An assessment of turbulence models for linear hydrodynamic stability analysis of strongly swirling jets
Lothar Rukes, Christian Oliver Paschereit, Kilian Oberleithner

TL;DR
This paper evaluates turbulence models for linear stability analysis of strongly swirling jets, finding that anisotropic eddy viscosity models improve accuracy over isotropic models in predicting flow stability characteristics.
Contribution
It demonstrates that linear stability analysis can be accurate for turbulent flows with anisotropic eddy viscosities, even when URANS models with isotropic viscosities fail.
Findings
Anisotropic eddy viscosity models match experimental data better.
Isotropic eddy viscosity models from $k- extepsilon$ do not predict mean flow or stability accurately.
Linear stability analysis can be effective without URANS-based mean flow predictions.
Abstract
Linear stability analysis has proven to be a useful tool in the analysis of dominant coherent structures, such as the von K\'{a}rm\'{a}n vortex street and the global spiral mode associated with the vortex breakdown of swirling jets. In recent years, linear stability analysis has been applied successfully to turbulent time-mean flows, instead of laminar base-flows, \textcolor{black}{which requires turbulent models that account for the interaction of the turbulent field with the coherent structures. To retain the stability equations of laminar flows, the Boussinesq approximation with a spatially nonuniform but isotropic eddy viscosity is typically employed. In this work we assess the applicability of this concept to turbulent strongly swirling jets, a class of flows that is particularly unsuited for isotropic eddy viscosity models. Indeed we find that unsteady RANS simulations only match…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
