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

LES model formulation

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   October 24, 2007, 09:46
Default Hi! location: /OpenFOAM/Ope
  #1
Senior Member
 
Maka Mohu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Rep Power: 9
maka is on a distinguished road
Hi!

location: /OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-1.3/src/LESmodels/incompressible/GenEddyVisc ; should also be checked in similar kind of models.

(1) In ChannelOodles Ueq we absorb laminar viscous diffusion into: sgsModel->divB(U). As a result,
B = R - 2 nu avr(D); avr is average which in the code implementation corresponds to D.
where,
R = (avr(U U) - avr(U) avr(U));
D = symm(grad(U)) = (1/2)(grad(U)+transpose(grad(U)));

(2) R = dev(R) + hyd(R);
where,
dev(R) = R - (1/3) trace(R) I; I is unit tensor;
hyd(R) = (1/3) trace(R) I = (2/3) k I;

(3) dev(R) is modeled as,
dev(R) = - 2 nuSgs dev(avr(D));

(4) using 3 in 2:
R = (2/3) k I - 2 nuSgs dev(avr(D));

(5) using 4 in 1:
B = (2/3) k I - 2 nuSgs dev(avr(D)) - 2 nu ( dev(avr(D)) + hyd(avr(D));
if we assume hyd(avr(D)) << dev(avr(D)) due to incompressibility (continuity) we have:
B = (2/3) k I - 2 nuEff dev(avr(D));
where,
nuEff = nuSgs + nu;
this is not the case in the implementation of GenEddyVisc::B() where nuSgs is used instead of nuEff [QUESTION 1].

(6) in GenEddyVisc::divB(volVectorField& U)
div(B) = - fvc::laplacian(nuEff(), U) - fvc::div(nuEff()*dev(fvc::grad(U)().T()))

if we leave a side the implicit (fvm) and explicit (fvc) implementation of terms for a moment the above form lead to:
(I will drop the avr() for convenience and consistency with the code symbols)

div(B) = - ( div( nuEff (grad(U)) + div (nuEff dev(transpose(grad(U))) )

B = - nuEff (dev(grad(U) + hyd(grad(U))) + dev(transpose(grad(U))) )
if we assume hyd(D) << dev(D) due to incompressibility (continuity) we have:

B = - 2 nuEff ( dev(D)); this is not consistent with (5) ((2/3) k I) is missing; [QUESTION 2]


Best regards,
Maka
maka is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 10:14
Default > B currently returns the
  #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
> [QUESTION 1]

B currently returns the sub-grid stress generated by the sub-grid turbulence and does not include the laminar stress.

divB returns the divergence of sub-grid stress including the laminar stress for convenience and efficiency but as you say not consistency.

The options to make these more consistent would be to change the name of either B or divB (any suggestions?) or include the laminar stress in B, I am happy with either option.

> [QUESTION 2]:

For numerical reasons the ((2/3) k I) is subsumed into the pressure gradient as is common practice also in RANS modelling so again divB is deliberately inconsistent with B so perhaps divB should be renamed to make this clear.
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 11:17
Default If B() name was changed to R()
  #3
Senior Member
 
Maka Mohu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Rep Power: 9
maka is on a distinguished road
If B() name was changed to R(). and a comment is added to divB() to point out that it is:

divB() = div(B) - div((2/3) k I)] where the pressure is redefined

, then both inconsistencies are removed. Also this will be consistent with B definition in description part of model header files (B = 2/3*k*I - 2*nuEff*dev(D)).

Thanks for your explanations.

Best regards,
Maka.
maka is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 11:24
Default sorry, an after thought. divB
  #4
Senior Member
 
Maka Mohu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Rep Power: 9
maka is on a distinguished road
sorry, an after thought. divB can be renamed to somethings like divDevB (Dev for deviatoric) since this is what it is. Have a nice day!

