|April 16, 2014, 07:56||
k-omega SST near-wall mesh
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 7Rep Power: 2
I'm doing calculations on an air inlet (a pipe, basically), the objective being the evaluation of the total pressure losses at a certain distance. I use the pressure-based solver, steady, k-omega SST for turbulence.
I have doubts concerning the mesh I should generate: I have noticed that Fluent doesn't offer the choice between wall-law/low-Re concerning the near-wall modeling, and I assumed that it picked the appropriate model, according to the Y+ of the near-wall layer.
This extract from the Fluent User's Guide seems to confirm my hypothesis:
"The wall boundary conditions for the k equation in the k-omega models are treated in the same way as the equation is treated when enhanced wall treatments are used with the k-epsilon models. This means that all boundary conditions for wall-function meshes will correspond to the wall function approach, while for the fine meshes, the appropriate low-Reynolds number boundary conditions will be applied."
In order to generate lighter meshes, I chose the wall-law approach, and I made sure that the Y+ was always between 30 and 200, as close as possible to 30.
My professor, however, just told me that the k-omega SST model is supposed to be used only with low-Re meshes, and that If I wanted to keep the cell count low, I had to switch to the k-epsilon or standard k-omega models.
I'd like to stick with the k-omega SST since it should combine the strengths of the k-epsilon and std k-omega models... could someone clarify the point concerning the meshes? Am I obliged to generate low Re grids if I want to use the K-omega SST model?
|April 17, 2014, 18:19||
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 46Rep Power: 2
Not necessarily. The thing is that k-omega is good for near-wall modeling with a y+ of around 1 while k-epsilon is good for fully turbulent free stream flow. Thus, k-omega lacks accuracy when applied to fully turbulent farfield flow whereas k-epsilon models the near-wall region with wall functions.
The k-w SST model combines the advantages of both approaches as it includes a blending function (F1) that switches from k-w in the nearfield to k-e in the freestream flow. This is obviously also a function of the local y+ value. If you are using a y+ of 30 and the k-w SST model, you won't take advantage of the accurate boundary layer resolution of the k-w model as you would effectively only make use of the k-e model.
What I want to say is: If you are using the k-w SST model with a y+ of 30, you could also just use the realizable k-e with enhanced wall treatment as it wouldn't really make any difference.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|how to set periodic boundary conditions||Ganesh||FLUENT||13||January 22, 2014 04:11|
|Wall treatment mesh refinement in k-omega SST model||Jorg||FLUENT||0||February 27, 2013 11:32|
|[ICEM] Export ICEM mesh to Gambit / Fluent||romekr||ANSYS Meshing & Geometry||1||November 26, 2011 12:11|
|Convergence moving mesh||lr103476||OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD||30||November 19, 2007 14:09|
|Multicomponent fluid||Andrea||CFX||2||October 11, 2004 05:12|