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

How to achieve a Cd with k-e in an acceptable range of accuracy

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

Like Tree2Likes
  • 1 Post By blackmask
  • 1 Post By Far

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 30, 2013, 08:11
Default How to achieve a Cd with k-e in an acceptable range of accuracy
  #1
New Member
 
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
joy2000 is on a distinguished road
Hello dear everyone,

I'm conducting a 3D wave-structure 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 k-e series turb model in accordance with the experiment result. On the other, many experts proved that the k-e 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 k-e 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 wave-structure analysis must be conducted with 3D model. If I choose the boundary-layer-computed model such as k-omega 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 k-e and standard, scalable or non-equilibrium wall functions, though the y+ requirement in the near-wall 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 !!
joy2000 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 30, 2013, 08:25
Default
  #2
New Member
 
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
joy2000 is on a distinguished road
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..
joy2000 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 30, 2013, 08:49
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 315
Rep Power: 11
blackmask will become famous soon enough
Why not try the combination of SST kw model along with wall function method?
blackmask is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 30, 2013, 12:42
Default
  #4
New Member
 
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
joy2000 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmask View Post
Why not try the combination of SST kw model along with wall function method?
Thank you very much, blackmask. But, I'm using the software Fluent, in which I'm not very clear how to combine the k-w SST with wall functions. I know in fluent the k-omega series would solve the viscous sub-layer in the boundary layer which requires the near wall mesh with y+ around 1.

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 !!
joy2000 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 30, 2013, 20:40
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 315
Rep Power: 11
blackmask will become famous soon enough
The y+ requirement is always related to the wall treatment rather than RANS models. You can have a coarse wall grid to use omega-models. In fact, you can also use the epsilon-model for a low-y+ mesh but you have to switch wall treament from the default to EWT (enhanced wall treatment).
joy2000 likes this.
blackmask is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2013, 01:13
Default
  #6
Far
Super Moderator
 
Far's Avatar
 
Sijal Ahmed Memon (turboenginner@gmail.com)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Islamabad Pakistan
Posts: 3,905
Blog Entries: 6
Rep Power: 38
Far will become famous soon enoughFar will become famous soon enough
Send a message via Skype™ to Far
In newer versions of SST model, the default wall treatment is hybrid wall function aka Enhanced wall treatment W-equation (Fluent theory guide 4.13.6.*Enhanced Wall Treatment ω-Equation (EWT-ω))

1. This is generally known as hybrid wall function in open literature
http://num.math.uni-goettingen.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 = 5-30 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.
joy2000 likes this.
Far is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 1, 2013, 08:27
Default
  #7
New Member
 
hp
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 5
joy2000 is on a distinguished road
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 k-omega 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!!
joy2000 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
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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:44.