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

Y+ question

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   June 8, 2009, 01:53
Default Y+ question
  #1
Tom
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 9
Tom is on a distinguished road
I am having a very weird problem. I have read that a Y+of 1 should bring my lift and drag values closer to experimental values. However, it is not in my case. As the Y+ decreases, the lift coefficient obtained is quite good and drag is higher than the values in the journal im studying. As the Y+ increases to about 30 the drag coefficient is quite good and lift coefficient suffers. So im trying values in the buffer region to minimise the error. But i am not getting any results at Angle of attack of 10. The solution does not converge. Same for Y+ values of 30.

Anyone has any tips for guiding me on adjusting the values in my SST model. The turbulence intensity im using is less than 0.1% so im using values between 0.03 to 0.08%. Length scale auto, not sure how small of a length scale to use.

Thanks.

Last edited by Tom; June 8, 2009 at 02:28.
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2009, 06:45
Default
  #2
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,638
Rep Power: 98
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
Hi,

Is turbulent transition important? Often for accurate drag numbers it is. This model requires the use of a Y+=1 grid as you can't use wall functions with that model.

There is also a heap of other potential problems... Mesh sensitivity and quality, boundary proximity, convergence, transient flow features etc etc

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2009, 10:12
Default
  #3
Tom
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 9
Tom is on a distinguished road
Transition is important. As i need that info. Yea i did it with a Y+1 Grid and it gives a high drag result at low angle of attack for instance 0 degree. But at high angle 10 degree its gives me a good result.

This makes me wonder if the information/experiment result in the journal is accurate.
Was wondering if getting drag coefficient values from wake surveys in the experiment data i have be the same as the data im getting for my drag in CFX, I obtain my drag coefficient using force_x function.
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2009, 18:53
Default
  #4
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,638
Rep Power: 98
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
Hi,

The journal article should have some form of error estimate. My understanding is the wake survey method is not very accurate but people more experienced in the field may have more detailed comments.

If you are using the turbulence transition model then inlet turbulence levels and surface roughness become critical. Are you sure you have them correct?

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 8, 2009, 21:01
Default
  #5
Tom
New Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 14
Rep Power: 9
Tom is on a distinguished road
Yea tried playing around with the inlet turbulence level till it becomes quite low about 0.0001 with a small length scale. Still it has quite a high drag with SST. Guess i will use another model with scalable wall and compare my results Thanks alot.
Tom is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2009, 07:57
Default
  #6
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,638
Rep Power: 98
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
Hi,

You are unlikely to do much better than SST with the turbulence transition model for aerofoil flows unless you start looking towards DES or LES. If a simple two-equation turbulence model does better than SST it is probably just luck.

I suggest you look at general simulation accuracy issues - mesh sensitivity, mesh quality, inlet and outlet proximity, surface roughness etc etc.

And of course are you sure the results you are comparing to are correct?

Glenn Horrocks
ghorrocks is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 9, 2009, 09:00
Default My two cents
  #7
Member
 
Paulo Alexandre Costa Rocha
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 71
Rep Power: 9
paulo is on a distinguished road
Hi to all,

Since you are not sure of the paper's results, you could start validating you problem with the classical cylinder, which is very well documented (rotating cylinder for lift predictions).

At 10 degree AoA, you may have vortex shedding, what won't let your simulation to converge, and you will have to use a transient simulation.

Hope that helps anyway,

Best Regards,

Paulo Rocha
paulo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 11, 2009, 06:09
Default Y+ value for supersonic nozzle abd BC conditions
  #8
New Member
 
Sudharshani
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Melbourne,Australia
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 9
Sudharshani is on a distinguished road
hai....
i am new to CFX.. modeling a supersonic CD nozzle...with an exit Mach number just under<2(keeping in mind to match nozzle exit outlet pressure to ambient at certain altitude....my case at 60,000ft Pambient=0.043atm)
maintain a NPR 8:1 to generate supersonic flow down stream

Q(1) if iam using SST what Y+ value should i use?

Q(2) thinking of two options to set up BC(stuck here)
option 1: if i set "inlet as static pressure"/0.344(NPR 8:1) and can i use outlet as 'static pressure" of 0.043 atm to match ambient?
option 2: if i set "inlet as static pressure/0.344"...and "outlet as opening"...then how can i match the exit presure to ambient?

some help would be appreciated
Sudhar





Quote:
Originally Posted by ghorrocks View Post
Hi,

Is turbulent transition important? Often for accurate drag numbers it is. This model requires the use of a Y+=1 grid as you can't use wall functions with that model.

There is also a heap of other potential problems... Mesh sensitivity and quality, boundary proximity, convergence, transient flow features etc etc

Glenn Horrocks
Sudharshani is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 11, 2009, 06:24
Default
  #9
Super Moderator
 
Glenn Horrocks
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 12,638
Rep Power: 98
ghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the roughghorrocks is a jewel in the rough
I assume for supersonic flows you are not interested in turbulence transition and suck things. In fact I don't think the CFX turbulence transition model is calibrated for supersonic flows anyway so I would not recommend using it. That means you are probably OK with a more normal wall function grid. In this case you should aim to have y+>20 or so. Exactly what you need you will have to determine with a sensitivity analysis.

Set the reference pressure to the ambient pressure and use zero relative pressure at the outlet.
ghorrocks is offline   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
Unanswered question niklas OpenFOAM 2 July 31, 2013 16:03
Question concerning flow3D Julian Gacek Main CFD Forum 0 October 1, 2007 16:00
Poisson Solver question Suresh Main CFD Forum 3 August 12, 2005 04:37
CHANNEL FLOW: a question and a request Carlos Main CFD Forum 4 August 23, 2002 05:55
question K.L.Huang CD-adapco 1 March 29, 2000 04:57


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:11.