FAVRE-average: Compressible or just varying density

In summary: Re_## is always directly proportional to shear stress. Yesterday at 11:38 PM#5Boneh3ad, I generally find that you are accurate with all of your responses; but, I am confused by your above (#5) response because the basic formula for Re is: Re = V*D/ν where V = flow velocity; D = pipe inside diameter and v = Kinematic viscosity of the fluid.Kinematic viscosity is the (dynamic) viscosity normalized by density.\nu = \dfrac{\mu}{\rho}So yes, kinematic viscosity clearly depends on density, by dynamic viscosity is usually what is meant by
  • #1
onestudent
5
0
Hi.

I am modelling a fluid flow that is incompressible and has variable density.
I am applying RANS turbulence models.
When deriving the equations for the mean flow when the denisity is non-constant using the Reynolds average, I do not get the same as the standard RANS-equations.
This even if I assume incompressibility.
But if I use the FAVRE-average, I get the FAVRE-equations.

My question:
Every time I read about FAVRE, it is reffered to compressible flow.
Is it not really "non-constant density", and not "compressible", that should be the condition for using FAVRE instead of Reynolds average?
I wonder if many mix up incompressibility and non-constant denisty, and say "incompressible" when they really mean "constant denisty".
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #2
Favre averages apply to any situation in which density is not constant. This applies equally to both compressible flows and to flows that are incompressible but feature variable density anyway.
 
  • #3
Thank you!

And also, the Reynolds average does not apply to the situation where the fluid in incompressible and features variable density, agree?
 
  • #4
Do the density variations result in variations in the fluid viscosity, which is a key factor in determining the Reynolds number?
 
  • #5
Viscosity is not dependent on density. However, the Reynolds number is dependent directly on density, so it would still change ##Re##. That said, this is all irrelevant to Favre and Reynolds averaging.
 
  • #6
Yesterday at 11:38 PM#5
@boneh3ad , I generally find that you are accurate with all of your responses; but, I am confused by your above (#5) response because the basic formula for Re is: Re = V*D/ν where V = flow velocity; D = pipe inside diameter and v = Kinematic viscosity of the fluid.
 
  • #7
Kinematic viscosity is the (dynamic) viscosity normalized by density.
[tex]\nu = \dfrac{\mu}{\rho}[/tex]
So yes, kinematic viscosity clearly depends on density, by dynamic viscosity is usually what is meant by simply saying "viscosity". It is the one that is directly proportional to shear stress and is the more fundamental quantity.
 
Last edited:

What is the FAVRE-average?

The FAVRE-average is a method used in fluid dynamics to analyze flow in compressible fluids. It is named after Antoine Favre, a French physicist who first introduced the concept in the 1960s.

How is the FAVRE-average different from other averaging methods?

The FAVRE-average takes into account the varying density of a compressible fluid, while other averaging methods assume a constant density. This makes it more accurate for analyzing compressible flow.

What types of problems can the FAVRE-average be used to solve?

The FAVRE-average is commonly used to analyze turbulent compressible flows, such as those found in jet engines, rocket engines, and supersonic aircraft. It can also be used to study combustion and other types of high-speed flows.

How is the FAVRE-average calculated?

The FAVRE-average is calculated by taking the average of a variable over the entire flow field, weighted by the local density of the fluid at each point. This accounts for the varying density of the fluid and provides a more accurate representation of the flow.

What are the limitations of using the FAVRE-average?

The FAVRE-average is not suitable for analyzing incompressible flows, as it assumes a varying density. It is also more computationally expensive compared to other averaging methods, so it may not be practical for large-scale simulations.

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
704
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
917
  • Classical Physics
Replies
5
Views
956
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • Mechanical Engineering
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
653
Back
Top