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

External 2D Flow - Reynolds Number Effects

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

Like Tree7Likes
  • 2 Post By robo
  • 1 Post By FMDenaro
  • 1 Post By momentumwaves
  • 1 Post By robo
  • 2 Post By flotus1

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   March 27, 2015, 14:52
Default External 2D Flow - Reynolds Number Effects
  #1
New Member
 
nima
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 5
nima_nzm is on a distinguished road
Hello Everybody,

I'm trying to model a 2D laminar flow over a cylinder via Fluent. I got two different result and vortex street behind the cylinder both in Re=4500. cylinder diameter is 2 and viscosity is 1 in both two run. In first run velocity is 5 and density is 450 but in second run velocity is 30 and density is 75. The lift coefficient graphs of both are shown in the picture. (Black graph belongs to velocity of 5).

Shouldn't the flow pattern be determined only by Reynolds Number? Why they are different?

Thank you all
Attached Images
File Type: jpg cl.b2.jpg (31.3 KB, 17 views)
nima_nzm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 27, 2015, 15:06
Default
  #2
Member
 
robo
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 4
robo is on a distinguished road
Are you using the same mesh & time steps in both cases? A mesh independent result should be the same, however if your problem is not independent in one or both cases that could cause a deviation. The graph for the U = 30 case appears more to have more frequency components then I would expect; suggesting a dispersion error.
agd and nima_nzm like this.
robo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 27, 2015, 16:04
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,585
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
the two solutions show different physics ... therefore in your setting the Re number is not the same.
Do you set molecular or kinematic viscosity?
nima_nzm likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 27, 2015, 21:00
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 112
Rep Power: 7
momentumwaves is an unknown quantity at this point
Questions for the OP:
1. Are any other dimensionless groups perhaps involved in the physics?
2. Is Re still relevant?

Homework time!
nima_nzm likes this.
momentumwaves is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 16:42
Default
  #5
New Member
 
nima
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 5
nima_nzm is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by robo View Post
Are you using the same mesh & time steps in both cases? A mesh independent result should be the same, however if your problem is not independent in one or both cases that could cause a deviation. The graph for the U = 30 case appears more to have more frequency components then I would expect; suggesting a dispersion error.

Thank you for your reply. I used the same mesh and time step for both of them and both solution converged . You are right about the frequency in U=30 case. there are two main frequencies. 1.97 Hz and 2.42 Hz (Obtained by FFT of lift coefficient). The Strouhal number for 2D cylinder is reported 0.18 in references. the greater frequency has the Strouhal number of 0.164 and is close to reality. So you say that both case with same Re number must have same pattern and definitely there is a problem in modeling? and convergence in modeling does not guaranty the accuracy of results?
nima_nzm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 16:53
Default
  #6
New Member
 
nima
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 5
nima_nzm is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
the two solutions show different physics ... therefore in your setting the Re number is not the same.
Do you set molecular or kinematic viscosity?

Dear filippo, actually the only difference in two runs is the Reynolds number. B/C I just changed the velocity and density and all other things are same. In defining material properties I set Dynamic Viscosity (N.s/m2) equal to 1 in both case and I changed density and velocity for each case . I'm not sure if the modeling is wrong or the real physics of two models are different b/c for sure the frequency of vortex shedding in case with higher velocity is greater but the Strouhal number must remain constant
nima_nzm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 16:54
Default
  #7
Member
 
robo
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 30
Rep Power: 4
robo is on a distinguished road
Converence of the residuals does not guarantee that the solution accurately reflects the flow, merely that a solution to the discrete equations has been obtained. It's important to remember that the solution is an approximation to the flow, and it will depend on a lot of factors, the mesh and the time step being two of them. In general as the mesh and time step are refined the solution will become a better approximation, and there will be a point where further refining the mesh and timestep don't change the solution. I strongly suspect that the mesh and timestep produced a decent approximation in the first case but not in the second. The dependence on mesh size and time step is generally most visible in the spectral domain. Dispersion errors are errors that introduce additional frequency components due to the mesh/time step; this looks like exactly what is happening in your simulation. You can test this easily by re-running the simulation on a finer mesh with a smaller time step. Continue this process until the results don't change, then compare your cases.

It is possible that there are other issues, but this is the one that seems most likely to me.
nima_nzm likes this.
robo is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 17:00
Default
  #8
New Member
 
nima
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 5
nima_nzm is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by momentumwaves View Post
Questions for the OP:
1. Are any other dimensionless groups perhaps involved in the physics?
2. Is Re still relevant?

Homework time!

Desmond,

1-In my knowledge only Reynolds number affects the flow. If there are heat transfer issues, then other dimensionless group are also involved like Prandtl (Pr) and Peclet (Pe) that are not usable here.

2-Yes I think so... do you have any other idea?

