Subgrid-scale stress parameterization for anisotropic turbomachinery flow as deduced from stereoscopic particle image velocimetry measurements

  • Ghasem AkbariEmail author
  • Nader Montazerin
Technical Paper


The present study searches for parametric subgrid-scale models for the turbomachinery flow based on single-plane stereoscopic particle image velocimetry measurements. A group of deformation tensors are used as the predictors to parameterize the subgrid-scale stress tensor as the response. Missing terms in the rotation rate tensor are completed with a novel approach which is based on geometrical relations between deformation and subgrid-scale tensors. The optimal relations for parametric subgrid-scale models are shaped after minimizing the square of error between modeled and real SGS stresses. The most superior and inferior one-predictor models are based on strain rate and rotation rate tensors, respectively. The two-predictor models show the most efficient prediction of subgrid-scale stress where the correlation coefficient is up to 43% larger than that of the classical Smagorinsky model. The three- to five-predictor models are inefficient since they give minor enhancement of correlation coefficient with a considerably larger computational cost.


Parametric model Subgrid-scale model Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry Turbomachinery flow Strain–rotation tensors 



  1. 1.
    Najjari MR, Montazerin N, Akbari G (2015) On the presence of spectral shortcut in the energy budget of an asymmetric jet–wake flow in a forward-curved centrifugal turbomachine as deduced from SPIV measurements. J Turbul 16(6):503–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Akbari G, Montazerin N (2013) A-priori study of subgrid-scale models for the flow field in the rotor exit region of a centrifugal turbomachine. Int J Heat Mass Transf 66:423–439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meneveau C, Katz J (2000) Scale-invariance and turbulence models for large-eddy simulation. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 32(1):1–32MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sinha M, Katz J, Meneveau C (2000) Quantitative visualization of the flow in a centrifugal pump with diffuser vanes—II: addressing passage-averaged and large-eddy simulation modeling issues in turbomachinery flows. J Fluids Eng Trans ASME 122(1):108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen J, Meneveau C, Katz J (2006) Scale interactions of turbulence subjected to a straining–relaxation–destraining cycle. J Fluid Mech 562:123–150zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chen J, Katz J, Meneveau C (2005) Implication of mismatch between stress and strain-rate in turbulence subjected to rapid straining and destraining on dynamic LES models. J Fluids Eng 127(5):840–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bou-Zeid E, Vercauteren N, Parlange MB, Meneveau C (2008) Scale dependence of subgrid-scale model coefficients: an a priori study. Phys Fluids 20(11):115106zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bou-Zeid E, Higgins C, Huwald H, Meneveau C, Parlange MB (2010) Field study of the dynamics and modelling of subgrid-scale turbulence in a stable atmospheric surface layer over a glacier. J Fluid Mech 665:480–515zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    da Silva CB (2009) The behavior of subgrid-scale models near the turbulent/nonturbulent interface in jets. Phys Fluids 21(8):081702zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lund TS, Novikov E (1992) Parameterization of subgrid-scale stress by the velocity gradient tensor. Annual Research Briefs, Center for Turbulence Research, pp 27–43Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pope SB (1975) A more general effective-viscosity hypothesis. J Fluid Mech 72(02):331–340zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gatski T, Speziale C (1993) On explicit algebraic stress models for complex turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 254:59–78MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lübcke H, Rung T, Thiele F (2003) Prediction of the spreading mechanism of 3D turbulent wall jets with explicit Reynolds–stress closures. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 24(4):434–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Belhoucine L, Deville M, Elazehari A, Bensalah M (2004) Explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model of incompressible turbulent flow in rotating square duct. Comput Fluids 33(2):179–199zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wallin S, Johansson AV (2000) An explicit algebraic Reynolds stress model for incompressible and compressible turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 403:89–132MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Craft T, Launder B, Suga K (1996) Development and application of a cubic eddy-viscosity model of turbulence. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 17(2):108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang B-C, Bergstrom DJ (2005) A dynamic nonlinear subgrid-scale stress model. Phys Fluids 17(3):035109MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wall K, Taulbee D (1996) Application of a nonlinear stress–strain model to axisymmetric turbulent swirling flows. