{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.045037531276063386, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007506255212677231, 'mean_word_length': 5.0, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison between EVM and RSM turbulence models in predicting flow and heat transfer in rib-roughened channels

A 3D analysis of two-equation eddy viscosity (EVMs) and Reynolds stress (RSM) turbulence models and their application to solve flow and heat transfer in rotating rib-roughened internal cooling channels is the main focus of this study. The flow in these channels is affected by ribs, rotation, buoyancy, bends and boundary conditions. The EVMs considered are the standard k–ϵ model of Launder and Spalding [1], the renormalization group k–ϵ model of Yakhot and Orszag [2], the realizable k–ϵ model of Shih et al. [3], the standard k–ω model of Wilcox [4] and the shear–stress transport (SST) k–ω model of Menter [5]. The viscosity-affected near-wall region is resolved by enhanced near-wall treatment using combined two-layer model with enhanced wall functions. The results for both stationary and rotating channels showed the advantages of Reynolds stress model (RSM), Gibson and Launder [6], Launder [7] and Launder et al. [8] in predicting the flow field and heat transfer compared to two-equation EVMs that need corrections to account for streamline curvature, buoyancy and rotation.