models, especially the standard k‐
ε model, incorrectly predict a large negative peak at the windward edge of the
roof.
The pressure recovery predicted is slower than wind‐tunnel test but faster
than full scale studies. The standard k‐ε model is “well‐known” for its inability to
accurately model the separation at the leading roof edge and the pressure
distribution subsequently, but the other RANS models also fail to estimate the
pressure distribution correctly. The numerical results deviate significantly from
the experimental results for the side surfaces and leeward surface of the cube
(Figs. 5.3(b‐d), 5.4(bh‐dh)). Interestingly they fall between the wind‐tunnel and
full scale results. The RNG k‐ε model predicts more negative pressure
coefficients, compared with the other models, in the lower half of the leeward
face but predicts nearly the highest Cp values (less negative) on the side surfaces.
The pressure coefficients on the side surfaces show similar profiles as the
experimental, but the magnitudes differ by almost 100% and they do not match
the experimental profile for x/h ≤ ‐0.3 (Fig. 5.4(dh)). The SST k‐ω model predicts
most negative pressure coefficients, while all the k‐ε variants’ predictions are
very close to each other. The difference between the experimental measurements
70
in full scale and the wind tunnel results indicates the effects of different Jenson
numbers, the ratio of the roughness height to the model length scale, on the flow
structure and hence on the wind loading.[12]
The pressure distribution profiles show the inability of the RANS models
to model accurately the highly anisotropic wake and recirculation regions.
Similar observation can be made for the pressure distribution along the spanwise
centerlines. Again the numerical results show good agreement with the full scale
and wind‐tunnel results for the windward surface. The numerical results deviate
from experimental results for roof and leeward surfaces. For the side surfaces
(Figs. 5.3 (d) and 5.4 (dh)), the full scale results and wind‐tunnel results have
same trends, which is observed even numerically. The results of RNG k‐ε model
and SST k‐ω model show very slow pressure recovery, while the realizable k‐ε
model and standard k‐ω model predict recovery similar to experimental
observations. The values of numerically obtained pressure coefficients are
generally more negative than the wind‐tunnel results for all surfaces.
In an effort to better understand the turbulence models predicted in Figs.
5.3 and 5.4, various turbulence parameters from the five turbulence models were
examined and the analysis follows.
5.2.2 Distribution of Turbulent Kinetic Energy
The accuracy of turbulence models is often associated with the estimation
of turbulent kinetic energy in the flow. The production of k is an important
parameter that affects the pressure distribution and overall wind load estimates
on buildings. High values of k are predicted near high velocity gradients and
separation regions, especially at the windward edges of the roof and side
71
1 0.06
0.9 SKE
0.05 RNG
0.8
RKE
0.7 SKW
0.04
0.6 SST
0.5 0.03
y/h
k/u 2ref
0.4 SKE
RNG 0.02
0.3
RKE
0.2
SKW 0.01
0.1 SST
0 0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
k/u2ref x/h
1 1
72
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5
y/h
0.5
y/h
0.4 0.4 SKE
SKE
0.3 RNG
0.3 RNG
RKE
RKE 0.2
0.2 SKW
SKW
0.1 SST
0.1 SST
0
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01 0.012 0.014
k/u2ref k
Figure 5.5: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent kinetic energy (k) along the streamwise centerline of
cube faces; centerlines are located as shown in fig. 5.2
0.009 0.03
SKE SKE
0.008 RNG RNG
RKE 0.025 RKE
0.007
SKW SKW
0.006 SST 0.02 SST
0.005
ref
ref
2
2
0.015
k/u
k/u
0.004
0.003 0.01
0.002
0.005
0.001
0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
z/h z/h
0.012 0.03
SKE
73
RNG
0.01 0.025 RKE
SKW
0.008 0.02 SST
ref
ref
2
2
0.006 0.015
k/u
k/u
0.004 0.01
SKE
RNG
0.002 RKE 0.005
SKW
SST
0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
z/h x/h
Figure 5.6: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent kinetic energy (k) along the spanwise centerline of
surfaces of the building, because of the production term in the transport equation
for k, which increases with increasing velocity gradients and hence increasing
shear in the flow. On the windward surface, lower k values are predicted due to
lower shear present in the flow (Figs. 5.5(a) and 5.6(ah)),
The standard k‐ε model predicts high turbulent kinetic energy at the
windward edge on the roof (Fig. 5.5(b)), which in turn produces a large mixing
effect on the roof thus failing to predict the separation on the roof [20]. RNG k‐ε
model produces much lower values of k in this area, while other models predict
moderate values of k compared to these two models. The SST k‐ω model shows
interestingly high values of k on the leeward surface of the building, as compared
to other models (Figs. 5.5(c.) and 5.6(ch)). The RNG k‐ε model shows an
interesting trend of the distribution of k on that surface with nearly linear
increase of the k values from bottom to the roof (Figs. 5.5(c.)). The side surfaces
show the distribution of k similar to the windward face with higher values
predicted near the top (Fig. 5.5(d)). This high prediction is unusual and might be
because of some fluid rushing vertically up above and behind the side vortex,
similar to the SD in Fig. 5.13, which is indicated even from the distribution of k
on the roof in spanwise direction (Fig. 5.5(b)). The fluid rushing over the side
edges of the roof mixes with the flow stream on the top might be the cause of a
little peak in the k distribution at about z/h = 0.1 (Fig. 5.6(bh)). The separating
shear layer from the trailing edge, forming the recirculating wake behind the
building also causes higher k values on the leeward wall of the building due to
the fluid recirculating and rushing towards the leeward wall from within the
wake (Fig. 5.5(c.) and 5.6(ch.)), but these values are much smaller than the k
74
values on the roof, in the high velocity gradient region near the windward edge
(Fig. 5.5(b)).
The RNG k‐ε model predicts considerably lower turbulent kinetic energies
throughout the flow, while the standard k‐ε model predicts higher k on the side
surfaces in the streamwise direction and on the roof. All the models predict
similar trends and values of k near the roof, except the RNG k‐ε model (Fig. 5.5(b,
d)). The production of turbulent kinetic energy dominates in the areas of high
shear and high velocity gradients. The other terms i.e. dissipation and diffusion
which are also important in the transport equation of k (Eq. 3.13) and hence the
overall distribution of the kinetic energy are discussed in following sections.
5.2.3 Distribution of the Turbulence Dissipation Rate
The turbulent kinetic energy gets transferred from larger eddies to smaller
eddies in the turbulent flow. Eventually the smallest eddies dissipate the energy
received. This dissipation of energy is an important mechanism of conservation
of energy in the turbulent flow. The rate of dissipation of this energy is measured
in terms of the turbulence dissipation rate in the two‐equation turbulence
models. This is an important parameter, which estimates the energy dissipated
by the smallest eddy, and hence the amount of energy transferred during
momentum transfer to wind tunnel walls and the obstacle causing the wind
loading on the obstacle.
75
1 0.012
SKE
0.9
RNG
0.01
0.8 RKE
SKW
0.7
0.008 SST
0.6
4
0.5 0.006
y/h
εν /uτ
0.4
SKE 0.004
0.3
RNG
0.2 RKE
0.002
SKW
0.1
SST
0 0
0 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001 0.0012 0.0014 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
4
ε ν /u τ x/h
1 1
76
0.9 0.9
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
SKE SKE
0.3 0.3
RNG
RNG
0.2 RKE
0.2 RKE
SKW
SKW 0.1
0.1 SST
SST
0
0
0 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.007
0 0.00005 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035
4 4
ε ν /u τ ε ν /u τ
Figure 5.7: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate (ε) along the spanwise centerline of
0.0009 0.007
SKE SKE
0.0008 RNG RNG
0.006
RKE RKE
0.0007
SKW SKW

0.005
0.0006 SST SST
4
4
0.0005 0.004
εν /uτ
εν /uτ
0.0004 0.003
0.0003
0.002
0.0002
0.001
0.0001
0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
z/h z/h
0.0003
SKE 0.0025
SKE
77
RNG
RNG
0.00025 RKE
0.002 RKE
SKW SKW
0.0002 SST SST
0.0015
4
4
0.00015
εν /uτ
εν /uτ
0.001
0.0001
0.0005
0.00005
0
0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
x/h
z/h
Figure 5.8: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate (ε) along the spanwise centerline of
The k‐ω models solve the transport equation for ω, the specific dissipation
rate, and the relationship ε = 0.09kω was used to calculate the turbulence
dissipation rate (ε) for these models. The general trend of distribution of ε non‐
dimensionalized with (uτ)4/ν is as shown in Figs. 5.7 and 5.8. The general trend of
distribution is similar to the distribution of turbulent kinetic energy (k). The
dissipation is greater in the high velocity gradient regions in the flow and lower
in the low velocity regions. The equilibrium between the production and
dissipation of k is the feature of the RANS based turbulence models.
It can be observed that all the models estimate similar values of ε at the
windward surface of the cube (Fig. 5.7(a) and 5.8(ah.)). RNG k‐ε model gives
lowest values of ε in all regions of the flow except for the leeward surface where
the standard k‐ω model predicts the lowest values (Fig. 5.7(c.) and 5.8(ch.)). Both
the production and the dissipation of turbulence along the windward and
leeward faces are much smaller, and the predictions along the roof and side
walls are higher because of shearing of the separated flow from the leading
edges with the mean flow (Figs. 5.8(ah, bh)).
The realizable k‐ε model does not have a production term in the
ε transport equation (Eq. 3.25), unlike other two k‐ε models. But it predicts large
dissipation similar to the standard k‐ε model (Figs. 5.7 (b, d) and 5.8 (bh, dh)),
while RNG k‐ε model predicts lower dissipation than both the k‐ω models, even
though the latter do not have a production term in the transport equation for
dissipation rate. The balance between the production and dissipation of k affects
the turbulent viscosity, which is dominant in the diffusion term in the transport
equation of k (Eq. 3.13).
78
5.2.4 Distribution of Turbulent Viscosity
Turbulent viscosity is the “closure‐term” to the two‐equation turbulence
models. The turbulent viscosity µt is directly related to the Reynolds stresses and
hence its model is a vital part of any RANS based turbulence model. Influenced
by the values of both, k and ε (Eqs. 3.16, 3.36 and 3.54), the turbulent viscosity
signifies the resistance offered to the flow due to turbulent mixing. The
distribution of the turbulent viscosity µt non‐dimensionalized by the kinematic
viscosity µ is shown in Figs. 5.9 and 5.10.
High values of νt are predicted around the stagnation region on the
windward surface (Fig. 5.9(a)) and in the recirculation regions located close to
the bottom of front and side surfaces (Figs. 5.9(a, d)), and the leeward surface
(Figs. 5.9(c.) and 5.10(ch)). This is the result of turbulent mixing taking place in
these regions, thus having increased diffusion. The realizable k‐ε model produces
maximum turbulent viscosity compared to other models tested, while RNG k‐ε
model predicts the lowest values of µt.
Interestingly high values of µt are estimated near the leeward edges of
roof and side surfaces (Figs. 5.9(b) and 5.10 (dh)). This is probably due to the
shear layer separating at the leeward edge, producing higher velocities and in
turn higher k (Figs. 5.5(b) and 5.6(dh)), but the dissipation is lower in this region
(Figs. 5.7(b) and 5.8(dh)). This causes increased transfer of k through diffusion
thus higher µt.
79
1 160
SKE
0.9
140 RNG
0.8 RKE
120 SKW
0.7
SST
100
0.6
0.5 80
y/h
µt / µ
0.4
60
SKE
0.3
RNG 40
0.2 RKE
SKW 20
0.1
SST
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
µt / µ x/h
1 1
0.9 0.9
80
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
SKE SKE
0.3 0.3
RNG RNG
0.2 RKE 0.2 RKE
0.1 SKW 0.1 SKW
SST SST
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
µt / µ µt / µ
Figure 5.9: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity (µt/µ) along the streamwise centerline of
30 80
SKE SKE
RNG 70 RNG
25 RKE RKE
SKW 60 SKW

