# Low Reynolds K Epsilon Launder Sharma Model Functions Doubt...

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

 January 10, 2012, 12:58 Low Reynolds K Epsilon Launder Sharma Model Functions Doubt... #1 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 Hi folks, I am trying to implement the Low Reynolds K Epsilon Launder Sharma Turbulence Model in 3D from scratch because I will need to some changes later on to implement two phase modeling. However I have some doubts about the E and D model functions, as seen in the wiki section: http://www.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Low-Re_k-epsilon_models. I am unsure if these functions only apply to the YY axis, or do I need to use a gradient for them?? For D the gradient is pretty straightforward, but for E I am struggling a bit? Do I have 3 or 6 terms for the gradient, because the partial derivatives change depending on which axis you differentiate first... Hope it's clear and someone can help.. Cheers! Rui

 January 10, 2012, 14:30 #2 Administrator     Jonas Larsson Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Gothenburg, Sweden Posts: 171 Rep Power: 10 y in those formulas refers to the direction normal to the wall. Hence, in a 3D code it will be dependent on how the wall is oriented and will be a combination of x,y and z.

 January 10, 2012, 18:38 #3 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 Thank you for your reply jola! Could you suggest some articles or thesis or anyother source that has those equation so that I can better understand? Cheers! Rui

 January 11, 2012, 11:23 #4 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 Also, regarding the extra source terms: for two dimensional pipe flow and assuming flow in the x-direction, the normal is y. However, in 3D and pipe flow in the z-direction, both x and y are normal to the flow. I am not quite understanding how to combine the three coordinates in the extra source terms. Could you please provide some more details. Thank you. Best Regards, Rui

 January 12, 2012, 12:45 #5 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 I guess I have some progress... So, I believe that for 3D the extra source term: + + + + + Is this a correct assumption? I think it's a bit long when compared with the two dimensional case, however it seems logical when I look at the general expression: I wonder if it's correct for the 3D case... Can anyone provide some input? Best Regards, Rui

August 1, 2013, 07:55
#6
Senior Member

rkhr
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Rep Power: 7
hi Rui,

Did you manage to apple the model in two phase model?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by RSilva I guess I have some progress... So, I believe that for 3D the extra source term: + + + + + Is this a correct assumption? I think it's a bit long when compared with the two dimensional case, however it seems logical when I look at the general expression: I wonder if it's correct for the 3D case... Can anyone provide some input? Best Regards, Rui

 August 5, 2013, 10:05 #7 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 Hello Kanarya, yes I was. I am using it now in my simulations. How can I help you? Best Regards, Rui

August 5, 2013, 10:40
#8
Senior Member

rkhr
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Rep Power: 7
Hi Rui,
do you have already publish some results?
Or do you have some comparison with the classical methods with wall function!
I already did it for single case but I have some difficulties to apply damping function to the wall with solid included case. Can you give me some reference about it?

thanks a lot
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RSilva Hello Kanarya, yes I was. I am using it now in my simulations. How can I help you? Best Regards, Rui

 August 5, 2013, 11:24 #9 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 Hello Kanarya, I'm finishing a paper on the subject but is not yet pusblished. I can try and point in the right direction, but I cannot as of now provide you with some of the coding. I'm sure you understand. So, the papers that helped me out were the following: - C. M. Hrenya [1995] Comparison of low Reynolds number κ—ε turbulence models in predicting fully developed pipe flow - J. J. Costa [1999] Test Of Several Version For The k-e Type Turbulence Modelling - On the Mixture Model for Multiphase Flow Also, remrmber that meshing is always an issue. Hope this helps and let me know if you need anything. Best Regards, Rui

August 5, 2013, 11:48
#10
Senior Member

rkhr
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Rep Power: 7
Hi Rui,

Did you use mixture approach or dispersed one?
What is your application e.g gas-solid , gas-liquid, dense or dilute?
Because I am simulating gas solid CFB system and I want to include in both equation source term which includes the momentum interchange between two phases!

