FAVRE-average: Compressible or just varying density

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of FAVRE-averaging in fluid dynamics, particularly in the context of incompressible flows with variable density. Participants explore the distinctions between FAVRE and Reynolds averaging, questioning the conditions under which each is applicable.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether FAVRE-averaging should be used for non-constant density rather than strictly compressible flow.
  • Another participant asserts that FAVRE averages are applicable to any situation with non-constant density, including incompressible flows.
  • A participant seeks clarification on whether Reynolds averaging is suitable for incompressible fluids with variable density.
  • There is a query regarding the impact of density variations on fluid viscosity and its relevance to the Reynolds number.
  • One participant states that viscosity is not dependent on density, but acknowledges that the Reynolds number is influenced by density changes.
  • A later reply clarifies the relationship between kinematic viscosity and density, emphasizing that kinematic viscosity is derived from dynamic viscosity and density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of FAVRE and Reynolds averaging, with no consensus reached on the conditions under which each should be used. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of density variations on viscosity and the Reynolds number.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion between the terms "incompressible" and "constant density," indicating that definitions may affect the discussion. The relationship between viscosity, density, and the Reynolds number is also noted as a point of contention.

onestudent
Messages
5
Reaction score
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
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.
 
Thank you!

And also, the Reynolds average does not apply to the situation where the fluid in incompressible and features variable density, agree?
 
Do the density variations result in variations in the fluid viscosity, which is a key factor in determining the Reynolds number?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 simply saying "viscosity". It is the one that is directly proportional to shear stress and is the more fundamental quantity.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K