20 SST SST
50
15 40
µt / µ
µt / µ
30
10
20
5
10
0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
z/h x/h
80 120
SKE
81
70 RNG
100 RKE
60 SKW
80 SST
50
40 60
µt / µ
µt / µ
30
SKE 40
20 RNG
RKE 20
10 SKW
SST
0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
z/h z/h
Figure 5.10: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity (µt/µ) along the spanwise centerline of
Noting that the turbulent viscosity is directly proportional to k2 and
inversely proportional to ε, the predictions of viscosity are much higher in
regions like the point of maximum pressure on the windward plane, where the
predicted value of k is higher, while dissipation is not high. The imbalance
between k and ε might be the reason of the sharp transitions of turbulent
viscosity values on windward face (Fig. 5.9(a)), roof (Fig. 5.9(b)) and side surfaces
(Fig. 5.10(dh)). Also the relation of the turbulent viscosity with these two
parameters is also indicated by lower values predicted along the windward and
leeward surfaces in comparison with the values on roof and side surfaces.
5.2.5 Distribution of Strain Rate
Strain rate, the second invariant of the strain rate tensor, relates the shear
stress with viscosity. The turbulent stresses are found to increase as the mean
rate of deformation or strain rate increases. Thus the strain rate tensor is one of
the important components of the turbulence model especially the models based
on Boussinesq approximation. The strain rate S is defined given by,
1 ⎛ ∂u ∂u j ⎞
Sij = ⎜ i + ⎟ (5.2)
2 ⎜⎝ ∂x j ∂xi ⎟⎠
The non‐dimensionalized form of the strain rate, non dimensionalized by the
turbulent time scale (k/ε) as given by,
Sk
η= (5.3)
ε

82
1 40
SKE
0.9
35 RNG
0.8 RKE
30 SKW
0.7
SST
25
0.6
η
0.5 20
y/h
0.4
15
SKE
0.3
RNG 10
0.2 RKE
SKW 5
0.1
SST
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
η x/h
1 1
SKE

SKE
83
0.9 0.9
RNG RNG
0.8 RKE 0.8 RKE
SKW SKW
0.7 0.7
SST SST
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
η η
Figure 5.11: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the streamwise centerline of cube faces;
centerlines are located as shown in fig. 5.2
14 1.6
SKE SKE
RNG 1.4 RNG
12
RKE RKE
SKW 1.2 SKW
10
SST SST
1
8
η
η
0.8
6
0.6
4
0.4
2 0.2
0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
z/h z/h
1.2 25
SKE
84
RNG
1 RKE
20
SKW
0.8 SST
15
η
η
0.6
10
0.4 SKE
RNG
5
0.2 RKE
SKW
SST
0 0
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
z/h x/h
Figure 5.12: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the spanwise centerline of cube faces;
This non‐dimensional parameter, η is the ratio of the turbulent time scale
to the mean time scale, which is an important parameter in formulation of the
RNG k‐ε model. It modifies the dissipation rate in the flow based on varying
strain in the flow. Thus η links the mean flow time scale to the turbulent time
scale. Higher values of η indicate large strain rates in the flow, while lower
values of η are present in less turbulent flow. When the turbulent fluctuations
occur slowly and with weak strain rates, the turbulent time scale is high.
The distribution of the non‐dimensional parameter η is shown in Figs. 5.11
and 5.12. All the models estimate high strain rate in the stagnation zone at the
windward face of the building (Figs 5.11(a) and 5.12 (ah)), and along the
windward edges of the roof and side surfaces (Figs. 5.11(b) and 5.12(dh)). Thus it
is evident that high velocity gradients in the flow induce greater strain in the
fluid.
Apart from the highly strained areas mentioned above, the strain rates
predicted around the other cube surfaces are lower, though different models
show some variations in the strain rate. The RNG k‐ε model predicts higher
strain rates on the windward face and near the leading edges of roof and sides
than the other models. In response the RNG k‐ε formulation tweaks the
dissipation rate in these regions, in turn, reducing the predicted turbulent
viscosities. The standard k‐ω model and the SST k‐ω model predict higher strain
rates compared to other models in the other areas around the cube. But these
large strain rates do not produce larger dissipation rates, thus larger turbulent
viscosities are produced in these regions.
85
5.2.6 Roof and Wake Recirculation Patterns
Separation and recirculation is an inevitable feature of flow around bluff
bodies, especially sharp edged bodies. The schematic representation of the main
features of the flow pattern around a cube, which were studied and presented by
Martinuzzi and Tropea [8], is shown in Fig. 5.13. The approach flow stagnates at
the windward surface of the cube. Some fluid flows towards the bottom and
forms a small vortex at the frontal base of the cube, which wraps around the cube
in the streamwise direction forming the horseshoe vortex shown as HS in Fig.
5.13.
Figure 5.13: Schematic representation of the mean flow around a surface‐mounted cube
[8]
The fluid flowing towards the roof separates at the windward edge of the
roof forming a small recirculation bubble at the roof (RF in Fig. 5.13). Similar
separation from the windward edges of the side surfaces result in small vortices
on the sides of cube (SD in Fig. 5.13). The flow separating from the leeward edges
creates wake of highly recirculating flow behind the cube (WK in Fig. 5.13),
reattaching with the floor a few cube heights downstream of the cube.
86
Standard k‐ε
RNG k‐ε
Realizable k‐ε
Figure 5.14: Vectors of streamwise velocity components around the cube, along the
center section plane, for the k‐ε model variants. The flow separation at the windward
edge is enlarged and shown towards the right side in the figure.
87
Standard k‐ω
SST k‐ω
Figure 5.14 : Vectors of streamwise velocity components around the cube, along the
center section plane. The flow separation at the windward edge is enlarged and shown
towards the right side in the figure.
The features described above are important benchmarks for all turbulent
models applied to wind engineering flows, to assess the accuracy and capability
of the turbulence models. Fig. 5.14 shows vectors of streamwise velocity
component around the cube obtained during this work. All the models predict
the frontal base vortex as well as the separation bubble on the roof generated as
the result of flow separating from the windward edge of the roof. The RNG k‐ε
model results in a very different wake structure than the other four models, with
most of the flow near the leeward surface flowing downwards as opposed to
mostly upwards flow for other models. The structure of the roof separation
bubble and the wake recirculation zone can be estimated based on the
distribution of the wall shear stress shown in Fig. 5.15. All the models show a
88
continuous negative shear stress along the roof, which indicates that the flow
does not reattach on the roof. An interesting zone of positive shear stress
predicted by all the k‐ε models near the windward edge of the roof shows that
the k‐ε models produce excessive mixing near the frontal corner of the building
leading to inaccurate representation of the flow structure.
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
ref /2)
2
τ wall /( ρ u
0.001
0
SKE
RNG
-0.001
RKE
-0.002 SKW
SST
-0.003
0 5 10 15 20
x/h