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 17(2):116–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Meneveau C, Lund T, Moin P (1992) Search for subgrid scale parameterization by projection pursuit regression. Center for Turbulence Research, pp 61–81Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wong V (1992) A proposed statistical-dynamic closure method for the linear or nonlinear subgrid-scale stresses. Phys Fluids 4(5):1080–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bardina J, Ferziger JH, Reynolds W (1980) Improved subgrid-scale models for large-eddy simulation. In: 13th fluid and plasma dynamics conference, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Snowmass, CO, 14–16 July 1980Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marstorp L, Brethouwer G, Grundestam O, Johansson AV (2009) Explicit algebraic subgrid stress models with application to rotating channel flow. J Fluid Mech 639:403–432zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rasam A, Brethouwer G, Johansson AV (2013) An explicit algebraic model for the subgrid-scale passive scalar flux. J Fluid Mech 721:541–577MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rasam A, Wallin S, Brethouwer G, Johansson AV (2014) Large eddy simulation of channel flow with and without periodic constrictions using the explicit algebraic subgrid-scale model. J Turbul 15(11):752–775CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shewen L, Meneveau C, Katz J (1994) On the properties of similarity subgrid-scale models as deduced from measurements in a turbulent jet. J Fluid Mech 275:83–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nicoud F, Ducros F (1999) Subgrid-scale stress modelling based on the square of the velocity gradient tensor. Flow Turbul Combust 62(3):183–200zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Yu C, Hong R, Xiao Z, Chen S (2013) Subgrid-scale eddy viscosity model for helical turbulence. Phys Fluids 25(9):095101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Tao B, Katz J, Meneveau C (2002) Statistical geometry of subgrid-scale stresses determined from holographic particle image velocimetry measurements. J Fluid Mech 457(1):35–78MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Higgins CW, Parlange MB, Meneveau C (2003) Alignment trends of velocity gradients and subgrid-scale fluxes in the turbulent atmospheric boundary layer. Bound-Layer Meteorol 109(1):59–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akbari G, Montazerin N, Akbarizadeh M (2011) Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry of the flow field in the rotor exit region of a forward-blade centrifugal turbomachine. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A J Power Energy 226:163–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    The International Organization for Standardization (2007) Industial fans: fan performance testing using standardized airways. International Standard ISO 5801Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Montazerin N, Damangir A, Fard AK (2001) A study of slip factor and velocity components at the rotor exit of forward-curved squirrel cage fans, using laser Doppler anemometry. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part A J Power Energy 215(4):453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Akbari G, Montazerin N (2013) On the role of anisotropic turbomachinery flow structures in inter-scale turbulence energy flux as deduced from SPIV measurements. J Turbul 14(11):44–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Najjari M, Montazerin N, Akbari G (2012) Statistical PIV data validity for enhancement of velocity driven parameters in turbomachinery jet–wake flow. In: 20th annual international conference on mechanical engineering, Shiraz, Iran, 16–18 May 2012Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roth H (1981) Optimierung von trommelläufer-ventilatoren. Strömungsmechanik und Strömungsmaschinen 29:1–45Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Takezawa K (2005) Introduction to nonparametric regression, vol 606. Wiley, HobokenzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wu H, Miorini RL, Katz J (2010) Analysis of turbulence in the tip region of a waterjet pump rotor. In: ASME third joint US-European fluids engineering meeting, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hong J, Katz J, Meneveau C, Schultz MP (2012) Coherent structures and associated subgrid-scale energy transfer in a rough-wall turbulent channel flow. J Fluid Mech 712:92–128MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Smith WN, Katz J, Osborn T (2007) The effect of waves on subgrid-scale stresses, dissipation and model coefficients in the coastal ocean bottom boundary layer. J Fluid Mech 583:133–160zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Saarenrinne P, Piirto M, Eloranta H (2001) Experiences of turbulence measurement with PIV. Meas Sci Technol 12(11):1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pope SB (2001) Turbulent flows. Cambridge University Press, CambridgezbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Spencer AJM, Rivlin RS (1958) The theory of matrix polynomials and its application to the mechanics of isotropic continua. Arch Ration Mech Anal 2(1):309–336MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Fathi M, Bevrani H (2019) Optimization in electrical engineering. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Liu S, Katz J, Meneveau C (1999) Evolution and modelling of subgrid scales during rapid straining of turbulence. J Fluid Mech 387:281–320MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cawley GC, Talbot NL (2010) On over-fitting in model selection and subsequent selection bias in performance evaluation. J Mach Learn Res 11(Jul):2079–2107MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Babyak MA (2004) What you see may not be what you get: a brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosom Med 66(3):411–421Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Uzol O, Chow YC, Katz J, Meneveau C (2002) Experimental investigation of unsteady flow field within a two-stage axial turbomachine using particle image velocimetry. J Turbomach 124(4):542–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nomura KK, Post GK (1998) The structure and dynamics of vorticity and rate of strain in incompressible homogeneous turbulence. J Fluid Mech 377:65–97MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tsinober A, Kit E, Dracos T (1992) Experimental investigation of the field of velocity gradients in turbulent flows. J Fluid Mech 242:169–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Qazvin BranchIslamic Azad UniversityQazvinIran
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations