CFD Online URL
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

DES in 2D ????

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

Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By Josh
  • 1 Post By Martin Hegedus
  • 1 Post By julien.decharentenay
  • 1 Post By Josh

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   June 3, 2011, 07:36
Default DES in 2D ????
  #1
Senior Member
 
Raashid Baig
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 136
Rep Power: 6
cfd_newbie is on a distinguished road
I am new to DES so my question may seem to be obvious.
I was reading a CFX document where it is mentioned that -
"For DES two-dimensional and axisymmetric simulations are not feasible, as turbulent structures are always three-dimensional."

My doubt is if were are trying to validate a 2D airfoil how do we do DES ?
Do we have to extrude our airfoil to make it 3D ?, if yes then by how much ? and in that case will it be OK to compared a 3D CFD result with a 2D experimental results.

Dear fellow members/visitors please enlighten me on this.

Regards,
Raashid
cfd_newbie is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 4, 2011, 21:36
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Joshua Counsil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 366
Rep Power: 8
Josh is on a distinguished road
I wouldn't say it's not feasible, but a 3D simulation will allow you to take advantage of the mostly physical LES resolution in the separated regions. If you're only running 2D, you might as well use URANS.

Read some DES literature. Basically, you want the airfoil as wide as the width of the larger turbulent structures. Do a sensitivity check - run at a few different spans, e.g., 0.1c, 0.2c, and 0.3c, until the solution is span-independent. Your span requirements will depend on the simulation - we can't tell you what will work.
cfd_newbie likes this.
Josh is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2011, 04:51
Default
  #3
Senior Member
 
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 381
Rep Power: 7
Martin Hegedus is on a distinguished road
I don't consider myself a turbulence expert, so this is just my two cents. Also consider all this my own opinion based on my experience.

Be careful, many experimental results which are advertised as 2D, are not. Once separation occurs on the airfoil, wall effects can become important. In general, once separation occurs, you should model the wind tunnel. This can be seen with the S809 airfoil that was discussed on an earlier thread. There are people who have compared turbulence models to the "2D" S809 stalled values. Unfortunately, from my CFD calculations where I model the tunnel, their comparisons of turbulence models for stall conditions are inappropriate.

Yes, true turbulence is 3D. In a sense this is similar to the vortex with occurs on the WT wall when the airfoil separates. The vorticity vector when created is perpendicular to the flow vector but wants to rotate so it points downstream. A RANS, or URANS, because of the higher eddy viscosity, will prevent this from happening. So URANS stays 2D.

I assume the lower your Reynolds number, the wider your airfoil needs to be. You'll need to do trial and error to find the proper width.

"Numerical Study of Wind-TunnelWalls Effects on Transonic Airfoil Flow" (http://agarbaruk.professorjournal.ru...=DLFE-6665.pdf) discusses interpreting 2D transonic WT data. Probably transonic data is not explicitly what you are interested in. But I could not find a paper that discuses subsonic 2D data. However, it gives you a heads up on the difficulty in comparing to 2D WT data. The interesting part is that this paper is from 2003 and earlier papers don't discuss this topic much, or even at all. In fact, one doesn't see, even in more current papers, much quantitative comparisons about 3D WT affects. Usually it's constrained to one sentence hand waving.
cfd_newbie likes this.
Martin Hegedus is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2011, 20:19
Default
  #4
Senior Member
 
Julien de Charentenay
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 229
Rep Power: 8
julien.decharentenay is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Skype™ to julien.decharentenay
The rational behind the CFX statement is that DES is a turbulence model that is supposed to "transition" between a RANS turbulence model and a LES turbulence model. The transition is based on a number of parameters, the dominant ones being the mesh resolution and the turbulent length scale. You/the user has no a-priori control over where the transition occurs.

When DES operates in LES mode, it behaves a smagorinski model. To capture the appropriate turbulence decay one has to do a 3D simulation. Running a DES model in 2D results in an unphysical solution. If you wish to capture the large coherent structures using a 2D simulation, you should put your efforts in URANS as pointed out by Josh.

In addition to the above comments, I would advise using periodicity (or cyclic depending on what the software is calling them) for the spanwise boundary conditions rather than symmetry.

Note on the DES transition between "RANS" and "LES":
1) The transition zone is difficult to define. My best guess is that one can a posteriori assess areas where turbulence kinetic energy was modeled (this would be the RANS areas) and resolved (LES ares);
2) The user do have some control on the transition through the mesh;
3) The following statement is my personal opinion and should be taken as such. The transition between the 2 modes of operation is not clear-cut and I would personally refer to it as a buffer zone (and a potentially unphysical one). This buffer zone is the reason why DES model works well for some cases (massively detached) and not for others (channel flow for example).

Good luck.
Julien
cfd_newbie likes this.
__________________
---
Julien de Charentenay
julien.decharentenay is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 5, 2011, 22:31
Default
  #5
Senior Member
 
Joshua Counsil
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 366
Rep Power: 8
Josh is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by julien.decharentenay View Post
3) The following statement is my personal opinion and should be taken as such. The transition between the 2 modes of operation is not clear-cut and I would personally refer to it as a buffer zone (and a potentially unphysical one). This buffer zone is the reason why DES model works well for some cases (massively detached) and not for others (channel flow for example).
Agreed. It's also the reason why there are such large inconsistencies between "identical" hybrid RANS-LES simulations.

On that note, yes, the user has some control over the transition region by refinishing spatial (mesh) and temporal (timestep) scales. However, the buffer region seems somewhat ambiguous. It is not strictly based on mesh/timestep. The simulation works ideally when URANS is used to model the attached flow and LES is used to partially resolve the separated regions. Controlling how the model does this is difficult.

Also, just because your DES seems to capture qualitative small-scale, 3D structures does not indicate the solution is correct. DES can fortuitously produce better results than URANS for the wrong reasons.

Sounds like you have some reading to do!
cfd_newbie likes this.
Josh is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 6, 2011, 01:10
Default
  #6
Senior Member
 
Raashid Baig
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Bangalore, India
Posts: 136
Rep Power: 6
cfd_newbie is on a distinguished road
Dear Joshua, Julien, Martin,
Thanks a lot for putting light on this niche topic.
Surely I need to read a lot of things.
Will get back once I am finished and have more doubts.
Regards,
Raashid
cfd_newbie is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   June 6, 2011, 03:27
Default
  #7
Senior Member
 
Martin Hegedus
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 381
Rep Power: 7
Martin Hegedus is on a distinguished road
Since the original question was about 2D airfoils, I've got a question. Does anyone know of a good experiment to compare to which has a large separated or turbulent region?
Martin Hegedus 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
Spanwise Length and Grid Refinement for SAS-SST, DES, and LES Josh CFX 5 October 14, 2010 20:47
How to use DES well? Daniel Main CFD Forum 0 October 26, 2008 07:59
DES ( SA+LES) vs DES ( kwSST+LES) for bluff body Phil Main CFD Forum 0 January 8, 2008 10:04
Problem with DES analysis mehul CFX 7 April 25, 2006 08:57
Problem with DES model mehul Phoenics 0 April 12, 2006 09:00


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:59.