Figure 5.15: Distribution of wall shear stress along the floor centerline behind the cube.
The lengths of the wake behind the cube as estimated based on the wall
shear stress distribution (Fig. 5.15) by all the models are shown in Table 5.1. The
results show that the wake centerline length is under‐predicted as compared to
the wind‐tunnel results [4]. The wake length predictions by the turbulent models
match more closely with the full scale data than the wind‐tunnel data. The
reason for the discrepancy in numerical results and the experimental
measurements might be the inaccurate prediction of the separation at the leading
edge on the roof with no reattachment predicted numerically. This might have
89
caused the shear layer to start at the leading edge and continue to the wake
region in case of the numerical models in contrast to the reattached flow in the
wind‐tunnel measurements making the shear layer, starting at the leeward edge
of the roof, thicker due to reattachment.
Table 5.1: Wake reattachment lengths for the numerical and experimental results
Approximate x/h (from leeward
face of the cube)
Standard k‐ε 1.8
RNG k‐ε 1.8
Realizable k‐ε 1.8
Standard k‐ω 1.7
SST k‐ω 1.85
Wind tunnel experiment [4] 3.5‐4.5
Full scale experiment [12] 1.4
The wake structure can be analyzed by studying the velocity profiles in
the wake region. Castro and Robins [4] recorded many measurements in the
recirculation zone to study the wake pattern. The numerical results are compared
with these published measurements as shown in Fig. 5.16.
90
3 3 3
Exp Exp Exp
SKE SKE SKE
2.8
RNG RNG RNG
RKE 2.5 RKE 2.5 RKE
2.6 SKW
SKW SKW
SST SST SST
2.4
2 2
2.2
1.5
y/h
2 1.5
y/h
y/h
1.8
1
1
91
1.6
1.4 0.5
0.5
1.2
0
1 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0
-0.3 -0.15 0 0.15 0.3 0.45 0.6 0.75 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
u/uref u/uref u/uref
(a.) x/h = 0 (b.) x/h = 1 (c.) x/h = 2
Figure 5.16: Profiles of the streamwise velocity in the recirculation zone behind the cube, plotted at different locations in
streamwise direction.
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
u/u ref
0.2
0.1 Exp
SKE
0 RNG
RKE
-0.1 SKW
SST
-0.2
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
z/h
(a.) y/h = 0.5, x/h = 0.75
0.5
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
u/u ref
0.25
0.2 Exp
0.15 SKE
RNG
0.1 RKE
0.05 SKW
SST
0
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
z/h
(b.) y/h = 0.5, x/h = 3
Figure 5.17: Profiles of the streamwise velocity in spanwise direction in the wake region
behind the cube.
92
Looking at the velocity profile on the roof, at the center of the cube (Fig.
5.16(a)), it can be noticed that the experimental results do not show negative
velocity components, while the numerical results have negative velocity
components in a region near the roof which is 10% of the cube height. Apart
from this, the numerical results are in acceptable agreement with the
experimental measurements, and interestingly the standard k‐ε model results are
closer to the experimental observations.
The wake produced with the RNG k‐ε model is thickest among all the
models (Figs. 5.17 (b, c)), with the velocities being more negative than the other
models. This is due to the modified production term in the transport equation of
ε for the RNG model, which reduces production and dissipation of the turbulent
kinetic energy in the highly strained flows, thus lowering the effective viscosity.
The distribution of the streamwise velocity in spanwise direction through
the wake region also shows good agreement between the experimental
measurements and the numerical results for x/h = 0.75 (Fig. 5.18(a)). The flow
reattaches approximately at x/h = 1.8 in the numerical results, while the
experimental measurements estimated the wake length of about x/h = 3.5 (Table
5.1). Due to this difference, the velocity profile at x/h = 3 in spanwise direction
shows some discrepancy (Fig. 5.18(b)). Also the abrupt changes in the velocity
profiles of the numerical results might be due to changes in the mesh density and
size of the elements resulted due to mesh adapting process.
5.2.7 The wind loading
Prediction of the wind loading is a prime goal of the field of bluff body
aerodynamics. The effect of wind flowing over the building is assessed in the
93
form of drag and lift forces acting on the building. Shear forces on sharp edged
buildings are negligible. The pressure force acting on the building surfaces is
calculated by,
F = −∑ ( P − Pref ) Ai (5.4)
i
The drag force is the effective force acting on the building in flow
direction, and is responsible to “drag” the building in the flow direction. This
force is the resultant of wind pressure on the windward and leeward faces of
building. The positive pressure due to stagnation of flow on the windward face
combines with the suction in the wake creating effective force on the building in
the flow direction.
Lift force is responsible for upward “lift” to the building, and acts on the
roof of the building. The high negative pressure or suction on the roof due to
flow acceleration over the building and/or separation occurring at the leading
edge of the roof causes an effective force in a vertically upward direction. Both
these forces are calculated based on the numerical results for each model, and are
non‐dimensionalized to find the force coefficients as,
F
Cf = (5.5)
1
ρ Auref
2
2
where A is the frontal area of the model. The resultant drag and lift coefficients
predicted by all five models are given in Table 5.2.
The RNG k‐ε model predicts highest drag and lowest lift, while the
standard k‐ε model predicts lowest drag and highest lift. This can be attributed
to the distribution of CP by these models. From Fig. 5.3(b, c) we can observe that
the RNG k‐ε model predicts high suction on the leeward face, while lowest
94
suction on the roof of the building, while the standard k‐ε predicts high suction
on the roof and lowest suction on the leeward surface, which results in the drag
and lift predictions as observed.
Table 5.2: Coefficients of drag and lift on the cube surfaces obtained with
different turbulence models.
CD CL
Standard k‐ε 0.72 0.71
RNG k‐ε 0.86 0.57
Realizable k‐ε 0.74 0.69
Standard k‐ω 0.75 0.67
SST k‐ω 0.8 0.66
Experiment [6] 0.78 0.5
The experimental values for CD and CL, based on the turbulence intensity
at building height ≈ 12%, are taken from Hunt [6]. The comparison of the
numerical results with experimental data shows good agreement for the drag
coefficient, but the lift coefficients are overpredicted, which might be due to
inaccurate prediction of the roof pressures by the turbulence models.
5.3 Discussion on Turbulence Models
Based on the analysis of the numerical results comparing with the
experimental measurements published by Castro and Robins [4], the general
observation about accuracy of different turbulence models when applied to flow
95
around cube can be made. The next section briefly discusses the each model and
its general behavior.
5.3.1 The Standard k‐ε Model
The standard k‐ε model, one of the most widely used turbulence models
in the CFD community has been tested for applications to the wind engineering
flows by many researchers e.g. Murakami et al [17, 18, 20], Easom [40], Richards
et al [41] etc. After extensive testing of this model and comparing it with
experiments, full scale and other models like LES, these researchers concluded
that it does not accurately predict the flow field around bluff bodies. Some
“features” of the standard k‐ε model like negative peak of surface pressure near
the windward edge of the roof was obtained in this study as well, but not all.
Fluent’s standard k‐ε model did a good job of predicting the small
recirculation zone at the base of windward surface of the cube. Also it did predict
a reversed flow on the roof of the cube unlike previous observations. [17, 18, 40]
Except for the negative peak in the roof pressure distribution, it was on par with
the distribution predicted by other four models. The turbulence kinetic energy at
the windward edge of roof was quite large compared to the other models, but so
was the dissipation rate. The strain rate and the turbulent viscosity predicted by
standard k‐ε were lower than the other models. In the wake region, the velocity
profiles given by the standard k‐ε were close to the experimental observations.
The drag force predicted by the standard k‐ε model is lower than the
experimental value, while due to the high negative pressures predicted, the lift is
very high compared to the experiment.
96
Thus overall the standard k‐ε model performed acceptably in many areas,
except some serious discrepancies in prediction of pressure on the cube surfaces,
which is one of the major causes for set back of this model in the application of
wind engineering flows.
5.3.2 The RNG k‐ε Model
The RNG k‐ε model is the modified form derived from the standard k‐ε
model using the statistical technique called renormalization group theory. It has
an additional term in the transport equation for ε which reportedly improves the
accuracy of the model for highly strained flows and swirling flows such as
existing near buildings. An analytically derived formula for effective viscosity
has also been added to the RNG k‐ε model which accounts for low‐Reynolds
number effects depending on the near wall treatment applied. [63] This model
has not been tested as widely as the standard k‐ε model for wind engineering
flows. Easom [40] and Richards et al [41] reported that the RNG k‐ε model
performs better than the standard k‐ε model, but is less accurate in predicting the
wake region.
Easom [40] also refers to the statement of Orzag, one of the originators of
the RNG model, made in his lecture that the reduction in the value of the
constant C2ε reduces the rate production of k and dissipation rate. Thus the model
actually predicts lower effective viscosity. This is evident from the results
obtained in this study as the RNG k‐ε model estimates the lowest values of k, ε
and µt. One of the important features of the RNG k‐ε model is the strain
dependant term present in the transport equation for ε. This term tweaks the
dissipation rate in highly strained areas of the flow, and reduces it in low
97
strained areas. It can be seen from the prediction of turbulent viscosity in the
wake region, where the dissipation rate is adjusted by the model in the high
strain rate area (Figs. 5.11(a, c)) reducing the turbulent viscosity (Fig. 5.9(a, c)).
Probably this term affects the calculations in the whole wake region, which
changes the pattern of the recirculating velocity vectors in the wake, making it
thicker than the wake predicted by other models.
The pressure distribution on the roof is quite inaccurate, however, and
predicts much lower pressures in the separation region close to the windward
edge. The pressure recovery occurs slowly and much less pressure recovery is
predicted in the streamwise direction when compared to the other models. Also
it predicts more negative pressures in the wake region compared to other models
and the wind‐tunnel results. The RNG k‐ε model, modified to improve
predictions in highly strained and swirling flows, does not perform better than
the standard k‐ε model; in fact it highly overpredicted drag compared to the
experimental value but the lift coefficient was in much better agreement with the
experiment compared to other models.
5.3.3 The Realizable k‐ε Model
One more variant of the k‐ε model which is available in the Fluent solver
is the realizable k‐ε model. It features a formulation of the turbulent viscosity
and a transport equation for ε derived from an exact equation for the transport of
the mean‐square vorticity fluctuation. This model is consistent with the physics
of the turbulent flows, satisfying some constraints on the Reynolds stresses, and
thus called “realizable.” [63]
98
With these modifications the realizable k‐ε performs better than the
standard k‐ε model and RNG k‐ε model, and is consistent with other models as
well. It predicts higher values of k in the stagnation and separation regions on
front, roof and side surfaces, while lowers the k values in the wake region behind
the cube. With the same trend for the dissipation rate, the realizable k‐ε model
predicts lowest strain rates and highest turbulent viscosities among the models
tested in this work. In the wake region the velocity profile predictions of
realizable k‐ε are in acceptable agreement with the experimental measurements.
Also the drag coefficient predicted by realizable k‐ε is close to the experimental
value while the lift coefficient is overpredicted.
Thus in comparison with the other models in this work, realizable k‐ε
model does a fairly good job in all areas.
5.3.4 The Standard k‐ω Model
Similar to the k‐ε model, the standard k‐ω model is a two‐equation model
based on the isotropic eddy viscosity concept. Instead of using the transport
equation for the turbulence dissipation rate ε, this model solves the transport
equation for the specific dissipation rate ω. Unlike the standard k‐ε model, this
model has not been tested extensively for applicability to the boundary layer
flows around bluff bodies.
In terms of the values of k predicted, this model falls midway among the
other four models. The dissipation rate ε in the standard k‐ω model also falls
nearly midway except in the wake region where it’s the lowest in all the models
tested. With higher strain rates in the wake regions, this model predicts higher
turbulent viscosities than the standard k‐ε and RNG k‐ε models. With overall
99
conservative predictions, this model does not do anything different in prediction
of the surface pressures. With a negative pressure zone indicating separation
near the windward edge of the roof, this model predicts faster pressure recovery
in the streamwise direction. In the region behind the cube this model also
predicts a thicker wake compared to the experiment, with velocity profile
deviating away from the experimental observation.
The standard k‐ω model has been tested and shows good performance in
variety of free shear flows, [60, 63] but fails to give more accurate results in the
turbulent flow around bluff bodies compared to the k‐ε models.
5.3.5 The Shear Stress Transport k‐ω Model
The blend of capability of the standard k‐ω model to handle low‐Reynolds
number effects, and the far‐field performance of the k‐ε model is the SST k‐ε
model. Transforming the k‐ε model in the formulation of k‐ω model, this model
multiplies both the formulations with a blending function which “activates” the
k‐ω model in the near wall region and uses the k‐ε model in the far field region.
It involves a modified definition of the turbulent viscosity in order to account for
the transport of the turbulent shear stresses. [63]
The SST k‐ω model has hardly been tested for the wind engineering flows.
Predicting the highest values of k in the wake region, this model also predicts
high values of ε the wake region, and lower on the roof and side surfaces.
Consistent with this trend it predicts high strain rates and turbulent viscosities in
the wake region. It also shows an interesting increase in the turbulent viscosity
towards leeward edges of roof and side surfaces. But all these results do not
affect the prediction of the surface pressure much, and this model does not do
100
any of a better job than the other models. The velocities in the recirculating
region in the wake are not in good agreement with experiments. The drag
coefficient predicted by the SST k‐ω model is slightly overpredicted while the lift
coefficient is highly overpredicted. Thus the predictions of SST k‐ω model also
show inaccuracy in comparison with the experimental results.
The analysis of different RANS based turbulence models in this work
reflects difficulties in numerical modeling and solution of the turbulent flows
around bluff bodies. One of the main reasons of failure of these models lies in the
basic isotropic eddy viscosity assumption. The flows encountered in wind
engineering are highly anisotropic, and turbulence models accounting for this
anisotropic behavior and solving the Reynolds stresses instead on modeling
them are gaining popularity in spite of high computational cost involved.
Nevertheless the results of the realizable k‐ε model were promising, and
the results of the tests performed on model 2 with this model are presented in the
following section.
In order to validate the numerical results for the experimental conditions
in the Texas Tech wind‐tunnel the models studied by Morse [67] were also
simulated using the RANS based turbulence models. Similar to the model 1, this
model was first tested for simulation of the equilibrium velocity profile. The
results of this simulation were more deviant from the inlet condition as
compared to the simulation for model 1. The increase in the velocity at the
building height was observed to be about 12‐15% (Fig. 5.19).
101
1
0.9 Inlet Profile

