Comparison of Turbulence Modeling Strategies for Indoor Flows

Turbulence modeling techniques are compared for the simulation of low speed indoor air flow in a simple room. The effect of inlet turbulence intensity on the flow field is investigated using the constant coefficient large eddy simulation (LES) model with uniform mean inlet conditions at several levels of inlet turbulence intensities. The results show significant differences between the simulations with laminar inflow conditions and those in which turbulence was introduced at the inlet. For simulations with turbulent inlet conditions, it is noticed that the jet transitions to a state of fully developed turbulence wherein the dynamics of the flow become nearly insensitive to any further increase in the level of inlet turbulence. For laminar flow conditions, it is seen that the jet slowly spreads and mixes with the quiescent room air. As a result, the jet reaches a fully developed turbulent state further away from the inlet relative to the simulations with inlet turbulence. The effect of using experimental inlet profiles is also investigated. It is seen that, close to the inlet, the flow is sensitive to the inflow details, whereas further away from the inlet, these effects become less pronounced. The results from the constant coefficient and the dynamic LES models are compared. The most noticeable differences in the flow occur at the locations where the subgrid-scale's contribution to the turbulent kinetic energy is highest. Finally, the results from the dynamic LES and the k-epsilon models are compared. It is found that there are significant differences between the two models for the zero inlet turbulence limit where the flow is most probably transitional in nature and turbulence has not yet reached a fully developed state. It is seen that in the laminar inflow case the k-epsilon model predicts a fully turbulent jet very close to the inlet and thus fails to capture the slow development of the jet found in LES. Accordingly, the k-epsilon model results are nearly insensitive to the level of inlet turbulence especially far from the origin of the flow. It is also seen that for cases with nonzero inlet turbulence level, the k-epsilon model predicts the general features of the mean flow reasonably well; however, the k-epsilon model overpredicts the jet spreading rate and the turbulent kinetic energy close to the inlet. Furthermore, the k-epsilon model under predicts the turbulence level near the corner of the ceiling as it fails to capture the complicated mean velocity and turbulent kinetic energy, most likely because of the highly intermittent flow pattern found there in LES. [DOI: 10.1115/1.3112386]