Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of Reynolds flux modeling in CFD simulation of 45\(^{\circ}\) inclined negatively buoyant jets

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Fluid Mechanics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Predicting mixing parameters and mean concentration field of inclined negatively buoyant jets (INBJs) appropriately, has been a long-lasting challenge in numerical modeling of this type of jet flows. To address this challenge, 45\(^{\circ}\) inclined dense jets were simulated in OpenFOAM hiring three different approaches as Boussinesq-based and non-Boussinesq-based ones. The first approach was conducted by using a two-equation turbulence model, realizable k–\(\epsilon\) (RKE), in correlation with the standard gradient diffusion hypothesis (SGDH). In the second one, as the pure non-Boussinesq-based approach, turbulent scalar flux modeling (SFM), as an implicit second-moment closure-based approach, for the first time, was combined with the SSG turbulence model. Setting the model coefficients was conducted for both the SSG and SFM given that the calibration is a mutually coupled problem. The best agreement with the experimental data was found in approach two, where the return point dilution ratio, Sr/Fr, shows an increase about the 70%, 32%, 86% over their counterparts in approach one, the large eddy simulation (LES), and the standard k–\(\epsilon\), respectively. Quantitative comparisons for bulk parameters (geometrical and mixing) confirms that the SFM approach stands out with \(\sim 4\%\) average error while the corresponding value is \(\sim 19\%\) for the SGDH approach. These significant improvements over the prediction of mixing parameters can be perceived as the main benefit of the hired SFM approach. Evaluating the turbulent scalar flux vector was performed for both approaches, and it was shown that the SFM is more coordinated with the physics of the flow, compared to the SGDH, concerning the evolutionary behavior of the flow moving from the upstream to the downstream captured by the SFM. Regarding the LES simulations hiring high-performance computers and large quantities of grid numbers, the SFM can be regarded as the best RANS option to model the INBJs. This is the case, specifically, for the mixing parameters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. https://www.openfoam.com/documentation/guides/latest/doc/.

References

  1. Mohammadian A, Gildeh HK, Nistor I (2020) CFD modeling of effluent discharges: a review of past numerical studies. Water 12(3):856

    Google Scholar 

  2. Papakonstantis IG, Christodoulou GC, Papanicolaou PN (2011) Inclined negatively buoyant jets 1: geometrical characteristics. J Hydraul Res 49(1):3–12

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lai CC, Lee JH (2012) Mixing of inclined dense jets in stationary ambient. J Hydro-environ Res 6(1):9–28

    Google Scholar 

  4. Fischer HB, List JE, Koh CR, Imberger J, Brooks NH (1979) Mixing in inland and coastal waters. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  5. Roberts PJ, Salas HJ, Reiff FM, Libhaber M, Labbe A, Thomson JC (2010) Marine wastewater outfalls and treatment systems. IWA Publishing, London

    Google Scholar 

  6. Roberts PJ, Ferrier A, Daviero G (1997) Mixing in inclined dense jets. J Hydraul Eng 123(8):693–699

    Google Scholar 

  7. Zeitoun M, Reid R, McHilhenny W, Mitchell T (1972) Model studies of outfall systems for desalination plants. Office of Saline Water, US Department of the Interior, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  8. Roberts PJ, Toms G (1987) Inclined dense jets in flowing current. J Hydraul Eng 113(3):323–340

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cipollina A, Brucato A, Grisafi F, Nicosia S (2005) Bench-scale investigation of inclined dense jets. J Hydraul Eng 131(11):1017–1022

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kikkert GA, Davidson M, Nokes R (2007) Inclined negatively buoyant discharges. J Hydraul Eng 133(5):545–554

    Google Scholar 

  11. Shao D, Law AWK (2010) Mixing and boundary interactions of 30 and 45 inclined dense jets. Environ Fluid Mech 10(5):521–553

    Google Scholar 

  12. Shao D (2010) Desalination discharge in shallow coastal waters. PhD Thesis, Nanyang Technological University

  13. Zhang W, Zhu DZ (2010) Near-field mixing downstream of a multiport diffuser in a shallow river. J Environ Eng 137(4):230–240

    Google Scholar 

  14. Papakonstantis IG, Christodoulou GC, Papanicolaou PN (2011) Inclined negatively buoyant jets 2: concentration measurements. J Hydraul Res 49(1):13–22

    Google Scholar 

  15. Oliver C, Davidson M, Nokes R (2013) Removing the boundary influence on negatively buoyant jets. Environ Fluid Mech 13(6):625–648

    Google Scholar 

  16. Jiang B, Law AWK, Lee JHW (2013) Mixing of 30 and 45 inclined dense jets in shallow coastal waters. J Hydraul Eng 140(3):241–253

    Google Scholar 

  17. Abessi O, Roberts PJ (2015) Effect of nozzle orientation on dense jets in stagnant environments. J Hydraul Eng 141(8):06015009

    Google Scholar 

  18. Abessi O, Roberts PJ (2015) Dense jet discharges in shallow water. J Hydraul Eng 142(1):04015033

    Google Scholar 

  19. Crowe A, Davidson M, Nokes R (2016) Velocity measurements in inclined negatively buoyant jets. Environ Fluid Mech 16(3):503–520