Wall functions
0.8
0.7
y/H 0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u/umax
1
Inlet Profile
0.9 Wall functions
0.8
0.7
0.6
y/H
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
TI
Figure 5.18: Profiles of the mean velocity and turbulence intensity at the inlet boundary
and object location for the Texas Tech wind tunnel model
102
Due to this high acceleration it was decided to implement Durbin’s rough
wall formulation in Fluent. The description about Durbin’s model and its
implementation and the analysis for model 2 is given in following sections.
5.4 Rough wall modification
To rectify the problem with generation of an equilibrium velocity profile,
one of the major causes of differences between experiments and numerical
results, the rough‐wall modification proposed by Durbin et al [58] was
implemented through a user defined function using Fluent in; its enhanced wall
treatment approach.
5.4.1 Description of the model
The detailed description of the enhanced wall functions, which use two‐
layer modeling approach, is given in section 4.4.6. Since the effect of roughness is
to disrupt the viscous sublayer, Durbin et al [58] proposed modification in two‐
layer approach to model the flow changes in near‐wall region.
Due to roughness on the wall, the boundary layer “shifts”, and the
effective origin where the mean velocity u = 0, changes to y = ‐y0 instead of y = 0,
and the distances from the wall change to yeff = y + y0. This shifted origin, y0 is
referred as the hydrodynamic roughness length. Just the modification in yeff does
not account for the entire effect of roughness, and the damping functions in the
form of the van Driest length scales need to be reduced. Since the constant Aε is
small, the effect of lε is negligible under fully rough conditions, but the constant
Aµ is not negligible, and should be changed with roughness. This is achieved
using the simple linear interpolation,
103
Aµ = max[1, 62.5(1 − r+ / 90)] (5.6)
Where, r+ = ru*/ν and r is the geometric roughness length, and the flow is said to
be fully rough when r+ > 90. Also due to shift of origin for the mean velocity, the
boundary condition of k is affected and is formulated as,
u*2 ⎡ ⎛ r+ ⎞ 2 ⎤
k ( y = 0) = min ⎢1, ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ (5.7)
Cµ ⎢⎣ ⎝ 90 ⎠ ⎦⎥
The surface stress is defined by the formula,
∂u
u*2 = (ν +ν t ) (5.8)
∂y 0
The relation between the hydrodynamic roughness and the geometric
roughness is obtained by curve fitting to the plot between y0+ and r+, shown in
Fig. 5.20 as given in Durbin et al [58]. This formulation was implemented in
Fluent using a user defined function (UDF) in the form of a C program, which
appears in the appendices A and B.
5
Refernce Data [58]
4.5
Curve fit
4
3.5
3
y0 +
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
0 50 100 150 200
r+

Figure 5.19: Relation between the non‐dimensional geometric and hydrodynamic
roughness lengths.
104
5.4.2 Test cases for rough wall formulation
Performance of Durbin’s rough wall formulation was tested on 2D and 3D
models. The first modeled case used was for turbulent flow through a rough
pipe, and compared to measurements from Nikuradse [70]. The pipe flow was
modeled using a two‐dimensional axisymmetric of unit radius. This test case was
intended to study development of a fully developed boundary layer for a
Reynolds number of 106 and a non‐dimensional roughness value of R/r = 507 [70]
was used, where r is the geometric roughness height, and R is the radius of pipe.
Fig. 5.21 shows the fully developed velocity profiles of Durbin’s model and
Fluent’s default wall functions.
1
Experim ent
0.9
Durbin Model
0.8
Wall Functions
0.7
0.6
0.5
r/R
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u/u o

Figure 5.20: Equilibrium velocity profile in rough pipe flow. Comparison of results
obtained using Durbin’s model and Fluent’s default wall functions approach with the
experimental data of Nikuradse [70]
Fluent’s rough wall function does not give an acceptable prediction of the
velocity profile as the flow shows acceleration close to the wall boundary results.
The velocity profile using Durbin’s model shows considerable improvement,
105
though it too is too smooth, but performs significantly better than the rough law
of the wall for this test case.
Figure 5.21: Mesh and geometry of the model for backward facing step flow
To study the behavior of the model in presence of separating and
recirculation flow, another 2D model, that of a backward facing step was used.
The geometry and the grid for the backward facing step model, based on
experimental setup of Kim and Chung [71], is shown in Fig. 5.22.
It can be seen in Fig. 5.23 that the rough law of the wall does a poor job in
predicting the velocity profile in a recirculating flow region and overpredicts the
axial velocity magnitude. Durbin’s rough wall model predicts the velocity profile
fairly well, although it underpredicts the magnitude in the recirculating region.
The separated flow reattaches fast to the floor for the rough law of the wall
model and too slow for Durbin’s model when compared to Kim and Chung’s
data, as observed during the experiment, but reattachment length predicted was
very low in case of wall functions, while it was very long for Durbin’s model.
The experimental results plotted in Fig. 5.23 are based on approximate scaling of
the published results may show some deviations from actual measurements.
106
1 1
Experiment
0.8 0.8 W all Function
Durbin's model
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
y/h
y/h
0 0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
Experiment
-0.8 W all Function -0.8
Durbin's model
-1 -1
u/uo u/uo

x/h = 2 x/h = 4
1 1
Experiment Experiment
W all Function W all Function
0.8 0.8
Durbin's model Durbin's model
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
y/h
0
y/h
0
-0.5 0 0.5 1 -0.5 0 0.5 1
-0.2 -0.2
-0.4 -0.4
-0.6 -0.6
-0.8 -0.8
-1 -1
u/uo u/uo

x/h = 6 x/h = 8

Figure 5.22: Velocity distribution in the recirculating flow over a backward facing step.
The experimental results are taken from Kim and Chung [71].
107
1
Inlet
0.9 Wall functions
Durbin model
0.8
0.7
0.6
y/H
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
u/umax
1
Inlet
0.9 Wall functions
Durbin model
0.8
0.7
0.6
y/H
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
TI
Figure 5.23: Velocity and turbulence intensity profiles at the object location, in the empty
wind tunnel section
108
The original observation leading to implementation of Durbin’s model
was that the wall functions approach in Fluent fails to accurately estimate the
effects of rough wall on the mean flow variables, the flow in an empty wind
tunnel section i.e. wind tunnel without obstacle, was simulated using Durbin’s
model. The wind tunnel section geometry was same as that used in Section 5.1,
but with symmetry boundary condition imposed on the top boundary of the
wind tunnel. The results of this simulation are shown in Fig. 5.24. Though both
Durbin’s rough wall formulation and Fluent’s rough wall functions approach
simulated the equilibrium boundary layer well (Fig. 5.26(top)), Durbin’s model
predictions were slightly better than the rough law of the wall. Looking at the
profiles of turbulence intensity predicted (Fig. 5.26(bottom)); both the approaches
overpredict the turbulence intensity near the wall.
The numerical models impose the zero turbulence intensity boundary
condition at the wall. Durbin’s model resolves the profile from the wall thus
maintaining a smooth profile throughout the domain, which is a better
representation of the turbulence intensity distribution. Fluent’s rough‐wall
functions do not resolve the profile to the wall, thus showing a small peak near
y/H = 0.02.
Durbin’s model will be included in the simulations of the experiment by
Morse [67], referred to as model 2.
5.5 Results for model 2
5.5.1 Distribution of surface pressure
Though all the models were tested the model 2 geometry, only the results
for the realizable k‐ε model are presented as they were deemed best. The results
109
obtained appearing in figs. 5.26 and 5.27 are plotted along the surface centerlines
shown in fig. 5.25. The Reynolds number based on model height was about
18,000 for this test case.

(a) (b)
Figure 5.24: Centerlines on the surfaces of model 2 used for analysis of the results in (a)
streamwise direction (b) spanwise direction
The pressure coefficients were calculated based on the formula given in
Eq. 5.1. The numerical results obtained with the rough wall formulation are
highly over‐predicted on the windward surface (Fig. 5.26(a) and 5.27 (ah)). The
reason for this over‐prediction of pressures might be the acceleration in the
velocity profiles in the wind tunnel section in streamwise direction. With
application of Durbin’s model the pressure distribution is in very good
agreement with the experimental measurements. The roof pressure distribution
is very well predicted by the realizable k‐ε model with wall functions approach
but Durbin’s model predicts much faster pressure recovery on the roof,
compared to the wall functions approach (Fig. 5.26(b)). Both the models predict
the pressure recovery well towards the leeward side of the roof.
110
1 0
0.9 -0.2
0.8 -0.4
0.7 -0.6
0.6 -0.8
0.5 -1
Cp
y/h
0.4 -1.2
0.3 -1.4
0.2 Exp -1.6 Exp
0.1 Durbin model -1.8 Durbin model
Wall functions Wall functions
0 -2
-0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Cp x/h
1 1
Exp
111
0.9 0.9 Durbin model
0.8 0.8 Wall functions
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 Exp 0.2
0.1 Durbin model 0.1
Wall functions
0 0
-0.4 -0.35 -0.3 -0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
Cp Cp
Figure 5.25: Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the streamwise centerline of semi‐cube faces;
2 0
Exp
-0.05 Durbin model
1.5 Wall functions
-0.1

-0.15
1
-0.2
0.5
Cp
-0.25
Cp
-0.3
0
-0.35
-0.5 Exp -0.4

Durbin model -0.45
Wall functions
-1 -0.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
z/h x/h
0 0.1
Exp

