CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > CFX

Effects of NOT using mesh inflation

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   May 5, 2003, 06:11
Default Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #1
Louwrens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
How does CFX 5 treat the boundary layer calculation when no mesh inflation is used? Does it use the turbulence model wall functions to calculate a theoretical solution at each boundary node, or is the wall "displaced" to the boundary node?

I have to compare two simulations, one of which did not use inflation, and I need to know if I can attribute the differences to the fact the the boundary layer was not fully resolved in the one case. It seems for instance that separation occurs much later when their is no inflation.

In both cases turbulence models and advections schemes were the same.
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 5, 2003, 08:32
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #2
tascflowuser
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Louwrens If inflation is not used then extremely fine tetrahedral is needed to be used to properly resolve boundary layer. In the case of infalted layers high aspect ratio prism elements are generated which resolve boundary layer properly at relatively less computational cost.
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 5, 2003, 10:51
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #3
Louwrens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I know the theory and reason for mesh inflation, I need to know how the code handles the problem when it's not there...
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 5, 2003, 15:44
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #4
Robin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Louwrens,

The only difference is the mesh. There is no fundamental difference between any element type.

Robin
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2003, 04:59
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #5
Louwrens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
>The only difference is the mesh. There is no fundamental difference between any element type.

I understand that, specifically for the unstructured solver.

On my two sets of simulations, one was done without inflation, and the other (of a slightly different geometry) with inflation.

I basically need to know if I should attribute a "lack" of separation (where it is expected) on the mesh without inflation to the fact that the boundary layer was not solved and the flow therefore staying attached, or if I should attribute it to a "better" flow geometry.

I know the best way is to rerun the first problem using a grid with mesh inflation, but I unfortunately do not have time, so I have to make postulations from the data I already have.
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2003, 06:20
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #6
Bob
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
What is the geometry like and where is the separation occuring and what are the changes to the geometry that have resulted in the changes seen in the flow field ? You are really shooting into the wind with this one as conclusions on separation using CFD can be tricky at the best of times, even if your model is a good one with a good quality mesh. Sorry for sounding negative. Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2003, 12:03
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #7
Robin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Hi Louwrens,

I would hesitate to ever compare results for two different geometries with such different meshes.

Having no inflation will ceratainly delay the onset of separation. Without resolving the boundary layer you will overpredict the mixing, thus energizing your boundary layer by too much.

For this is the same reason, the k-epsilon turbulence model will also delay the onset of separation; the wall functions overpredict the momentum transfer. Although this is not nearly as bad as having no boundary layer resolution. In general, for k-e wall functions, you should have 5 nodes within the boundary layer.

It may be too late for you in this case, but you should consider using the SST turbulence model if boundary layer separation is an issed. The SST model allows you to model more of the boundary layer and capture the instability which leads to separation. For SST, you should have at least 15 nodes in the boundary layer to resolve it accurately. If you have less, it will blend in a wall function, but you should still not go below 5.

Best regards, Robin
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2003, 13:52
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #8
Louwrens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
>Having no inflation will ceratainly delay the onset of separation. Without resolving the boundary layer you will overpredict the mixing, thus energizing your boundary layer by too much.

YES, this is what I've been looking for, it would help me explain some of the things I see.

I used the k-e model for both simulations and am just comparing the results. Correctly predicting the separation point is not as critical as just being able to point to the influence of a non-optimal grid...

>The SST model allows you to model more of the boundary layer and capture the instability which leads to separation.

I have read the theory behind the SST and k-w models, and did some validation cases using both k-e and SST. Interestingly SST seemed somewhat TOO sensitive and predicted separation earlier (and re-attachment later, but I can forgive that, I know its damn difficult!) than for certain experimental results... On some others there were very little difference between k-e and SST, especially when there's a very big area of separation, eg a sphere, or a diffusing duct with large areas of secondary flow. Only when there was a "gradual" adverse pressure gradient leading to "eventual" separation did the SST show its merits.

Thanx for your advice Robin, it is greatly appreciated
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 6, 2003, 16:58
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #9
Robin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Your welcome Louwrens.

By the way, where SST predicted separation too early, you may want to check that the boundary condition was appropriately specified (right level of turbulence, velocity profile, etc).

Best regards, Robin
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 7, 2003, 03:25
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #10
Louwrens
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
>By the way, where SST predicted separation too early, you may want to check that the boundary condition was appropriately specified (right level of turbulence, velocity profile, etc).

Point noted, but it brings me to another one. Should probably start a new thread for this...

How do you decide on the turbulence level if you don't have prior info? For the stuff I've done I've standardised on Default Intensity and Autocompute Length Scale. Is there some rough guide for turbulence levels for certain applications...?
  Reply With Quote

Old   May 7, 2003, 16:07
Default Re: Effects of NOT using mesh inflation
  #11
Robin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Louwrens,

If you do not have experimental data, you area best to look to the literature or textbook references for your application.

Robin
  Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[ICEM] Negative volume error in hybrid mesh siw ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 4 September 3, 2014 05:25
3D Hybrid Mesh Errors DarrenC ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 11 August 5, 2013 06:42
[ICEM] Generating Mesh for STL Car in Windtunnel Simulation tommymoose ANSYS Meshing & Geometry 48 April 15, 2013 04:24
inflation layers for hexa mesh using icem cfd Apple CFX 4 January 6, 2012 01:12
engrid -> save as .stl with boundarie codes Zymon enGrid 31 August 29, 2011 13:40


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:55.