    Google Scholar 

  20. Papakonstantis IG, Tsatsara EI (2018) Trajectory characteristics of inclined turbulent dense jets. Environ Process 5(3):539–554

    Google Scholar 

  21. Papakonstantis IG, Tsatsara EI (2019) Mixing characteristics of inclined turbulent dense jets. Environ Process. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40710-019-00359-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Jiang M, Law AWK, Song J (2019) Mixing characteristics of inclined dense jets with different nozzle geometries. J Hydro-environ Res 27:116–128

    Google Scholar 

  23. Vafeiadou P, Papakonstantis I, Christodoulou G (2005) Numerical simulation of inclined negatively buoyant jets. In: The 9th international conference on environmental science and technology, September 2005, pp 1–3

  24. Oliver C, Davidson M, Nokes R (2008) k–\(\varepsilon\) Predictions of the initial mixing of desalination discharges. Environ Fluid Mech 8(5–6):617

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kheirkhah Gildeh H, Mohammadian A, Nistor I, Qiblawey H, Yan X (2015) CFD modeling and analysis of the behavior of 30 and 45 inclined dense jets-new numerical insights. J Appl Water Eng Res 4(2):112–127

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kheirkhah Gildeh H, Mohammadian A, Nistor I, Qiblawey H (2015) Numerical modeling of 30 and 45 degree inclined dense turbulent jets in stationary ambient. Environ Fluid Mech 15(3):537–562

    Google Scholar 

  27. Zhang S, Jiang B, Law AWK, Zhao B (2015) Large eddy simulations of 45 inclined dense jets. Environ Fluid Mech 16(1):101–121

    Google Scholar 

  28. Zhang S, Law AWK, Jiang M (2017) Large eddy simulations of 45 and 60 inclined dense jets with bottom impact. J Hydro-environ Res 15:54–66

    Google Scholar 

  29. Jiang M, Law AWK, Lai AC (2019) Turbulence characteristics of 45 inclined dense jets. Environ Fluid Mech 19(1):27–54

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ramezani M, Abessi O, Firoozjaee AR (2021) Effect of proximity to bed on 30\(^{\circ}\) and 45\(^{\circ}\) inclined dense jets: a numerical study. Environ Process. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-433030/v1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Tahmooresi S, Ahmadyar D (2021) Effects of turbulent Schmidt number on cfd simulation of 45\(^{\circ}\) inclined negatively buoyant jets. Environ Fluid Mech 21(1):39–62

    Google Scholar 

  32. Palomar P, Lara J, Losada I (2012) Near field brine discharge modeling. Part 2: validation of commercial tools. Desalination 290:28–42

    Google Scholar 

  33. Donaldson CD, Sullivan RD, Rosenbaum H (1972) A theoretical study of the generation of atmospheric-clear air turbulence. AIAA J 10(2):162–170

    Google Scholar 

  34. Monin A (1965) On the symmetry properties of turbulence in the surface layer of air. Izv Atmos Ocean Phys 1:45–54

    Google Scholar 

  35. Younis B, Zumdick M, Weigand B (2016) Prediction of mass and momentum transport in turbulent plane wall jets over smooth and transitionally rough surfaces. Environ Fluid Mech 16(3):485–502

    Google Scholar 

  36. Durbin P (1993) A Reynolds stress model for near-wall turbulence. J Fluid Mech 249:465–498

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wikström PM, Hallbäck M, Johansson AV (1998) Measurements and heat-flux transport modelling in a heated cylinder wake. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 19(5):556–562

    Google Scholar 

  38. Malin M, Younis B (1990) Calculation of turbulent buoyant plumes with a Reynolds stress and heat flux transport closure. Int J Heat Mass Transf 33(10):2247–2264

    Google Scholar 

  39. Malin M, Younis B (1997) The prediction of turbulent transport in an axially rotating pipe. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 24(1):89–98

    Google Scholar 

  40. Launder B (1975) On the effects of a gravitational field on the turbulent transport of heat and momentum. J Fluid Mech 67(3):569–581

    Google Scholar 

  41. Launder B (1976) Chapter 6, heat and mass transport. In: Bradshaw P (ed) Turbulence. Topics in applied physics, vol 12. Springer, Berlin

  42. Gibson M, Launder B (1978) Ground effects on pressure fluctuations in the atmospheric boundary layer. J Fluid Mech 86(3):491–511

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gibson M, Launder B (1976) On the calculation of horizontal nonequilibrium turbulent shear flows under gravitational influence. J Heat Transf 98(1):81

    Google Scholar 

  44. Younis BA, Speziale CG, Clark TT (2005) A rational model for the turbulent scalar fluxes. Proc R Soc A 461(2054):575–594

    Google Scholar 

  45. Younis BA, Jooß Y, Spring S, Weigand B (2019) Accounting for the effects of buoyancy on the turbulent scalar fluxes. Environ Fluid Mech 19(2):495–512