Durbin model -0.1
112
-0.05 Wall functions
-0.3
-0.5
-0.1
-0.7
Cp
Cp
-0.15
-0.9
-1.1
-0.2
Exp
-1.3 Durbin model
Wall functions
-0.25 -1.5
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
z/h z/h
Figure 5.26: Distribution of surface pressure coefficients along the spanwise centerline of semi‐cube faces;
The pressure distribution in the wake region is similar for both the
approaches, and they overpredict the pressure at the leeward surface which is of
the same magnitude as the experimental observations (Fig. 5.27 (ch)). The wall
functions approach predicts much lower pressures towards the bottom of the
leeward surface (Fig. 5.26 (c.)). Durbin’s model does a good job in prediction of
the pressure distribution on the side surface, compared to the wall functions
approach which predicts higher suction (Fig. 5.26(d) and 5.27(dh.)).
Overall prediction of the realizable k‐ε model with both the wall functions
approach, and with implementation of Durbin’s rough wall formulation appears
good except for the windward face. Durbin’s model predicts the pressures on the
windward face very well, as well as the pressure distribution on the other faces.
To further analyze Durbin’s model different flow parameters were analyzed as
follows, similar to those for model 1.
5.5.2 Distribution of turbulent kinetic energy
The distribution of turbulent kinetic energy, non‐dimensionalized by u2ref,
along the surface centerlines is as shown in Figs. 5.28 and 5.29. Because the two‐
equation model used for analysis is the realizable k‐ε model, the general trend of
distribution of k is expected to be similar for both approaches. The wall‐functions
approach predicts higher values of k compared to those predicted by Durbin’s
formulation. Interestingly the two approaches predict similar k on the windward
face of the model (Figs. 5.28(a) and 5.29(a)), but they show some differences in
the distribution predicted on roof, side and leeward surfaces.
113
1 0.18
Wall functions

0.9 0.16 Durbin model
0.8 0.14
0.7
0.12
0.6
0.1
ref
2
0.5
y/h
k/u
0.08
0.4
0.06
0.3
0.2 0.04
0.1 Wall functions 0.02

Durbin model
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
2
k/u ref x/h
1 1
0.9 0.9
114
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 Wall functions 0.1 Wall functions

Durbin model Durbin model
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
2 2
k/u ref k/u ref
Figure 5.27: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence kinetic energy along the streamwise centerline of
semi‐cube faces; centerlines are located as shown in fig. 5.25
0.14 0.05
0.045
0.12
0.04

0.1 0.035
0.03
0.08
ref
ref
2
2
0.025
k/u
k/u
0.06
0.02
0.04 0.015
0.01
0.02 Wall functions Wall functions
0.005
0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
z/h z/h
0.014 0.14
Wall functions
Durbin model
115
0.012 0.12
0.01 0.1
0.008 0.08
ref
ref
2
2
k/u
k/u
0.006 0.06
0.004 0.04
0.002 0.02
Wall functions
Durbin model
0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x/h x/h
Figure 5.28: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent kinetic energy along the spanwise centerline of semi‐
Similar to model 1, the areas of flow separation and recirculation, like the
windward and leeward edges of roof (Figs. 5.28(c.) and 5.29 (ch)), have higher
turbulent kinetic energy, where the high shear present in the flow causes the
production term to dominate. The kinetic energy is fairly constant on the roof
(Fig. 5.28(bh)) indicating that flow is nearly steady flow in spanwise direction. A
little high values of k are present near the central portion of the leeward face
(Figs. 5.28(c.) and 5.29(ch)), probably due to the change in the direction of flow in
the wake region. Also the magnitude of the turbulence kinetic energy predicted
on the leeward surface is very small compared to the distribution on the other
surfaces of the model.
A high value of k is predicted by the wall‐functions approach at y/h = 0.3 ~
0.4 on side surface (Fig. 5.28 (d)). This is probably due to higher velocity
gradients present in the flow due to the recirculation on the side, generating
more suction in this zone (Fig. 5.26(d)).
5.5.3 Distribution of turbulence dissipation rate
The turbulence dissipation rate balances the production of turbulent
kinetic energy for the turbulence models based on RANS modeling approach to
describe homogeneous turbulence. The distribution predicted by the realizable k‐
ε model over the surface centerlines for model 2 indicates that, as the trends for
distribution of ε match with the distribution of k for almost all the surfaces. The
wall functions approach predicts higher dissipation rate compared to Durbin’s
formulation.
116
1 6
Wall functions
0.9
Durbin model
5
0.8
0.7
4
0.6
4
0.5 3
y/h
εν /uτ
0.4
2
0.3
0.2
1
0.1 Wall functions
Durbin model
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
4
ε ν /u τ x/h
1 1
0.9 0.9
117
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
4 4
ε ν /u τ ε ν /u τ
Figure 5.29: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate along the streamwise centerline of
6 1
Wall functions
0.9
Durbin model
5
0.8
0.7
4
0.6
4
4
3 0.5
εν /uτ
εν /uτ
0.4
2
0.3
0.2
1
Wall functions
0.1
Durbin model
0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
z/h z/h
0.12 6

0.1 5
118
0.08 4
4
4
0.06 3
εν /uτ
εν /uτ
0.04 2
0.02 1
0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x/h x/h
Figure 5.30: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulence dissipation rate along the spanwise centerline of
Higher dissipation is predicted in the separation region near the
windward edges of all surfaces (Figs. 5.30(a, b) and 5.31(d)). Similar to the
distribution of k, higher dissipation is observed on the central portion of the
leeward face (Figs. 5.30(c.) and 5.31 (ch.)) and the side surfaces (Figs. 5.30 (d)).
Also the magnitude of the dissipation rate values predicted on the leeward face
(Figs. 5.30(c.) and 5.31 (ch.)) is much smaller than the dissipation rate over other
model surfaces, which was also observed in case of model 1. This distribution
might be indicative that the shear present in the wake region for both models, 1
and 2, is of small magnitude than the shear and turbulent mixing present in the
separation regions along the windward edges of all surfaces, and top edges of
the side surfaces.
Interestingly lower dissipation is observed near the side edges of the roof (Fig.
5.31(bh)) where the turbulent kinetic energy is high (Fig. 5.29(bh)), and also a
different distribution of ε and k are predicted by the wall functions approach in
the area of maximum pressure on the windward surface (Figs. 5.28(a) and
5.30(a)).
5.5.4 Distribution of turbulent viscosity
Turbulent viscosity is an important term in the turbulence models, as it
models the Reynolds stresses in the flow, and attains closure to the transport
equations for k and ε. It depends on both these parameters, and affects the energy
diffusion in the turbulent flow. The predicted turbulent viscosity, µt is lower for
the Durbin’s model and higher for the wall functions approach everywhere
except the region of maximum pressure on the windward surface of the model
(Fig. 5.32(a)).
119
1 120
Wall functions
0.9
Durbin model
100
0.8
0.7
80
0.6
0.5 60
y/h
µt / µ
0.4
40
0.3
0.2
20
0.1 Wall functions
Durbin model
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
µt / µ x/h
1 1
0.9 0.9
120
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
µt / µ µt / µ
Figure 5.31: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity along the streamwise centerline of semi‐
80 80

70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
µt / µ
µt / µ
30 30
20 20
10 Wall functions 10 Wall functions

0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
z/h z/h
45 80
Wall functions
40 70 Durbin model
121
35
60
30
50
25
40
µt / µ
µt / µ
20
30
15
20
10
5 Wall functions 10
Durbin model
0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x/h x/h
Figure 5.32: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized turbulent viscosity along the spanwise centerline of semi‐
The turbulent kinetic energy in the region of maximum pressure is smaller
for the rough wall functions as compared to that predicted by Durbin’s model,
while the dissipation rate is higher. This imbalance mainly in the values of
production and dissipation causes sharp transition in the value of turbulent
viscosity (Fig. 5.32(a)). Similar sharp changes in the distribution of turbulent
viscosity can also be observed in the higher k regions on the side surface (Fig.
5.32(d)) and leeward surface (Fig. 5.32(c.)).
Lower turbulent viscosity is predicted by Durbin’s model on the side
surface (Fig. 5.32 (d) and 5.33 (dh)) and the leeward face (Fig. 5.33 (ch)), which is
probably due to ability of two‐layer formulation to better resolve the near wall
area compared to the wall functions approach. Also a sharp transition in the
distribution of µt is present near the leeward edge of the side surfaces (Fig. 5.33
(dh)) unlike the area near the leeward edge on the roof (Fig. 5.32 (dh)). This is
probably due to the mixing of flow in the side vortex and free stream.
5.5.5 Distribution of the strain rate
Strain rate is related to the anisotropic behavior of the turbulent flow, and
thus becomes an important parameter in the turbulence modeling. The RNG k‐ε
model and realizable k‐ε model have strain‐dependant terms (Eqs. 3.22, 3.26) in
the transport equation for dissipation rate, which adjust turbulent dissipation
based on the strain in the flow. Durbin’s model predicts higher strain rate in all
areas of the model except the separation occurring at the windward edges (Figs.
5.34(b) and 5.35(dh)).
122
1 1.6
0.9
Durbin model 1.4 Durbin model
0.8
1.2
0.7
1
0.6
η
0.5 0.8
y/h
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
η x/h
1 1
Wall functions
0.9 0.9
Durbin model
123
0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
y/h
y/h
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 Wall functions

Durbin model
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
η η
Figure 5.33: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the streamwise centerline of semi‐cube
faces; centerlines are located as shown in fig. 5.25
0.8 0.9
0.7 0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
η
η
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2

