
[Sponsors] 
April 30, 2013, 08:11 
How to achieve a Cd with ke in an acceptable range of accuracy

#1 
New Member
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7 
Hello dear everyone,
I'm conducting a 3D wavestructure impact CFD analysis. The goal is to get a favored drag on the structure such as a column, a pile or a beam. I've found in many literatures that they have achieved a satisfactory drag coefficient with the ke series turb model in accordance with the experiment result. On the other, many experts proved that the ke series are not suitable for the external flow, especially with flow separation and large adverse pressure gradient  which is exactly the case of the flow around a cylinder... The industry may choose the ke series for the low computional cost. The relatively coarse mesh adjacent to the wall (with y+=30~200) could remarkbly save the scope of the calculation model. I wish to achieve that, but failed again and again. For that the wavestructure analysis must be conducted with 3D model. If I choose the boundarylayercomputed model such as komega SST or LES, the mesh scope will be so large that I could not afford. But till now after many test with cylinder external flow, I could not achieve an acceptable drag with ke and standard, scalable or nonequilibrium wall functions, though the y+ requirement in the nearwall mesh could be satisfied. I just wonder that whether there is some method I can obtain a favored drag (maybe only the drag..) in the range acceptable in the engineering sense, say, error in 10~20% for the CFD results. And I still wonder that how the achieved ones succeeded in doing that? Could anybody give some help? Many thanks !! 

April 30, 2013, 08:25 

#2 
New Member
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7 
In the test calculation, I found that the error anticipation of the separating angle and the pressure in the wake region may be the point. When I attempted to reduce the turbulent viscosity, the result could be a little improved. However, the reduction of the turb viscosity is only an attempt...
I just only want the drag... with low mesh cost, anyway.. 

April 30, 2013, 08:49 

#3 
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 315
Rep Power: 13 
Why not try the combination of SST kw model along with wall function method?


April 30, 2013, 12:42 

#4  
New Member
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7 
Quote:
Er...how I wish I could use that with y+ in >30 !! And then, another problem is, in using the standard wall function we should guarantee the first inner node with y+>30 and meanwhile there should be at least 10~20 nodes in the whole boudary layer. The former could be easily done, however the latter may be sometimes difficult when the total thickness of the BL is not high, eg. within the max y+ around 100 or a little higher. Anyway, I would learn and have a try on that. many thanks !! 

April 30, 2013, 20:40 

#5 
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 315
Rep Power: 13 
The y+ requirement is always related to the wall treatment rather than RANS models. You can have a coarse wall grid to use omegamodels. In fact, you can also use the epsilonmodel for a lowy+ mesh but you have to switch wall treament from the default to EWT (enhanced wall treatment).


May 1, 2013, 01:13 

#6 
Super Moderator

In newer versions of SST model, the default wall treatment is hybrid wall function aka Enhanced wall treatment Wequation (Fluent theory guide 4.13.6.*Enhanced Wall Treatment ωEquation (EWTω))
1. This is generally known as hybrid wall function in open literature http://num.math.unigoettingen.de/ba...ings/knopp.pdf 2. In CFX it is termed as automatic wall treatment Basic theory is to combine the log law with linear law and give the better treatment of buffer zone using the blending function. For Y+ < 5 Integration to wall approach is used, for Y+ > 30 wall functions is used and for Y = 530 blending function is used. Up to 10 the log portion weightage is very low and after Y+ = 20 log law weightage is higher. So if you get the mesh with Y+ > 30 in most of the wall zones then you are using wall function. Please note that at separation Y > 0, so linear profile shall be used there hence no worry For details please refer following threads Enhanced Wall Treatment y+=1 vs Wall Function Wall functions Ansys Fluent PS : For skin friction component of drag you need Y + < 1, so if is important component of your study then using wall function would always give you wrong results. 

May 1, 2013, 08:27 

#7 
New Member
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 7 
Thank you so much, Far and Blackmask and everyone paid attention on this thread. I will have a try on this kind of EWT.
btw, the contrubution brought by the skin friction in the total drag is not significant, especially in my case with rectanglular columns, though, in the case of cylinder external flow, the friction would affect the position of separation. I'd ever tried the komega SST on the circular cylinder which brought me some favored results, e.g. the Cd, Cl and St. This time I really hope it will work on the y+~30 mesh. Many thanks!! 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
whats the cause of error?  immortality  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  11  April 22, 2014 12:32 
CPU& ram config to achieve acceptable simulation time  Blurp2x1  Hardware  7  April 30, 2013 03:32 
is internalField(U) equivalent to zeroGradient?  immortality  OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD  7  March 29, 2013 02:27 
Mesh Expansion Factor Acceptable range  saisanthoshm88  CFX  2  June 28, 2012 23:14 
Acceptable Accuracy or Error?  Erich  Main CFD Forum  6  July 2, 2001 13:30 