4.7 Article

A comparison of the application of RSM and LES turbulence models in the numerical simulation of thermal and flow patterns in a double-circuit Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube

Journal

APPLIED THERMAL ENGINEERING
Volume 106, Issue -, Pages 1244-1256

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2016.06.095

Keywords

Vortex tube; Double-circuit; Ranque-Hilsch; Turbulence model; RSM; LES

Funding

  1. Act 211 Government of Russian Federation [02.A03.21.0006]
  2. Erasmus+ Project MARUEEB [561890-EPP-1-2015-1-IT-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The present paper reports an investigation of a double-circuit Ranque-Hilsch vortex tube using a fully three-dimensional numerical model of the turbulent compressible air flow. The main purpose of the paper is to perform a detailed analysis of the thermal and flow patterns obtained with RSM-LRR and LES turbulence models in order to understand which one is able to represent the Ranque-Hilsch energy separation effect observed in a double-circuit vortex tube in the most effective way. The LES turbulence model is found to represent the qualitative turbulence of the flow better than the RSM-LRR model. The detailed analysis of turbulence characteristics estimated by LES model indicates that turbulence has a significant impact on the energy separation phenomenon. Both LES and RSM-LRR turbulence models are shown to have a weak accuracy in the prediction of the integral characteristics of a double-circuit vortex tube. An attempt was made to improve the results achieved with LES turbulence model by means of a grid refinement and an increase of Smagorinsky constant value, but they were found to have a limited impact. This leads to the conclusion that more advanced kinds of LES turbulence model should be investigated in order to increase the accuracy of the simulation of a double-circuit vortex tube. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available