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

unrealistic velocity and vortex filed, how to remove this effect?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   June 1, 2012, 11:53
Default unrealistic velocity and vortex filed, how to remove this effect?
  #1
Senior Member
 
lakeat's Avatar
 
Daniel WEI (老魏)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Posts: 688
Blog Entries: 9
Rep Power: 12
lakeat is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lakeat
Has anyone seen something like this? I got very unpleasant vortex traces in front of the building, when I was doing a 3D exterior LES incompressible flow simulation. It seems this is related to the mesh, but I guess there would be a way to remove this effect through convection term discretization scheme...
Could anyone who is familiar with LES look at this,

https://plus.google.com/photos/10298...PuUroPlqp7N-QE

In this link, one is the mesh, another is the vortex (extracted by Q method.)

Any ideas? Thanks
__________________
~
Daniel WEI
-------------
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences
University of Notre Dame, USA
Email || My Personal CFD Blog
lakeat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 1, 2012, 12:27
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,399
Rep Power: 19
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeat View Post
Has anyone seen something like this? I got very unpleasant vortex traces in front of the building, when I was doing a 3D exterior LES incompressible flow simulation. It seems this is related to the mesh, but I guess there would be a way to remove this effect through convection term discretization scheme...
Could anyone who is familiar with LES look at this,

https://plus.google.com/photos/10298...PuUroPlqp7N-QE

In this link, one is the mesh, another is the vortex (extracted by Q method.)

Any ideas? Thanks

to assess if your simulation is correct you must control the variables that are actually solved... the Q method does not say much....
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2012, 08:51
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
sail's Avatar
 
Vieri Abolaffio
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Always on the move.
Posts: 308
Rep Power: 7
sail is on a distinguished road
It is hard to judge by your picture, but my best guess would be something related to the mesh.

from the first picture I see some discontinuities of the cell volume in certain areas, probably at the intersections within the various blocks.

I'm not an LES expert, but maybe this have something to do with the sub grid scale modelling? have you tried using some Dynamic SGS model?

another idea could be to increase the ortogonality corrector of the solvers or change the number of the multigrid scheme (assuming you are using GAMG).

just my 0.02€

edit: i'm assuming you are using OpenFoam.
__________________
http://www.leadingedge.it/
Naval architecture and CFD consultancy
sail is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2012, 09:11
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
lakeat's Avatar
 
Daniel WEI (老魏)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Posts: 688
Blog Entries: 9
Rep Power: 12
lakeat is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lakeat
Thanks for your input!
There is no discontinuity in the mesh, it is totally multi-blk structured mesh. It is just paraview display issue.

And I met this before when I did LES simulations, where in front of the obstacle there is always velocity wriggling, it is not just simply velocity gradient, because the wriggling is always on those mesh cells with high aspect ratio. (You can imagine that kind of mesh, since it is a multi-block mesh, so the near wall mesh will project to the far field, so to have a very high aspect ratio cells in the far field.)

I've been asked that why there is vortex there, I dont know how to get rid of this.
I hope there would be a solution not on the mesh, but on the setting of the diffsion scheme or something.

I do use non-orthogonality correction, (3 in OpenFOAM), but to no avail. And I was using filteredLinear for the convection of U.


Any experience?


EDIT
-------
Sometimes I was wondering if this is due to the delta definition in LES, which I have tried both cube-root of cell volume, or the smoothed delta, but still there is wriggling.
__________________
~
Daniel WEI
-------------
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences
University of Notre Dame, USA
Email || My Personal CFD Blog
lakeat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2012, 10:26
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,399
Rep Power: 19
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Basing on my experience on LES I suggest:

- perform a simulation on the same grid without any SGS model (LES no-model), check the solution by means of statistics, then compare the statistic with the modelled solution
- perform a grid refinement and check the new solutions, do that for 3 different grids

Of course I am assuming all the stability criteria are verified.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2012, 10:41
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
lakeat's Avatar
 
Daniel WEI (老魏)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Posts: 688
Blog Entries: 9
Rep Power: 12
lakeat is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lakeat
Will do. Thank you very much.

The 2nd suggestion would be difficult, but I would try your 1st suggestion first. May I know your point for the 1st suggestion is? What if something happen, or what if something does not happen, then your point is?

Btw, whether Lambda or Q criterion, I found the threshold is in general vague to set, I'd like to hear how would you identify the vortex. Even though it might be of little impact on the Statistic results.
__________________
~
Daniel WEI
-------------
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences
University of Notre Dame, USA
Email || My Personal CFD Blog
lakeat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2012, 10:55
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,399
Rep Power: 19
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeat View Post
Will do. Thank you very much.

The 2nd suggestion would be difficult, but I would try your 1st suggestion first. May I know your point for the 1st suggestion is? What if something happen, or what if something does not happen, then your point is?

Btw, whether Lambda or Q criterion, I found the threshold is in general vague to set, I'd like to hear how would you identify the vortex. Even though it might be of little impact on the Statistic results.

you can check the effect of the SGS model, I expect that the no-model simulation is stable but with possibly energy pile-up at the Nyquist frequency, that means you should see small vortical structures (of the order of some cell size) that are only of numerical nature, not physically relevant. The simulation with the SGS model (I assume you have an eddy viscosity model) should show such structures no longer present. Check rms and possibly spectra.