0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
z/h z/h
2.5 2
Durbin model 1.8 Durbin model
124
2 1.6
1.4
1.5 1.2
η
η
1 0.8
0.6
0.5 0.4
0.2
0 0
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
x/h x/h
Figure 5.34: Distribution of non‐dimensionalized strain rate along the spanwise centerline of semi‐cube faces;
The higher strain rate tweaks the dissipation rate effectively reducing the
turbulent viscosities. The interestingly high strain rate predicted by the wall‐
functions approach (Figs. 5.34(b) and 5.35(dh)), cause a reduction in the turbulent
viscosities thus overprediction of the negative pressure peaks at the windward
edge (Figs. 5.26(b) and 5.27(dh)).
Overall predictions of the realizable k‐ε model agree well with the
experimental measurements of surface pressures for model 2. The wall‐functions
approach showed acceleration near the wind tunnel floor that was probably the
cause for overprediction of the pressure coefficients on the windward face of
model 2. Implementation of Durbin’s formulation was successful, and the overall
predictions using this model show good agreement with the experimental data,
though more experimental data would better test the model’s predictions.
125
CHAPTER VI
6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This project was primarily focused on the analysis of different RANS
based turbulence model applied to the bluff body flows encountered in the wind
engineering field. During the analysis, the shortcoming of the standard wall
functions approach, used to model the near wall flow, in the two equation
turbulence models were encountered. This approach was unable to accurately
reproduce the equilibrium boundary layer velocity profile, influencing the use of
the rough wall modification for the two‐layer modeling approach as proposed by
Durbin et al [58].
The turbulence models based on the RANS approach with an isotropic
eddy viscosity concept were applied to the flow over a cubical obstacle, and the
results were compared with the experimental measurements of Castro and
Robins [4]. These results are not in good agreement with the experimental
observations and thus fail to accurately model the flow around bluff bodies. One
of the reasons for this discrepancy is the use of the isotropic eddy viscosity
concept, which fails to model highly anisotropic flow properties encountered in
these situations.
The turbulence models did not predict the separation bubble and
reattachment on the roof, which causes overprediction of turbulence kinetic
energies in the areas with high velocity gradients like the flow near the leading
edge of the roof and side surfaces. This overprediction is not adequately
balanced with dissipation of turbulence resulting in inaccurate prediction of the
turbulent viscosity, which is comparatively low on the windward face and high
126
in the separation and recirculation regions. This, in turn, causes nigh suction
pressures on roof and sides and only shows good agreement with the
experimental data on the windward face.
Overall performance of the realizable k‐ε model was consistent and better
than the other four models. The RNG k‐ε model predicted the highest drag and
lowest lift on the building model, while the standard k‐ε model predicted the
lowest drag and highest lift on the building.
All the models were also analyzed for the flow over a semi‐cubicle model
and the results were compared with the experimental observations made by
Morse [67]. The behavior and results of all the turbulence models were similar to
that of the cubical model. The realizable k‐ε model produces better results and
the standard k‐ω model predictions were most deviated. The agreement between
the numerical results and the experimental data was good except the pressure
distribution on the windward surface. These results were affected by the
acceleration of the flow near the bottom of the wind tunnel, when used with the
wall functions approach. This problem was also present in the cubical model on
the lower part of the windward face.
The two layer rough wall modification of Durbin was implemented in
Fluent using the user defined function. The model was tested for variety of flow
situations. The model outperformed Fluent’s wall functions approach in case of
the 2D pipe flow and the 3D wind tunnel flow without obstacle.
The 2D model of backward facing step was used to assess the applicability
of Durbin’s model to the recirculating flows. The numerical results obtained
using the realizable k‐ε model with wall functions and Durbin’s model were not
in good agreement with the experimental results. Fluent’s wall function
127
approach caused overprediction of the velocities while Durbin’s model
underpredicted them. It was concluded that Durbin’s model works satisfactorily
and better than the wall functions approach in the recirculating flows.
The application of Durbin’s model for the wind‐tunnel tests of Morse [67]
was successful. This formulation greatly reduced the inaccuracy in prediction of
the windward face surface distribution, while maintaining and enhancing the
agreement of the surface pressures for the other surface of the model. Thus the
two‐layer formulation with modification for the effects of surface roughness is
necessary for accurately resolving the near‐wall flow affected by the roughness,
and its effects on the complete flow structure.
Based on the analysis carried out in this project, the following
recommendations are made for future work.
1. The isotropic eddy viscosity relation should be modified to non‐linear
relationship, which will be able to model the anisotropic nature of the
turbulent flows. Models like Reynolds Stress Model (RSM) and other non‐
linear models should be developed and used for calculations.
2. The two‐layer modeling approach with rough wall modification like that
of Durbin et al [58] should be further tested, since it underpredicted
velocities in backward facing step flow and needs to be modified for the
recirculating flows to further improve the accuracy of the predictions.
3. The flows around cubicle obstacles have been studied. The agreement of
the numerical results obtained using realizable k‐ε model with Durbin’s
modified two‐layer formulation with the experimental data was good.
This model can be used to study different obstacle geometries placed in
128
the simulated atmospheric boundary layer, to study the wind loading and
flow structure around different bodies.
129
REFERENCES
[1] Stathopoulos T., “Computational wind engineering: Past achievements

and future challenges”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 67 & 68 (1997), pp. 509‐532

[2] Murakami S., “Current status and future trends in computational wind
engineering”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67 &
68 (1997), pp. 3‐34

[3] Baines W.D., “Effects of velocity distribution on wind loads and flow
patterns on buildings”, Proceedings of Symposium No. 16 Wind Effects on
Buildings and Structures, June 26‐28, 1963, NPL, UK, Vol. 1, pp. 197‐225

[4] Castro I.P., Robins A.G., “The flow around a surface‐mounted cube in
uniform and turbulent streams”, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 79, part 2
(1977), pp. 307‐335

[5] Sakamoto H., Arie M., “Flow around a cubic body immersed in a
turbulent boundary layer”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 9 (1982), pp. 275‐293

[6] Hunt A., “Wind‐tunnel measurements of surface pressures on cubic
building models at several scales”, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 10 (1982), pp. 137‐163

[7] Ogawa Y., Oikawa S., Uehara K., “Field and wind tunnel study of the flow
and diffusion around a model cube – I. Flow measurements”,
Atmospheric Environment, Vol. 17, No. 6 (1983), pp. 1145‐1159

[8] Martinuzzi R., Tropea C., “The flow around surface‐mounted, prismatic
obstacles placed in a fully developed channel flow”, Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol. 115 (1993), pp. 85‐92

[9] Mertzger M.M., Klewicki J.C., “Turbulent boundary layer interaction with
a surface mounted cube”, Proceedings of the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering
130
Division Summer Meeting FEDSM’97, June 22‐26, 1997, Vancouver, Canada,
Vol. 14, pp. 1‐8

[10] Hölscher N., Niemann H., “Towards quality accurance for wind tunnel
tests: A comparative testing program of the Windtechnologische
Gesellschaft”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 74‐
76 (1998), pp. 599‐608

[11] Richards P.J., Hoxey R.P., Short L.J., “Wind pressures on a 6 m cube”,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 89 (2001), pp. 1553‐
1564

[12] Richards P.J., Hoxey R.P., Short L.J., “A 6 m cube in an atmospheric
boundary layer flow Part 1. Full‐scale and wind tunnel results”, Wind and
Structures, Vol. 5, No. 2~4 (2002), pp. 165‐176

[13] Richards P.J., “Computational modeling of wind flow around low‐rise
buildings using PHOENICS”, Divisional Note No. DN 1508, Buildings &
Livestock Division, AFRC Institute of Engineering Research, Silsoe, UK
(1989)

[14] Baetke F., Werner H., “Numerical simulation of turbulent flow over
surface‐mounted obstacles with sharp edges and corners”, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 35 (1990), pp. 129‐147

[15] Paterson D.A., Apelt C.J., “Simulation of flow past a cube in a turbulent
boundary layer”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
35 (1990), pp. 149‐176

[16] Basara B., Younis B., “Progress in the prediction of turbulent wind loading
on buildings”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 41‐
44 (1992), pp. 2863‐2874

[17] Murakami S., Mochida A., Hayashi Y., “Examining the k‐ε model by
means of a wind tunnel test and large‐eddy simulation of the turbulence
structure around a cube”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 35 (1990), pp. 87‐100
131

[18] Murakami S., Mochida A., Hayashi Y., Sakamoto S., “Numerical study on
velocity‐pressure field and wind forces for bluff bodies by k‐ε, ASM and
LES”, ”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 41‐44
(1992), pp. 2841‐2852

[19] Murakami S., “Comparison of various turbulence models applied to a
bluff body”, ”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐
47 (1993), pp. 21‐36

[20] Murakami S., Mochida A., Ooka R., Kato S., Iizuka S., “Numerical
prediction of flow around a building with various turbulence models:
Comparison of k‐ε EVM, ASM, DSM, and LES with wind tunnel tests”,
ASHRAE Transactions, Vol. 102, No. 1 (1996), pp. 741‐753

[21] Murakami S., “Current status and future trends in computational wind
engineering”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67 &
68 (1997), pp. 3‐34

[22] Tsuchiya M., Murakami S., Mochida A., Kondo K., Ishida Y.,
“Development of a new k‐ε model for flow and pressure fields around
bluff body”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67 &
68 (1997), pp. 169‐182

[23] Mochida A., Shirasawa T., Yoshino H., Murakami S., Tominaga Y., “CFD
analysis of flow around a cube using revised k‐ε model based on mixed
time scale concept”, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, June 2‐5, 2003, Lubbock, TX, Vol. 1., pp. 1149‐1156

[24] Rodi W., “On the simulation of turbulent flow past bluff bodies”, Journal of
Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐47 (1993), pp. 3‐20

[25] Leschziner M.A., “Computational modeling of complex turbulent flow –
expectations, reality and prospects”, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐47 (1993), pp. 37‐52

132
[26] Laurence D., “Modeling flows around bluff bodies by Reynolds averaged
transport equations”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial
Aerodynamics, 46‐47 (1993), pp. 53‐68

[27] Abe K., Nagano Y., Kondoh T., “Numerical prediction of separating and
reattaching flows with a modified low‐Reynolds number k‐ε model”,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐47 (1993), pp.
85‐94

[28] Zhang Y.Q., Huber A.H., Arya S.P.S., Snyder W.H., “Numerical
simulation to determine the effects of incident wind shear and turbulence
level on the flow around a building”, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐47 (1993), pp. 129‐134

[29] Richards P.J., Hoxey R.P., “Appropriate boundary conditions for
computational wind engineering models using the k‐ε turbulence model”,
Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐47 (1993), pp.
145‐154

[30] Frank W., Mauch H., “Large‐eddy‐simulation of the flow around building
models”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐47
(1993), pp. 213‐218

[31] Stathopoulos T., Zhou Y.S., “Numerical simulation of wind‐induced
pressures on buildings of various geometries”, Journal of Wind Engineering
and Industrial Aerodynamics, 46‐47 (1993), pp. 419‐430

[32] Delaunay D., Lakehal D., Pierrat D., “Numerical approach for wind loads
prediction on buildings and structures”, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, 57 (1995), pp. 307‐321

[33] Hoxey R.P., Robertson A.P., Basara B. and Younis B.A., “Geometric
parameters that affect wind loads on low rise buildings: full‐scale and
CFD experiments”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,
50 (1995), pp. 243‐252

133
[34] Qasim A.M., “Numerical predictions of fluid flow around a low rise
building”, Ph.D. Dissertation in Mechanical Engineering, (1995), Texas Tech
University, Lubbock, TX.

