# y+ values

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

 January 6, 2004, 19:00 y+ values #1 Mark Fahey Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, Can someone confirm my understanding of scaleable wall functions and the importance of y+ values. Is it true that there is no recommended minimum y+ value? So y+ values of around 1 to 3 are ok? If I want to resolve the flow profile in the boundary layer, then I should just make sure there are sufficient nodes, right? Thanks in advance! Mark

 January 8, 2004, 12:27 Re: y+ values #2 Forrest Guest   Posts: n/a Hi, Mark To my understanding, yes, you are right. Scalable wall function can overcome the problems of inconsistencies with fine mesh (the first node is down to the sub-layer). If you are trying to resolve the boundary including the sub-layer, sub-layer models with y+ values lower than 2 are recommended. Regards, Forrest

 January 8, 2004, 15:38 Re: y+ values #3 Mark Fahey Guest   Posts: n/a Thanks!

 January 9, 2004, 11:11 Re: y+ values #4 Helge Guest   Posts: n/a This is not the whole story. k-e with scalable wall functions was a first step towards "y+ independent" meshes. In case of a y+ value below 11 anywhere in the model, y+ is set to 11 locally. So the node is shifted virtually out of the viscous sublayer. So wall functions are applied everywhere. This is a pragmatic approach but it leads to results better than ordinary k-e with meshes where y+ locally lies outside a range between 20 and 200, the well known y+ criterion. The next step was the introduction of the SST model in which the wall treatment is managed automatically. Where y+ locally is below 11 the SST model switches from a wall function formulation to a low-Re formulation where the flow field is integrated down to the wall (no wall functions are used) If you have a mesh where y+ is around 1 allover (which is better regarding accuracy), you also can use SST because the model then behaves as a full low-Re model

 January 10, 2004, 00:05 Re: y+ values #5 Melisa Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Helge, I just look at the solver theory. It used Y* instead of Y+. ie. the alternative velocity scale is used instead of friction velocity in Y+. I wonder if Y+ & Y* are the same. If I used friction velocity in the Y+ formula, can I still follow the criteria stated in the manual (i.e. 20

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post irishdave OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 28 May 28, 2015 13:37 mrestrepo30 FLUENT 0 April 27, 2010 09:20 jason_t FLUENT 0 August 19, 2009 11:32 RubenG Main CFD Forum 0 June 22, 2009 11:09 JB FLUENT 2 November 1, 2008 13:04

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:56.