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rodi W (1980) Turbulence models and their application in hydraulics. University of Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe

    Google Scholar 

  47. Millero FJ, Poisson A (1981) International one-atmosphere equation of state of seawater. Deep Sea Res A 28(6):625–629

    Google Scholar 

  48. Shih TH, Liou WW, Shabbir A, Yang Z, Zhu J (1995) A new k–\(\epsilon\) eddy viscosity model for high Reynolds number turbulent flows. Comput Fluids 24(3):227–238

    Google Scholar 

  49. Fluent A (2013) ANSYS fluent theory guide 15.0. ANSYS, Canonsburg

  50. Van Maele K, Merci B (2006) Application of two buoyancy-modified k–\(\varepsilon\) turbulence models to different types of buoyant plumes. Fire Saf J 41(2):122–138

    Google Scholar 

  51. Heindel T, Ramadhyani S, Incropera F (1994) Assessment of turbulence models for natural convection in an enclosure. Numer Heat Transf 26(2):147–172

    Google Scholar 

  52. Combest DP, Ramachandran PA, Dudukovic MP (2011) On the gradient diffusion hypothesis and passive scalar transport in turbulent flows. Ind Eng Chem Res 50(15):8817–8823

    Google Scholar 

  53. Rodi W (2017) Turbulence modeling and simulation in hydraulics: a historical review. J Hydraul Eng 143(5):03117001

    Google Scholar 

  54. Launder BE, Reece GJ, Rodi W (1975) Progress in the development of a Reynolds-stress turbulence closure. J Fluid Mech 68(3):537–566

    Google Scholar 

  55. Versteeg HK, Malalasekera W (2007) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite volume method. Pearson Education, Harlow

    Google Scholar 

  56. Speziale CG, Sarkar S, Gatski TB (1991) Modelling the pressure–strain correlation of turbulence: an invariant dynamical systems approach. J Fluid Mech 227:245–272

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wilcox D (2006) Turbulence modeling for CFD, 3rd edn. DCW Industries, La Cañada

    Google Scholar 

  58. Launder B (1989) The prediction of force field effects on turbulent shear flows via second-moment closure. In: Advances in turbulence 2. Springer, pp 338–358

  59. Haroutunian V, Launder BE (1988) Second-moment modelling of free buoyant shear flows: a comparison of parabolic and elliptic solutions. In: Puttock JS (ed) Stably-stratified flow and dense gas dispersion. Oxford University Press, pp 409–430

  60. Hossain M, Rodi W (1982) A turbulence model for buoyant flows and its application to vertical buoyant jets. In: Turbulent buoyant jets and plumes. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 121–178

  61. Daly BJ, Harlow FH (1970) Transport equations in turbulence. Phys Fluids 13(11):2634–2649

    Google Scholar 

  62. Rossi R, Iaccarino G (2009) Numerical simulation of scalar dispersion downstream of a square obstacle using gradient-transport type models. Atmos Environ 43(16):2518–2531

    Google Scholar 

  63. Abe K (2006) Performance of Reynolds-averaged turbulence and scalar-flux models in complex turbulence with flow impingement. Prog Comput Fluid Dyn Int J 6(1–3):79–88

    Google Scholar 

  64. Abe K, Suga K (2001) Towards the development of a Reynolds-averaged algebraic turbulent scalar-flux model. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 22(1):19–29

    Google Scholar 

  65. Hanjalić K, Launder B (2011) Modelling turbulence in engineering and the environment: second-moment routes to closure. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  66. Crowe AT (2013) Inclined negatively buoyant jets and boundary interaction. PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury

  67. Baum MJ, Gibbes B (2020) Field-scale numerical modeling of a dense multiport diffuser outfall in crossflow. J Hydraul Eng 146(1):05019006

    Google Scholar 

  68. Fluent A et al (2009) ANSYS fluent 12.0 user’s guide. ANSYS, Inc., Canonsburg

  69. Papanicolaou PN, List EJ (1988) Investigations of round vertical turbulent buoyant jets. J Fluid Mech 195:341–391

    Google Scholar 

  70. Shao D, Law AWK (2009) Turbulent mass and momentum transport of a circular offset dense jet. J Turbul 10(10):N40

    Google Scholar 

  71. Xu D, Chen J (2012) Experimental study of stratified jet by simultaneous measurements of velocity and density fields. Exp Fluids 53(1):145–162

    Google Scholar 

  72. Law AWK, Wang H (2000) Measurement of mixing processes with combined digital particle image velocimetry and planar laser induced fluorescence. Exp Therm Fluid Sci 22(3–4):213–229

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Univeristy of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Sina Tahmooresi

  2. Faculty of Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

    Davoud Ahmadyar

Authors
  1. Sina Tahmooresi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Davoud Ahmadyar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sina Tahmooresi.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tahmooresi, S., Ahmadyar, D. Application of Reynolds flux modeling in CFD simulation of 45\(^{\circ}\) inclined negatively buoyant jets. Environ Fluid Mech 22, 55–86 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-021-09829-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-021-09829-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation