|
[Sponsors] |
January 30, 2013, 07:48 |
[Solved]-Wall treatment with geometrical restriction
|
#1 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
Hello,
I am turrning around since a week for wall treatment. My geometries don't allow me keeping first cell's y+ >30. If I generate BL with first cell's height computed for y+ =30, then I don't have enough cells for resolving flowfield in smallest section I tried to switch on Low Re turb. model (Lauder-Sharma) for resolving the BL, but I get awful convergence. And I am doubtfully using Low-Re model for my applications (incompressible, simpleFoam with Reynolds-range between 2000-6000 Despite the y+ theory, I get acceptable results with realizable-ke and default wall function (with yPlusRAS giving me min & max y+ respectively 0.5 and 30) Results (drop pressure) are confirmed with test Any advice from anyone? PS: I post picture of my mesh in minimal section (y+~1) Sans titre1.jpg
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider Last edited by -mAx-; February 4, 2013 at 03:56. |
|
February 4, 2013, 03:56 |
|
#2 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
Problem solved by using k-Omega SST model with nutUSpaldingWallFunction on fine grid.
Then k and omega were set with uniform value 1e-10 instead of zeroGradient Once model converged yPlusRAS utility gave me 0.005 and 2.19 for min and max on walls.
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
February 4, 2013, 05:49 |
|
#3 |
Senior Member
Ehsan
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Iran
Posts: 2,208
Rep Power: 27 |
hi.congratiolation for solving the problem
How much should yplus be at walls for kOmegaSST? Could you introduce me an article about this model? |
|
February 4, 2013, 06:45 |
|
#4 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
in my case y+ goes from 0.005 till 2.2 (results from yPlusRAS)
I don't have article about this, but I searched a lot in the forum. For example: http://www.cfd-online.com/Forums/ope...megasst-3.html
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
February 4, 2013, 07:58 |
|
#5 |
Senior Member
Ehsan
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Iran
Posts: 2,208
Rep Power: 27 |
thanks.then how you are sure about domain of y+ that is suitable or not?is there any appropriate values near wall?
|
|
February 4, 2013, 09:29 |
|
#6 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
what I understood: this wall treatment switchs automatically between lowRe and standard wall function dependantly on your local y+
In my case, I build my mesh with y+~1
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
February 4, 2013, 10:41 |
|
#7 |
Senior Member
Ehsan
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Iran
Posts: 2,208
Rep Power: 27 |
thanks.could you send me your turbulency folders?
|
|
February 5, 2013, 06:51 |
|
#8 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
/constant/RASProperties
RASModel kOmegaSST; turbulence on; /0/k inlet { type fixedValue; value uniform 0.006; } walls { type fixedValue; value uniform 1e-10; } outlet { type zeroGradient; } /0/omega inlet { type fixedValue; value uniform 27.2; } outlet { type zeroGradient; } walls { type fixedValue; value uniform 1e-10; } /0/nut inlet { type calculated; value uniform 0; } outlet { type calculated; value uniform 0; } walls { type nutUSpaldingWallFunction; value uniform 0; }
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
February 11, 2013, 04:42 |
|
#9 |
New Member
Gwenael Hauet
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Grenoble, France
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 16 |
Hi -mAx-,
I have just a question about the behaviour of your flow when the y+~0.005. Usually the y+ rules for SST is y+~1 but in practice, it is very difficult to have on every walls the y+~1. Did you see some strange behaviour of your flow when y+ goes down, y+~0.005 ? Thanks
__________________
Gwen |
|
February 11, 2013, 05:59 |
|
#10 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
Bonjour Gwenael,
I don't think the problem may come from y+~0.005, since it is << 1. But the problem may occures if you have cells with y+~30. But as far as I read, then you can use nutUSpaldingWallFunction which selects automatically the right wall function depedantly on your y+. In my case, I know that I have always y+~1 (or <<1, but never ~30), so I enforced (I think) solving directly sublayer by setting k and omega as 1e-10 at walls (instead of zeroGradient) Bonne journee
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
March 9, 2013, 23:54 |
B.C. for omega @wall
|
#11 |
Senior Member
Fumiya Nozaki
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 266
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 19 |
Hi -mAx-,
I understand that the appropriate boundary condition for omega is the "omegaWallFunction". Did you get good results by fixing omega to very small values(1e-10) at the walls instead of using the wall function? Best regards, Fumiya |
|
March 11, 2013, 07:14 |
|
#12 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
Hello fumiya,
I set k and omega with very low value, since I know that my y+ are below 1. That's why I used nutUSpaldingWallFunction and not omegaWallFunction. And I got good results
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
March 13, 2013, 09:25 |
|
#13 |
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 14 |
Hi -mAx-
so I understand this methods works only if you can ensure having y+~1 or y+<1 everywhere. Otherwise with higher y+ you would have to use continuous wallfunctions for k and omega in combination with the nutUSpaldingWallFunction. I am being correct? Best regards, Chris |
|
March 13, 2013, 09:59 |
|
#14 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
Hello Chris,
I would rather say, with y+ >>1 you may use nutUSpaldingWallFunction, but k and omaga at walls should be zeroGradient. Turbulence gurus may correct me
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
March 13, 2013, 10:58 |
|
#15 |
New Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 14 |
Hi -mAx-
yes I agree wallfunctions really being for a higher y+ range. But lets consider your case where you have walls with y+~1 and y+<<1 and now in addition also walls with y+ going up to 50. I think using nutUSpaldingWallFunction with continueous k and omega wallfunctions could be beneficial with varying y+ at walls. |
|
March 14, 2013, 02:59 |
|
#16 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
Yes, if I have also walls with y+ up to 50, then I would use nutUSpaldingWallFunction with k and omega set as zeroGradient.
I set both them to very small value (not zeroGradient), if I am sure that max y+ at walls is O(1)
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
January 7, 2014, 09:24 |
|
#17 |
Senior Member
Philipp
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,297
Rep Power: 27 |
Hi Maxime,
Are you still sure about your boundary conditions? As far as I know omega goes to infinity at the walls. But you set it to zero. Why did you do so? I see you also set a wall function for nut, which will overwrite the nut at the boundary anyways, but setting a wrong boundary condition for omega will give wrong results in the whole domain !?
__________________
The skeleton ran out of shampoo in the shower. |
|
January 7, 2014, 10:19 |
|
#18 |
Super Moderator
Maxime Perelli
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,297
Rep Power: 41 |
I am pretty sure I have mixed settings for epsilon in Low-Re Model with settings for omega in k-omega SST.
Thanks for pointing me this out!
__________________
In memory of my friend Hervé: CFD engineer & freerider |
|
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Wall treatment with OpenFOAM | roby | OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD | 48 | May 28, 2021 12:38 |
Automatic wall treatment in CFX | Chander | CFX | 13 | May 6, 2017 01:45 |
Water subcooled boiling | Attesz | CFX | 7 | January 5, 2013 04:32 |
large y+ with enhanced wall treatment | keryfluid | FLUENT | 4 | May 7, 2012 06:19 |
UDF for wall slipping | HFLUENT | Fluent UDF and Scheme Programming | 0 | April 27, 2011 13:03 |