If you use the lambda-2 criterion, then a small negative value should be used as threshold
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2012, 11:42
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
lakeat's Avatar
 
Daniel WEI (老魏)
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Posts: 688
Blog Entries: 9
Rep Power: 12
lakeat is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to lakeat
Okay, will do. Thanks for suggestion.

Generally, my experience on the bluff body simulation shows the statistical results is usually not bad and make sense.

And concerning these vortex identification methods, it seems to become an problem, I mean they seems to be "strongly physically defined" but not quite "numerical flexible".

This is usually little to do with the statistical results.

For example, I'd like to hear your suggestion too on this.
For instance, not everyone will go wall resolved LES, many are now go hybrid, and even in hybrid, not everytime you will have an ideal ~cubic cells in the wake region, actually many cells will be with high aspect ratio inevitably. The SGS model responds to these non-ideal grids with different manner, some works good, others not, other prefer even using max(delta_x, delta_y, delta_z) as filter..

I would hope there is a more powerful/flexible vortex identification to suit for hybird approach, high strectching meshes etc...
__________________
~
Daniel WEI
-------------
NatHaz Modeling Laboratory
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering & Earth Sciences
University of Notre Dame, USA
Email || My Personal CFD Blog
lakeat is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2012, 11:52
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,399
Rep Power: 19
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by lakeat View Post
Okay, will do. Thanks for suggestion.

Generally, my experience on the bluff body simulation shows the statistical results is usually not bad and make sense.

And concerning these vortex identification methods, it seems to become an problem, I mean they seems to be "strongly physically defined" but not quite "numerical flexible".

This is usually little to do with the statistical results.

For example, I'd like to hear your suggestion too on this.
For instance, not everyone will go wall resolved LES, many are now go hybrid, and even in hybrid, not everytime you will have an ideal ~cubic cells in the wake region, actually many cells will be with high aspect ratio inevitably. The SGS model responds to these non-ideal grids with different manner, some works good, others not, other prefer even using max(delta_x, delta_y, delta_z) as filter..

I would hope there is a more powerful/flexible vortex identification to suit for hybird approach, high strectching meshes etc...
My opinion is that it exists much confusion in LES... physical modelling, mathematical filtering, numerical methods are not independent each other... for example, using implicit filtering both the grid and the numerical scheme defines the filter shape, inevitably you have a built-in smooth transfer function and a smoothing of the energy at resolved scales that is not du to the SGS model. Therefore, small vortical structures are "filtered" implicitly by the numerics and are then dissipated further by the SGS model. What you see in the small (resolved) vortical structures in LES can be very different from what you can see in a DNS at the same grid level. That does not mean that is wrong what you see in LES. Remember that in LES you resolve for a different variable, filtering effects can be relevant
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 27, 2012, 02:47
Default
  #10
New Member
 
Qiang Zhou
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 6
michael1023 is on a distinguished road
Hi,老魏

I investigated the same case (including same grid system and LES model and so on) both in OpenFoam and Fluent. The phenomenon of velocity wriggling was only found in OpenFoam. Do you find any solutions to get rid of this phenomenon.
Thank you.

Zhou Qiang
michael1023 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 27, 2012, 04:31
Default
  #11
New Member
 
Qiang Zhou
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 6
michael1023 is on a distinguished road
Hi, 老魏。

I doubt this non-physical wiggle may cause by the divergence schemes. At first, I use the linear scheme (general scheme) which is always considered as the reason to cause the non-physical wiggles. Now I change the scheme to NVD scheme. But I have not got the new result so that I am not sure it can be effective.

Last edited by michael1023; December 28, 2012 at 03:17.
michael1023 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 28, 2012, 03:23
Default
  #12
New Member
 
Qiang Zhou
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Tongji University, Shanghai, China
Posts: 27
Rep Power: 6
michael1023 is on a distinguished road
Hi, 老魏.

I think the unrealistic velocity is caused by the divergence scheme that you applied, but not caused by the grid system.

As we known, the central differencing scheme (the same as the linear scheme in OpenFoam) may cause the instability and non-physical wiggles. Thus I have applied the SFCD scheme (a kind of NVD scheme) and the non-physical wiggles have been avoided.

In addition, the SFCD scheme is not suitable for all kinds of cases since the vortex may be partly suppressed by this scheme in some cases. You can try to use this kind of scheme, please tell me if it works.

Zhou Qiang
michael1023 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 23, 2013, 13:47
Default
  #13
Senior Member
 
immortality's Avatar
 
Ehsan
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Iran
Posts: 2,174
Rep Power: 16
immortality is on a distinguished road
hi
whats the formula of SFCD and SFCDV?
immortality 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
Calculating Velocity from a VLM method jd88 Main CFD Forum 0 September 9, 2010 16:24
velocity potential of a vortex line segment in 3d quarkz Main CFD Forum 0 August 24, 2009 10:39
Vortex flow fields & Nature Oliver Main CFD Forum 4 September 13, 2000 17:47
Free vortex - forced vortex Armin Hofstädter Main CFD Forum 2 November 17, 1998 19:55
slip velocity on boundary (V.P.M) Lee, Juhee Main CFD Forum 3 October 22, 1998 15:30


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:24.