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

Use of k-epsilon and k-omega Models

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

Like Tree63Likes
  • 6 Post By Jade M
  • 6 Post By CapSizer
  • 47 Post By Jade M
  • 2 Post By wxmoore
  • 1 Post By sasitharan
  • 1 Post By vivekcfd

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   April 28, 2010, 13:36
Default Use of k-epsilon and k-omega Models
  #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 145
Rep Power: 8
Jade M is on a distinguished road
I've extensively researched k-epsilon and omega based models including SST.

I've read about the disadvantages of k-epsilon which are that it is only valid for fully turbulent flow and non-separated flows and that it can have stability issues due to numerical stiffness. Are there any advantages to the k-epsilon model? This models seems to still be a widely used model despite its disadvantages. In my (limited) experience, its validity only for fully turbulent flows and non-separated flows seems to narrow its applicability quite a bit.

Based on the advantages of SST and my experience, there does not appear to ever be any reason to choose k-epsilon over SST. Is this correct? What are the disadvantages of using SST?

Thanks in advance for any information. I would really like to determine the answer to these questions so I would be very grateful for any responses.

Last edited by Jade M; April 28, 2010 at 15:04.
Jade M is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 28, 2010, 16:41
Default Better the devil you know?
  #2
Senior Member
 
Charles
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 179
Rep Power: 9
CapSizer is on a distinguished road
As your research has no doubt shown, there are many aspects of RANS turbulence modelling that are deeply unsatisfactory. So to put it crudely, when faced with having to choose between a number of options known to be "wrong", there is something to be said for choosing an option (for example the k-epsilon model) of known "wrongness". SST model in my experience produces good results, certainly much better when dealing with partially separated flows. For example, it does very well for transonic body lift at angle of attack (think of missile bodies). However, it seems to work best without wall functions, yet it is not always practical to mesh down to y+ ~1 wall spacing. Also, the k-epsilon to k-omega switch can produce some dramatically unrealistic effective viscosity distrubutions. It may not affect the results, but it doesn't do much for one's confidence in the generality of the method. Life becomes a lot easier when you have some experimental data to provide some of that confidence.
zino, BalanceChen, joy2000 and 3 others like this.
CapSizer is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   April 28, 2010, 16:43
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 145
Rep Power: 8
Jade M is on a distinguished road
Thanks for the quick and helpful reply!

I am supposed to become the thermal/fluid expert in the division of my company, so I am trying to build some documentation to which I can (and others) can later refer.

I am quoting below some information that I have gathered. I'd appreciate any comments or suggestions.

Standard k-e
The baseline two-transport-equation model solving for kinetic energy k and turbulent dissipation ε. Turbulent dissipation is the rate at which velocity fluctuations dissipate. This is the default k–ε model. Coefficients are empirically derived; valid for fully turbulent flows only. In the standard k-e model, the eddy viscosity is determined from a single turbulence length scale, so the calculated turbulent diffusion is that which occurs only at the specified scale, whereas in reality all scales of motion will contribute to the turbulent diffusion. The k-e model uses the gradient diffusion hypothesis to relate the Reynolds stresses to the mean velocity gradients and the turbulent viscosity. Performs poorly for complex flows involving severe pressure gradient, separation, strong streamline curvature. The most disturbing weakness is lack of sensitivity to adverse pressure gradients; another shortcoming is numerical stiffness when equations are integrated through the viscous sublayer which are treated with damping functions that have stability issues [F. R. Menter, “Zonal Two Equation k-w Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper #93-2906, 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, July 1993; F. R. Menter, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA Journal, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1598-1605, 1994]. {Notes: The author’s self-investigation for flow through a pipe is consistent with the statements that this model is valid for flows without separation and for fully turbulent flow. Compared to a finned problem which had separation and which predicted erroneous results with the k-e model, this pipe flow did not have separation and results of k-e and k-w models showed good agreement for high Reynolds numbers. In this pipe flow, as Reynolds number was decreased, the difference between the inlet pressures predicted by the k-e and k-w models increased. Note that, based on the author’s limited experience, results for temperature are less sensitive to model choice and for velocity seem indifferent. Pressure results seem highly sensitive to both the model choice and the mesh. Be careful to check all results before deciding that results are valid. For additional details, see section entitled “Comparison of k-e and k-w Models.”}
Pros: Robust. Widely used despite the known limitations of the model. Easy to implement. Computationally cheap. Valid for fully turbulent flows only. Suitable for initial iterations, initial screening of alternative designs, and parametric studies.
Cons: Performs poorly for complex flows involving severe pressure gradient, separation, strong streamline curvature. Most disturbing weakness is lack of sensitivity to adverse pressure gradients; another shortcoming is numerical stiffness when equations are integrated through the viscous sublayer which are treated with damping functions that have stability issues [F. R. Menter, “Zonal Two Equation k-w Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper #93-2906, 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, July 1993; F. R. Menter, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA Journal, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1598-1605, 1994].

