English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The paper examines the impact of different modelling choices in second-momentclosures by assessing model performance in predicting 3-D duct flows. Thetest-cases (developing flow in a square duct [Gessner F.B., Emery A.F.: {\emASME J. Fluids Eng.} {\bf 103} (1981) 445--455], circular-to-rectangulartransition-duct [Davis D.O., Gessner F.B.: {\em AIAA J.} {\bf 30} (1992)367--375], and \tsn{S}-duct with large separation [Wellborn S.R., ReichertB.A., Okiishi T.H.: {\em J. Prop. Power} {\bf 10} (1994) 668--675]) includeprogressively more complex strains. Comparison of experimental data withselected 7-equation models (6 Reynolds-stress-transport and 1 scale-determiningequations), which differ in the closure of the velocity/pressure-gradienttensor $\Pi_{ij}$, suggests that rapid redistribution controls separation andsecondary-flow prediction, whereas, inclusion of pressure-diffusion modellingimproves reattachment and relaxation behaviour.

Reynolds-stress model prediction of 3-D duct flows