Thanks a lot again!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RSilva Hello Kanarya, I'm finishing a paper on the subject but is not yet pusblished. I can try and point in the right direction, but I cannot as of now provide you with some of the coding. I'm sure you understand. So, the papers that helped me out were the following: - C. M. Hrenya [1995] Comparison of low Reynolds number κ—ε turbulence models in predicting fully developed pipe flow - J. J. Costa [1999] Test Of Several Version For The k-e Type Turbulence Modelling - On the Mixture Model for Multiphase Flow Also, remrmber that meshing is always an issue. Hope this helps and let me know if you need anything. Best Regards, Rui

 August 5, 2013, 11:52 #11 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 Hi, I'm using the Mixture Model because I´m modelling a solid-liquid dense suspension. Since you are gas-solid, I recomend the works of Elghobashi (I believe it is spelled this way). Best Regards, Rui

August 5, 2013, 12:00
#12
Senior Member

rkhr
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Rep Power: 7
Hi Rui,

thanks for your time and patients!
did you get improvement near the wall without wall treatment (dense mesh) in comparison to classical models?
thanks!
best!
kanarya
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RSilva Hi, I'm using the Mixture Model because I´m modelling a solid-liquid dense suspension. Since you are gas-solid, I recomend the works of Elghobashi (I believe it is spelled this way). Best Regards, Rui

 August 5, 2013, 12:10 #13 New Member   R. Silva Join Date: Apr 2011 Posts: 29 Rep Power: 6 Yes, I did. The classic wall function behaves very poorly with particles, at least in solid-liquid case that I study. Best Regards, Rui

September 9, 2013, 05:26
#14
Senior Member

rkhr
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Rep Power: 7
Hi Rui,

what do you mean with "Also, remember that meshing is always an issue"?
do we need dense mesh near the wall for damping function as well (like Y+ =1 or Y+ =30). Y+ = 30 should be enough,right?

Best!

Kanarya
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RSilva Hello Kanarya, I'm finishing a paper on the subject but is not yet pusblished. I can try and point in the right direction, but I cannot as of now provide you with some of the coding. I'm sure you understand. So, the papers that helped me out were the following: - C. M. Hrenya [1995] Comparison of low Reynolds number κ—ε turbulence models in predicting fully developed pipe flow - J. J. Costa [1999] Test Of Several Version For The k-e Type Turbulence Modelling - On the Mixture Model for Multiphase Flow Also, remrmber that meshing is always an issue. Hope this helps and let me know if you need anything. Best Regards, Rui

September 9, 2013, 07:00
#15
New Member

R. Silva
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
Hi Kanarya,

I think that for Low Re models you should go for Y+=1.

This is due to the anisotropic behaviour near the wall.

The meshing issue comes from two points: 1) refine mesh until the results do not vary and 2) the RAM limitations for really dense meshes.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Rui

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kanarya Hi Rui, what do you mean with "Also, remember that meshing is always an issue"? do we need dense mesh near the wall for damping function as well (like Y+ =1 or Y+ =30). Y+ = 30 should be enough,right? thanks in advance! Best! Kanarya

September 9, 2013, 07:17
#16
Senior Member

rkhr
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 211
Rep Power: 7
Thanks a lot Rui!
Quote:
 Originally Posted by RSilva Hi Kanarya, I think that for Low Re models you should go for Y+=1. This is due to the anisotropic behaviour near the wall. The meshing issue comes from two points: 1) refine mesh until the results do not vary and 2) the RAM limitations for really dense meshes. Hope this helps. Best Regards, Rui

 February 17, 2014, 06:59 damping function in gas solid multiphase flows #17 Senior Member   rkhr Join Date: May 2011 Posts: 211 Rep Power: 7 Hi Rui, Did you publish your paper about damping function in gas solid multiphase flows. can you give me some referance about it? thanks!

February 17, 2014, 10:52
#18
New Member

R. Silva
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 29
Rep Power: 6
My paper is on Solid-liquid multiphase flows.
I'mm finalizing the paper and will submit it soon.

If I get accpeted for publication I'll share the link here.

I appologize if I gave the wrong impression.

Best Regards,

Rui

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Kanarya Hi Rui, Did you publish your paper about damping function in gas solid multiphase flows. can you give me some referance about it? thanks!

 Tags k epsilon, low reynolds, model functions

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post doug Main CFD Forum 6 August 4, 2012 14:39 RugbyGandalf OpenFOAM 9 July 4, 2011 11:28 fivos Main CFD Forum 4 April 27, 2011 07:44 stawrogin OpenFOAM 1 March 30, 2011 06:04 nedved OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 1 November 25, 2008 21:21

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 17:26.