Standard k-w
A two-transport-equation model solving for kinetic energy k and turbulent frequency ω. This is the default k–ω model. This model allows for a more accurate near wall treatment with an automatic switch from a wall function to a low-Reynolds number formulation based on grid spacing. Demonstrates superior performance for wall-bounded and low Reynolds number flows. Shows potential for predicting transition. Options account for transitional, free shear, and compressible flows. The k-e model uses the gradient diffusion hypothesis to relate the Reynolds stresses to the mean velocity gradients and the turbulent viscosity. Solves one equation for turbulent kinetic energy k and a second equation for the specific turbulent dissipation rate (or turbulent frequency) w. This model performs significantly better under adverse pressure gradient conditions. The model does not employ damping functions and has straightforward Dirichlet boundary conditions, which leads to significant advantages in numerical stability. This model underpredicts the amount of separation for severe adverse pressure gradient flows.
Pros: Superior performance for wall-bounded boundary layer, free shear, and low Reynolds number flows. Suitable for complex boundary layer flows under adverse pressure gradient and separation (external aerodynamics and turbomachinery). Can be used for transitional flows (though tends to predict early transition).
Cons: Separation is typically predicted to be excessive and early. Requires mesh resolution near the wall.


BSL k-w
A variant of the standard k–ω model. Combines the original Wilcox k-w model for use near walls and the standard k–ε model away from walls using a blending function. This eliminates the standard k-w model’s strong sensitivity to free stream conditions without sacrificing near-wall performance.

SST k-w
Shear Stress Transport (SST) is a variant of the standard k–ω model. Combines the original Wilcox k-w model for use near walls and the standard k–ε model away from walls using a blending function, and the eddy viscosity formulation is modified to account for the transport effects of the principle turbulent shear stress [F. R. Menter, “Zonal Two Equation k-w Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper #93-2906, 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, July 1993; F. R. Menter, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA Journal, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1598-1605, 1994]. Also limits turbulent viscosity to guarantee that τT~k. The transition and shearing options are borrowed from standard k–ω. No option to include compressibility.


SST k-w
Shear Stress Transport (SST) is a variant of the standard k–ω model. Combines the original Wilcox k-w model for use near walls and the standard k–ε model away from walls using a blending function, and the eddy viscosity formulation is modified to account for the transport effects of the principle turbulent shear stress [F. R. Menter, “Zonal Two Equation k-w Turbulence Models for Aerodynamic Flows,” AIAA Paper #93-2906, 24th Fluid Dynamics Conference, July 1993; F. R. Menter, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA Journal, vol. 32, no. 8, pp. 1598-1605, 1994]. Also limits turbulent viscosity to guarantee that τT~k. The transition and shearing options are borrowed from standard k–ω. No option to include compressibility.

Pros: Offers similar benefits as standard k–ω. The SST model accounts for the transport of turbulent shear stress and gives highly accurate predictions of the onset and the amount of flow separation under adverse pressure gradients. SST is recommended for high accuracy boundary layer simulations.
Cons: Dependency on wall distance makes this less suitable for free shear flows compared to standard k-w. Requires mesh resolution near the wall.
A Reynolds Stress model may be more appropriate for flows with sudden changes in strain rate or rotating flows while the SST model may be more appropriate for separated flows.
paka, nisha, sina_mech and 44 others like this.

Last edited by Jade M; April 28, 2010 at 17:16.
Jade M is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   January 18, 2013, 12:41
Default Turbulence Models
  #4
New Member
 
william moore
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 8
Rep Power: 4
wxmoore is on a distinguished road
I will share my experience with using k-omega SST with low Reynolds number correction vs. k-epsilon model. For a very large multiple liquid/gas systems with conjugate heat transfer and huge amount of radiation we tested both types of turbulence models. The system had both very low velocity flow domains and one flow domain which was very high temperature, high velocity with jets,re-circulating flows etc. The k-epsilon model (both realizable and RNG) had difficulty converging and seemed to also limit the energy equation from converging as well. The k-omega SST method resulted in more robust convergence and lower oscillation in the residuals. However, as all CFD users know convergence does not equate to accuracy. We have not correlated this model to test data so we cannot verify the accuracy. In addition the mesh was so large and complex that it was impossible to craete a boundary layer mesh so we could not guarentee that the y-plus values at the wall were close to 1.0.

We are currently modling another case involving combined turbulence and laminar flow (maybe 1% of fluid domain turbulent and the rest laminar) with natural convection and species diffusion. We have experienced a lot of convergence issues using the k-epsilon model and we are now trying the k-omega SST model with low Reynolds Number correction. I will let you know how this turns out.

Overall our experience with the k-omega model has been good but more data needs to be gathered.