[35] Rodi W., “Comparison of LES and RANS calculations of the flow around
bluff bodies”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 69‐71
(1997), pp. 55‐75

[36] Yu D., Kareem A., “Numerical simulation of flow around rectangular
prism”, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67 & 68
(1997), pp. 195‐208

[37] Shah K.B., Ferziger J.H., “A fluid mechanicians view of wind engineering:
Large eddy simulation of flow past a cubic surface”, Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 67 & 68 (1997), pp. 211‐224

[38] Brzoska M.A., Stock D.E., Lamb B.K., “Comparative study of flow about
steps and buildings”, Proceedings of the 1997 ASME Fluids Engineering
Division Summer Meeting FEDSM’97, June 22‐26, 1997, Vancouver, Canada,
Vol. 14

[39] Wright N.G., Easom G.J., “Comparison of several computational
turbulence models with full‐scale measurements of flow around a
building”, Wind and Structures, Vol. 2, No. 4, (1999) pp. 305‐323

[40] Easom G.J., “Improved turbulence models for computational wind
engineering”, Ph.D. Thesis in Civil Engineering, (2000), The University of
Nottingham, UK.

[41] Richards R.J., Quinn A.D., “A 6 m cube in an atmospheric boundary layer
Part 2. Computational solutions”, Wind and Structures, Vol. 5, No. 2~4,
(2002), pp. 177‐192

[42] Knapp G., Wright N., Owen J., “Comparison of full scale and CFD results
for the Silsoe 6 m cube”, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on
Wind Engineering, June 2‐5, 2003, Lubbock, TX, Vol. 1., pp. 163‐170

134
[43] Chikamatsu S., Nozawa K., Tamura T., “Large eddy simulation of
turbulent flows and pressures on a cube in an artificial wind”, Proceedings
of the 11th International Conference on Wind Engineering, June 2‐5, 2003,
Lubbock, TX, Vol. 1., pp. 195‐202

[44] Qiu Y., Zhy W., Yang H., “Numerical simulations of flow field around
building”, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Wind
Engineering, June 2‐5, 2003, Lubbock, TX, Vol. 1., pp. 1157‐1166

[45] Raupach M.R., Antonia R.A., Rajagopalan S., “Rough‐wall turbulent
boundary layers”, Applied Mechanics Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, (1991), pp. 1‐25

[46] Smalley R.J., Antonia R.A., Djenidi L., “Self‐preservation of rough‐wall
turbulent boundary layers”, European Journal of Mechanics – B/Fluids, Vol.
20, No. 5, (2001), pp. 591‐602

[47] Krogstad P.‐Å., Antonia R.A., “Surface roughness effects in turbulent
boundary layers”, Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 27, (1999), pp. 450‐460

[48] Antonia R.A., Krogstad P.‐Å., “Turbulence structure in boundary layers
over different types of surface roughness”, Fluid Dynamics Research, Vol.
28, (2001), pp. 139‐157

[49] Smalley R.J., Leonardi S., Antonia R.A., Djenidi L., Orlandi P., “Reynolds
stress anisotropy of turbulent rough wall layers”, Experiments in Fluids,
Vol. 33, (2002), pp. 31‐37

[50] Rodi W., “Experience with two‐layer models combining the k‐ε model
with one‐equation model near the wall”, AIAA‐91‐0216, 29th Aerospace
Science Meeting, January 7‐10, 1991, Reno, Nevada

[51] Speziale C.G., Abid R., Anderson E.C., “Critical evaluation of two‐
equation models for near‐wall turbulence”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2,
(1992), pp. 324‐331

135
[52] Zhang H., Faghri M., White F.M., “A new low‐Reynolds number k‐ε
model for turbulent flow over smooth and rough surfaces”, Journal of
Fluids Engineering, Vol. 118, (1996), pp. 255‐259

[53] Utnes T., Meling T.S., “Treatment of turbulent wall boundary conditions
using linear‐logarithmic elements”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, Vol. 169, (1999), pp. 123‐134

[54] Avelino M.R., Silva Freire A.P., Kakaҫ S., “Numerical study of turbulent
flow subjected to sudden changes in wall temperature and roughness”,
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computational Heat and Mass
Transfer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, October 22‐26, 2001

[55] Miyake Y., Tsujimoto K., Agata Y., “A DNS of a turbulent flow in a rough‐
wall channel using roughness elements model”, Japanese Society of
Mechanical Engineers International Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, (1999), pp. 233‐242

[56] Miyake Y., Tsujimoto K., Nakaji M., “Direct numerical simulation of
rough‐wall heat transfer in a turbulent channel flow”, International Journal
of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 22, (2001), pp. 237‐244

[57] Lakehal D., Rodi W., “Calculation of the flow past a surface‐mounted cube
with two‐layer turbulence models”, Journal of Wind Engineering and
Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 67 & 68, (1997), pp. 65‐78

[58] Durbin P.A., Medic G., Seo J.‐M., Eaton J.K., Song S., “Rough wall
modification of two‐layer k‐ε”, Transactions of the ASME, Vol. 123, (2001),
pp. 16‐21

[59] Launder B.E., Spalding D.B., “The numerical computation of turbulent
flows”, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 3,
(1974), pp. 269‐289

[60] Wilcox D.C., Turbulence Modeling for CFD, Second Edition, DCW Industries,
Inc., (2002)

136
[61] Schlichting H., Boundary Layer Theory, Sixth Edition, McGraw Hill
Company, (1968)

[62] Versteeg H.K., Malalasekera W., An Introduction to Computational Fluid
Dynamics ‐ The Finite Volume Method, Prentice Hall, (1995)

[63] Fluent 6 Users Guide, Fluent Inc., (2001)

[64] Yakhot V., Orszag S.A., “Renormalization group analysis of turbulence, I ‐
Basic Theory”, Journal of Scientific Computing, Vol. 1, No. 1, (1986), pp. 3‐51

[65] Shih T.‐H., Liou W.W., Shabbir A., Zhu J., “A new k‐ε eddy‐viscosity
model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows – Model development
and validation”, Computers Fluids, Vol. 24, No. 3, (1995), Pp. 227‐238

[66] Menter F.R., “Two‐equation eddy‐viscosity turbulence models for
engineering applications”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 8, (1994), pp.1598‐
1605

[67] Morse S.M., “A model for the pressure field around non‐rectangular
buildings,” MSCE Thesis, Texas Tech University, TX, USA, (2003)

[68] Ferziger J.H., Perić M., Computational methods for fluid dynamics, Springer‐
Verlag, (1996)

[69] Wendt J.F., Computational fluid dynamics: an introduction, Springer‐Verlag,
(1992)

[70] Nikuradse J., Experimental data on flow through rough pipe as appearing
in: Schlichting H., Boundary Layer Theory, Sixth Edition, McGraw Hill
Company, (1968) pp. 581

[71] Kim B.N., Chung M.K., “Experimental study of roughness effects on the
separated flow over a backward‐facing step,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No.
1, (1994), pp. 159‐161
137

APPENDIX A
UDF CODE FOR 2D MODELS
138
/* udf_roughness_2D.c
UDF to modify the k-e two layer formulation for the
effects of the surface roughness
FOR A 2D MODEL
Darryl James and Sanket Unhale
Completed 8/24/2004 */
#include "udf.h"
#define K 0.41
#define y0 0.00000865
#define CMU 0.09
#define r 0.001348 /* Surface Roughness Height */
enum {udm_ymin, udm_ustar};
DEFINE_INIT(calc_ymin, d)
{
Thread *tf, *tc;
cell_t c;
face_t f;
float A[ND_ND], dist[ND_ND], xc[ND_ND], xf[ND_ND];
float norm_dist, ymin;
Message("\n Starting cell thread loop for calculation of ymin");
thread_loop_c(tc, d)
{
begin_c_loop(c, tc)
{
C_CENTROID(xc, c, tc);
ymin=1e7;
thread_loop_f(tf, d)
{
if ((NNULLP(tf)) && (THREAD_TYPE(tf) == THREAD_F_WALL))
{
begin_f_loop(f, tf)
{
F_CENTROID(xf, f, tf);
NV_VV(dist, = , xc, -, xf);
F_AREA(A, f, tf);
norm_dist=fabs(1./NV_MAG(A)*NV_DOT(A, dist));
if(ymin>norm_dist)
ymin=norm_dist;
} end_f_loop(f, tf)
}
139
}
}
C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ymin) = ymin;
end_c_loop(c, tc)
}
Message(" ...... Finished calculating ymin for all cells \n");

}
DEFINE_TURBULENT_VISCOSITY(rough_turb_vis, c, tc)
{
float ymin, y0udf, Rey, mul, tke, rplus, lnu;

float ustar, y0plus, yeff, mut, anu, rho;
float cent[ND_ND];
mut = 0.0;
ustar = 0.0;
y0udf = 0.0;
rplus = 0.0;
ymin = C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ymin);

tke = C_K(c, tc);
Rey = C_R(c, tc)*ymin*sqrt(tke)/C_MU_L(c, tc);
if (Rey<200)
{
C_CENTROID(cent, c, tc);
ustar = C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ustar);
if (ustar < 0.00001)

ustar = 0.00001;
rplus = (r*ustar*C_R(c, tc))/C_MU_L(c, tc);
if (rplus < 0.000001)

rplus = 0.000001;
if ((rplus >= 0)&&(rplus<=7.5))

y0plus=(0.012)*pow(rplus, 2)-(0.01)*rplus;
if ((rplus>7.5)&&(rplus<22.5))
y0plus=(0.00020562)*pow(rplus,3)-(0.013783)*pow(rplus,
2)+(0.39076)*rplus-1.5723;
140
if ((rplus>=22.5)&&(rplus<45))
y0plus=(-0.0017342)*pow(rplus, 2)+(0.15537)*rplus+0.06975;
if ((rplus>=45)&&(rplus<90))
y0plus=(0.000015695)*pow(rplus, 3)-(0.0037995)*pow(rplus,
2)+(0.24744)*rplus-1.3295;
if (rplus>=90)
y0plus=(0.033609)*rplus-1.4464;
y0udf = y0plus*C_MU_L(c, tc)/(ustar*C_R(c, tc));

yeff = ymin + y0udf;
anu = 62.5*(1-rplus/90);
if (anu < 1) {anu = 1;}
} /* end of if loop */
else
{ mut = 0.09*C_R(c, tc)*C_K(c, tc)*C_K(c, tc)/C_D(c, tc);}
return mut;
} /* end of define turbulent viscosity */
DEFINE_ADJUST(adjust_function, d)
{
Thread *t;
cell_t c, c1;
float tke, tke1, ustar, ustar1, rplus, rho, mul, mut, dudy;
int n = 3;
double cent[ND_ND], cent1[ND_ND];
int cent_x, cent1_x, tol;
Thread *tf = Lookup_Thread (d, n);
ustar = 0.0;
ustar1 = 0.0;
begin_c_loop(c, tf)
{
Thread *tc = THREAD_T0(tf);
rho = C_R(c, tc);
mul = C_MU_L(c, tc);
mut = C_MU_T(c, tc);
dudy = abs(C_DUDY(c, tc));
141
ustar = sqrt((C_MU_L(c, tc) + C_MU_T(c, tc))/C_R(c, tc) *
(abs(C_DUDY(c, tc))));
if (ustar < 0.00001)

ustar = 0.00001;
C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ustar) = ustar;
tke = ustar*ustar/sqrt(CMU);
tke1 = ustar*ustar/sqrt(CMU)*(rplus/90)*(rplus/90);
if (tke > tke1)

tke = tke1;
C_K(c, tc) = tke;
thread_loop_c(t, d)
{
begin_c_loop(c1, t)
{
C_CENTROID(cent1, c1, t);
cent_x=ceil(cent[0]*1000000);
cent1_x=ceil(cent1[0]*1000000);
tol=abs(cent_x-cent1_x);
if ((tol < 10) && (cent[1] != cent1[1]))