Thanks
nima_nzm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 17:08
Default
  #9
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,585
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by nima_nzm View Post
Dear filippo, actually the only difference in two runs is the Reynolds number. B/C I just changed the velocity and density and all other things are same. In defining material properties I set Dynamic Viscosity (N.s/m2) equal to 1 in both case and I changed density and velocity for each case . I'm not sure if the modeling is wrong or the real physics of two models are different b/c for sure the frequency of vortex shedding in case with higher velocity is greater but the Strouhal number must remain constant

the flow model is incompressible or you are solving the compressible form?
for the incompressible case the two solutions must be coincident
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 17:19
Default
  #10
New Member
 
nima
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 5
nima_nzm is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by robo View Post
Converence of the residuals does not guarantee that the solution accurately reflects the flow, merely that a solution to the discrete equations has been obtained. It's important to remember that the solution is an approximation to the flow, and it will depend on a lot of factors, the mesh and the time step being two of them. In general as the mesh and time step are refined the solution will become a better approximation, and there will be a point where further refining the mesh and timestep don't change the solution. I strongly suspect that the mesh and timestep produced a decent approximation in the first case but not in the second. The dependence on mesh size and time step is generally most visible in the spectral domain. Dispersion errors are errors that introduce additional frequency components due to the mesh/time step; this looks like exactly what is happening in your simulation. You can test this easily by re-running the simulation on a finer mesh with a smaller time step. Continue this process until the results don't change, then compare your cases.

It is possible that there are other issues, but this is the one that seems most likely to me.

Most likely there are problems with mesh size and time step. I'm gonna try with more accurate modeling. Thank you by the way. your comments are really helpful
nima_nzm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 17:47
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
flotus1's Avatar
 
Alex
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,097
Rep Power: 19
flotus1 will become famous soon enoughflotus1 will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by nima_nzm View Post
I used the same mesh and time step for both of them
That is not how it works. Since you changed the velocity, the frequency of the vortex shedding will be different.
Remember: the Strouhal number has the same order of magnitude over a wide range of Reynolds numbers.
So the temporal discretization is different for both cases. See this thread fore some examples on the topic.

What is even worse is that you are simulating a turbulent flow. Re=4500 is in the turbulent regime for the flow past a cylinder.
So what you are doing is basically an under-resolved DNS. Doing so with different normalized time step sizes will trigger different results.
momentumwaves and nima_nzm like this.
flotus1 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 17:59
Default
  #12
New Member
 
nima
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 5
nima_nzm is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by FMDenaro View Post
the flow model is incompressible or you are solving the compressible form?
for the incompressible case the two solutions must be coincident

It is incompressible model. I am trying to change the grid and using finer time step and see if result change
nima_nzm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 18:38
Default
  #13
New Member
 
nima
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 25
Rep Power: 5
nima_nzm is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by flotus1 View Post
That is not how it works. Since you changed the velocity, the frequency of the vortex shedding will be different.
Remember: the Strouhal number has the same order of magnitude over a wide range of Reynolds numbers.
So the temporal discretization is different for both cases. See this thread fore some examples on the topic.

What is even worse is that you are simulating a turbulent flow. Re=4500 is in the turbulent regime for the flow past a cylinder.
So what you are doing is basically an under-resolved DNS. Doing so with different normalized time step sizes will trigger different results.

Thanks. I almost understand where I made a mistake... I should change the time step and grid size. I was not sure if the differences between two models are physically reasonable.
nima_nzm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 28, 2015, 22:48
Default
  #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 112
Rep Power: 7
momentumwaves is an unknown quantity at this point
Quote:
Originally Posted by nima_nzm View Post
Desmond,

1-In my knowledge only Reynolds number affects the flow. If there are heat transfer issues, then other dimensionless group are also involved like Prandtl (Pr) and Peclet (Pe) that are not usable here.

2-Yes I think so... do you have any other idea?

Thanks
As mentioned above, the Strouhal number & Re both apply. It was also mentioned that vortex shedding frequency changes. The simple answer is for you to develop a relationship which involves Re, Str, & set vortex frequency constant. This will then provide you the parameters for the new simulation which should 'look the same' - well, certainly in terms of vortex shedding frequency.

Please do us the service of posting graphics displays of each run, once you have settled the matter. I'd like to see if other things change visually, even with same vortex shedding frequency.

Have fun...
momentumwaves is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 29, 2015, 04:56
Default
  #15
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,585
Rep Power: 20
FMDenaro will become famous soon enough
the key is that the non-dimensional momentum equation write as

dv/dt + Div (vv) + grad p = (1/Re) Div Grad v

in which is assumed St =1 and Re is the only non-dimensional number that governs the flow.

If you solve the dimensional form you should satisfy the same constraint St=1. If you ensure such value, the solutions must be coincident.
FMDenaro 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
OF2.3.1 + OS13.2 - Trying to use the dummy Pstream library aylalisa OpenFOAM Installation 23 June 15, 2015 14:49
Cluster ID's not contiguous in compute-nodes domain. ??? Shogan FLUENT 1 May 28, 2014 15:03
AMI interDyMFoam for mixer danny123 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 4 June 19, 2013 04:49
fluid flow fundas ram Main CFD Forum 5 June 17, 2000 21:31
Difficulties in solving a high Reynolds number Flow? wowakai Main CFD Forum 10 December 29, 1998 14:46


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 22:11.