William
maphd and FrankFlow like this.
wxmoore is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 16, 2013, 10:54
Default
  #5
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 5
som87 is on a distinguished road
Sorry to bump this old thread.
Just wanted to say, isnt DES (the ultimate mutant so far) aparent suitable solution?From my understanding, DES acts as:-
  • k-omega near wall,
  • k-epsilon just a lil after the BL
  • LES in fair enough distance from the wall
what my point is, the eddy viscosity model and LES model, both has their pros and cons.So since DES is the hybrid of these, it's probably time to focus on DES more than modifying the k-omega and k-epsilon models.(just my thought, I dont want to hurt any senior's feelings with their preference)
__________________
Best wishes,

Somdeb Bandopadhyay
som87 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   May 26, 2013, 00:57
Default
  #6
New Member
 
sasitharan.a
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
sasitharan is on a distinguished road
hello seniors i too having a problem in selecting the model i having a problem in solving a transient case over the compressible flow in a combustion process in a scram jet . please suggest me the turbulence model for the effective combustion which model is most suitable to do so. among k-epsilon , k omega, transistion sst which will give more effective combustion over the circular combustor. ?....
immortality likes this.
sasitharan is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 17, 2013, 04:18
Default
  #7
Member
 
Mehdi GHOZALI
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Dubai, UAE
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 4
Dadou is on a distinguished road
Hello everyone,

I'm using OpenFOAM tosimulate a flow in a plant and a dam and I want to change the turbulence model from K-Epsilon to K-Omega. The problem is that I don't know what I have to change in the files :
- RASPropreties
- transportPropreties
- turbulencePropreties

and I don't what condition and how to set k and Omega for this model of turbulence

Can someone help me ?
Dadou is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   August 14, 2013, 04:35
Default
  #8
Member
 
Frank Ubber
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 32
Rep Power: 3
kornickel is on a distinguished road
Hi Dadou,


I hope I can still help. I also just started learning but as far as I know you need to change:


- RASProperties: "kEpsilon" to "kOmega" (see pages U-99 & U-184 in User Guide)

- transportProperties: if the fluid stays the same, keep it the same. "nu" is the kinematic viscosity of the fluid (see page U-21 in User Guide)

- turbulenceProperties: keep it "RASModel" since you want to stay in Reynolds-averaged stress modelling (see page U-184 in User Guide)


For estimating k and Omega take a look at THIS



Please correct me if I'm wrong! As I said, I also just started learning
kornickel is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 9, 2013, 17:14
Default SST and k-epsilon myth
  #9
Member
 
Vivek Kumar
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 34
Blog Entries: 1
Rep Power: 8
vivekcfd is on a distinguished road
I have heard so many times saying people SST is a better model than epsilon based models. This may be true if you are interested only in the region where the separation occurs especially for negative pressure gradients. If you are interested in the flow development after the attachment, lowRe k-eps or realizable k-epsilon model is definitely a better choice.

I have even seen performing realizable k-epsilon with low y+ treatment model performing better than SST in certain transient flows involving strong flow separation. To me it seems that is not right to say that SST is better than k-epsilon.

One must be careful in swirling and rotating flows, there k-epsilon model has certain difficulties.
ivan-s likes this.
vivekcfd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 9, 2013, 18:19
Default
  #10
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 68
Rep Power: 5
som87 is on a distinguished road
"better wall treatment "..ofc sst is based on the seperation point on the wall..thats why (some) prefers DES, in which thx to the non-const term in dissipation , it can work as k-epsilon at regions far enough from wall (flow development)
__________________
Best wishes,

Somdeb Bandopadhyay
som87 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 4, 2013, 04:04
Default Turbulence error
  #11
Member
 
le hoang anh
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 96
Rep Power: 4
lehoanganh07 is on a distinguished road
Hello CFD member,

I am using LRT k-omega for my work: 2 phase flow.
But when I ran, the kinetic energy and omega had negative value. I dont know what and why got that error.
Anyone can help me?
lehoanganh07 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   December 21, 2013, 05:50
Talking Please help me!!!!
  #12
New Member
 
Vishnu C
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 21
Rep Power: 3
vishnu_240 is on a distinguished road
Hi every body,
I am newbie to CFD, earlier i have coded inviscid flows through Eulers equation with Roe's scheme, now i want to move for viscous and turbulence please help me like what equation should i solve how to include turbulence. A detailed explanation would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.

with regards,
Vishnu C
vishnu_240 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 2, 2015, 13:16
Default
  #13
New Member
 
Ricardo Ferreira
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 2
RLFerreira is on a distinguished road
Hello Foamers!

I am trying simulate a flow through radial diffuser with simpleFoam. In this case, I readed in the literature that RAS models work better without wall functions with mesh more refined near walls.

Please, someone help me how can I disable the wall functions in k, epsilon e nut? I tried these configuration for nut, k and epsilon regarding to just wall boundary condition and doesn't work. I tried value close to zero (1e-10) for k and epsilon and doesn't work too.

nut:

walls
{
type calculated;
value uniform 0;
}

k:
walls
{
type fixedValue;
value uniform 0;
}

epsilon:
walls
{
type fixedValue;
value uniform 0;
}



Thanks.
RLFerreira 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
SimpleFoam k and epsilon bounded nedved OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 13 November 4, 2013 15:13
Bounding epsilon or bounding omega Stylianos OpenFOAM 5 June 9, 2011 00:40
Standard K Epsilon and Transitional SST models Robin FLUENT 1 January 17, 2010 19:06
Use of k omega turbulence model john_w OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 2 September 22, 2009 05:15
SimpleFoam k and epsilon bounded nedved OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 November 25, 2008 21:21


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:09.