{
ustar1 = C_UDMI(c,tc,udm_ustar);
C_UDMI(c1,t,udm_ustar) = ustar1;
}
}
end_c_loop(c, tc)
}
}
end_c_loop(c, tf)
Message("\t Completed execution of the adjust function \n");

}/* End of DEFINE_ADJUST */

142

APPENDIX B
UDF CODE FOR 3D MODELS
143
/* udf_roughness_3D.c
UDF to modify the k-e two layer formulation for the
effects of the surface roughness
FOR A 3D MODEL
Darryl James and Sanket Unhale
Completed 10/10/2004 */
#include "udf.h"
#define K 0.41
#define y0 0.0001
#define CMU 0.09
#define r 0.015425 /* Surface Roughness Height */
enum {udm_ymin, udm_ustar};
DEFINE_INIT(calc_ymin, d)
{
Thread *tf, *tc;
cell_t c;
face_t f;
float A[ND_ND], dist[ND_ND], xc[ND_ND], xf[ND_ND];
float norm_dist, ymin;
Message("\n Starting cell thread loop for calculation of ymin");
thread_loop_c(tc, d)
{
begin_c_loop(c, tc)
{
C_CENTROID(xc, c, tc);
ymin=1e7;
thread_loop_f(tf, d)
{
if ((NNULLP(tf)) && (THREAD_TYPE(tf) == THREAD_F_WALL))
{
begin_f_loop(f, tf)
{
F_CENTROID(xf, f, tf);
NV_VV(dist, = , xc, -, xf);
F_AREA(A, f, tf);
norm_dist=fabs(1./NV_MAG(A)*NV_DOT(A, dist));
if(ymin>norm_dist)
ymin=norm_dist;
} end_f_loop(f, tf)
}
}
144
}
C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ymin) = ymin;
end_c_loop(c, tc)
}
Message(" ...... Finished calculating ymin for all cells \n");

}
DEFINE_TURBULENT_VISCOSITY(rough_turb_vis, c, tc)
{
float ymin, y0udf, Rey, mul, tke, rplus, lnu;

float ustar, y0plus, yeff, mut, anu, rho;
float cent[ND_ND];
mut = 0.0;
ustar = 0.0;
y0udf = 0.0;
rplus = 0.0;
ymin = C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ymin);

tke = C_K(c, tc);
Rey = C_R(c, tc)*ymin*sqrt(tke)/C_MU_L(c, tc);
if (Rey<200)
{
ustar = C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ustar);
if (ustar < 0.00001)

ustar = 0.00001;
if (rplus < 0.000001)

rplus = 0.000001;
if ((rplus >= 0)&&(rplus<=75))

y0plus=(0.012)*pow(rplus, 2)-(0.01)*rplus;
if ((rplus>7.5)&&(rplus<22.5))
2)+(0.39076)*rplus-1.5723;
if ((rplus>=22.5)&&(rplus<45))
y0plus=(-0.0017342)*pow(rplus, 2)+(0.15537)*rplus+0.06975;
145
if ((rplus>=45)&&(rplus<90))
2)+(0.24744)*rplus-1.3295;
if (rplus>=90)
y0plus=(0.033609)*rplus-1.4464;
y0udf = y0plus*C_MU_L(c, tc)/(ustar*C_R(c, tc));

yeff = ymin + y0udf;
anu = 62.5*(1-rplus/90);
if (anu < 1) {anu = 1;}
rho = C_R(c, tc);

Rey = yeff*rho*sqrt(tke)/mul;
lnu = 2.5*yeff*(1 - exp(-Rey/anu));
mut = 0.09*rho*sqrt(tke)*lnu;
} /* end of if loop */
else
{ mut = 0.09*C_R(c, tc)*C_K(c, tc)*C_K(c, tc)/C_D(c, tc);}
return mut;
} /* end of define turbulent viscosity */
DEFINE_ADJUST(adjust_function, d)
{
Thread *t, *tf, *tc;
face_t f;
cell_t c, c1;
float tke, tke1, ustar, ustar1, ustartemp, rplus, rho, mul, mut,
dudy;
double cent[ND_ND], cent1[ND_ND];
int cent_x, cent1_x, cent_z, cent1_z, tol, tol1, i;
int sf;
for (i=1; i<=2; i++)

{
if(i == 1) sf = 6;
if(i == 2) sf = 8;
tf = Lookup_Thread(d, sf);
146
ustar = 0.0;
ustar1 = 0.0;
begin_f_loop(f, tf)
{
tc = THREAD_T0(tf);
c = F_C0(f, tf);
rho = C_R(c, tc);
mut = C_MU_T(c, tc);
dudy = abs(C_DUDY(c, tc));
ustar = sqrt((C_MU_L(c, tc) + C_MU_T(c, tc))/C_R(c, tc) *

(C_DUDY(c, tc)));
if(ustar < 0.00001)
ustar = 0.00001;
ustartemp = C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ustar)*1000000;
if (abs((ustar*1000000)-ustartemp) > 50)

{
C_UDMI(c, tc, udm_ustar) = ustar;

if(rplus < 0.00001)
rplus = 0.00001;
tke = ustar*ustar/sqrt(CMU);
tke1 = ustar*ustar/sqrt(CMU)*(rplus/90)*(rplus/90);
if (tke > tke1)

tke = tke1;
C_K(c, tc) = tke;
thread_loop_c(t, d)
{
begin_c_loop(c1, t)
{
C_CENTROID(cent1, c1, t);
cent_x=ceil(cent[0]*1000000);
cent1_x=ceil(cent1[0]*1000000);
cent_z=ceil(cent[2]*1000000);
cent1_z=ceil(cent1[2]*1000000);
tol=abs(cent_x-cent1_x);
tol1=abs(cent_z-cent1_z);
147
if ((tol < 10) && (tol1 < 10) && (cent[1] !=
cent1[1]))
{
ustar1 = C_UDMI(c,tc,udm_ustar);
C_UDMI(c1,t,udm_ustar) = ustar1;
}
}
end_c_loop(c1, t)
}
} /* end of if loop for ustar check */
}
end_f_loop(f, tf)
} /* End of for loop */
Message("\n Completed execution of the adjust function \n");
}/* End of DEFINE_ADJUST */

148

SUnhale PDF

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

SUnhale PDF

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Objectives .........................................................................................................5

1.2 Outline ..............................................................................................................5

2.2 Surface Roughness Effects ...........................................................................18

3. MODELING TURBULENCE.................................................................................. 24

3.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................24

3.3 Basic Concepts ...............................................................................................27

3.3.2 Reynolds Stresses ....................................................................................28

3.3.3 The Eddy Viscosity .................................................................................29

3.5.1 Transport Equations ...............................................................................33

3.6 The RNG k‐ε Model ......................................................................................35

3.6.2 Effective Viscosity ...................................................................................36

3.6.3 Inverse Effective Prandtl Numbers ......................................................36

3.7.1 Transport Equations ...............................................................................38

3.9.1 Transport Equations ...............................................................................41

3.9.3 Modeling of Production of Turbulence ...............................................42

3.9.4 Modeling of Turbulence Dissipation ...................................................42

3.10 The SST k‐ω Model .......................................................................................44

4. MODEL DETAILS.................................................................................................... 48

4.1 Model 1 ...........................................................................................................48

4.1.1 Computational Domain .........................................................................48

4.2.1 Computational Domain .........................................................................51

4.4 Solver Settings ...............................................................................................56

4.4.2 Pressure Velocity Coupling ...................................................................58

4.4.4 Near Wall Treatments ............................................................................59

4.4.5 Wall Functions Approach ......................................................................60

4.4.6 Two‐layer Modeling ...............................................................................61

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ............................................................................... 63

5.2 Results for Model 1 .......................................................................................66

5.2.1 Distribution of Surface Pressure ...........................................................67

5.2.2 Distribution of Turbulent Kinetic Energy ...........................................71

5.2.5 Distribution of Strain Rate .....................................................................82

5.2.6 Roof and Wake Recirculation Patterns ................................................86

5.2.7 The wind loading ....................................................................................93

5.3 Discussion on Turbulence Models .............................................................95

5.3.2 The RNG k‐ε Model ................................................................................97

5.3.5 The Shear Stress Transport k‐ω Model ..............................................100

5.4 Rough wall modification ...........................................................................103

5.4.2 Test cases for rough wall formulation ...............................................105

5.5 Results for model 2 .....................................................................................109

5.5.1 Distribution of surface pressure .........................................................109

5.5.3 Distribution of turbulence dissipation rate .......................................116

5.5.4 Distribution of turbulent viscosity .....................................................119

5.5.5 Distribution of the strain rate ..............................................................122

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................. 126

A. UDF CODE FOR 2D MODELS ............................................................................ 138

B. UDF CODE FOR 3D MODELS ............................................................................ 143

different models resulting from “what‐if” scenarios, over wind tunnel

fluctuations, separation, stagnation, circulation and vortices. Almost all the

Reynolds averaging, which typically involve transport equations for flow

eddy viscosity assumption for attaining closure to the averaged equations. This

computationally expensive. RANS based modeling approach coupled with the

subsections concentrating on bluff body aerodynamics and surface roughness

engineers, the importance of properly simulating the atmospheric boundary

building design does not need a very accurate pressure distribution

important parameter influencing the pressure distribution, and hence general

and decreasing upstream turbulence intensity. Using statistical techniques they

intensities had the largest negative correlation with the non‐dimensional

from Germany, Austria, Denmark, The Netherlands and Switzerland

proposed. The computational wind engineers are constantly testing, analyzing

[15] reported excellent agreement between the numerical and experimental

applicability, and published the common flaws and inconsistencies present.

Due to increasing popularity and advances of the computational