Best regards,
Maka.
maka is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 11:28
Default Currently we use B to refer to
  #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
Currently we use B to refer to the sub-grid stress and R the Reynolds stress which in LES runs is obtained by averaging the velocity fluctuations.

divDevB is as intersting idea but is this clarification and hence additional naming complexity necessary/useful? Perhaps it could be added as a comment.
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 11:32
Default in that case no need to rename
  #6
Senior Member
 
Maka Mohu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Rep Power: 9
maka is on a distinguished road
in that case no need to rename B() but rather change its definition to use nuEff instead of nuSgs.

Best regards,
Maka.
maka is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 11:37
Default In sub-grid stress models B is
  #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
In sub-grid stress models B is the stress corresponding to sub-grid turbulence and does not include the laminar stress so defining B from eddy viscosity models to include it would be inconsistent. I think we need a naming convention for the sub-grid stress including the laminar contribution.
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 11:49
Default Total sub-grid stress vs. turb
  #8
Senior Member
 
Gavin Tabor
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 181
Rep Power: 8
grtabor is on a distinguished road
Total sub-grid stress vs. turbulent subgrid stress? In a manner of speaking the molecular viscosity is sub-grid-scale. Maybe B() for the latter and Beff() for the former (or something similar)

Gavin
grtabor is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 24, 2007, 11:56
Default Yes I agree, the laminar stres
  #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
Yes I agree, the laminar stress is sub-grid and so there is no reason why it should not be included in the definition of sub-grid stress used by the momentum equation. I think Beff is a good idea, at least it is consistent with nuSgs and nuEff. Thanks for the thought.
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 12, 2008, 12:11
Default k() formulation in Smagorinsky
  #10
Senior Member
 
Maka Mohu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Rep Power: 9
maka is on a distinguished road
k() formulation in Smagorinsky (I did not check the rest of the models). The comment follows equation (23) in Fureby and Tabor 1997 (Theor. Comp. FD.) but the implementation uses the dev(D) instead of D. In incompressibel flow one would expect the D ~ dev(D) since hyd(D)<<dev(D) (continuity) BUT is there a specific reason for insisting on dev(D) or it is just a typing mistake? Thanks.

The comment in .H file:
//k = (2*ck/ce)*delta^2*||D||^2

The implementation.
//- Return SGS kinetic energy
// calculated from the given velocity gradient
tmp<volscalarfield> k(const tmp<voltensorfield>& gradU) const
{
return (2.0*ck_/ce_)*sqr(delta())*magSqr(dev(symm(gradU)));
}
maka is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   March 12, 2008, 12:27
Default D should be deviatoric for inc
  #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
D should be deviatoric for incompressible but numerics is not exact and div(U) != 0 exactly although div(phi) is zero to within solver tolerance. Using dev(D) ensures it deviatoric irrespective of errors in div(U).
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 18, 2009, 11:54
Default oneEqEddy SGS model V1.5 If
  #12
Senior Member
 
Maka Mohu
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 305
Rep Power: 9
maka is on a distinguished road
oneEqEddy SGS model V1.5

If we look at the form of production term in the k eq.

(1) G = -B:D

,where : is double inner product. following the above suggestion that D should always be dev(D) for incompressible flow leads to,

(2) G=-B:dev(D)

(3) B = (2/3) k I - 2 nuSgs dev(D).

putting 3 into 2,

(4) G = - (2/3) k I:dev(D) + 2 nuSgs dev(D):dev(D)

The implementation of G reads

volScalarField G = 2.0*nuSgs_*magSqr(symm(gradU));

The first part of G in (4) is missing and the second part is implemented using D instead of dev(D).

Is such deviation meant intensionally to save computational effort? Thanks.

Best regards,
Maka.
maka is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   February 18, 2009, 12:04
Default For incompressible flow I:dev(
  #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 854
Rep Power: 13
henry is on a distinguished road
For incompressible flow I:dev(D) = tr(D) = 0 and so dev(D) = D. However numerically on a collocated mesh this is not exactly true and there will be some difference between using D and dev(D) but it is likely to be small. Use whichever you prefer.

H
henry is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 1, 2010, 07:11
Default
  #14
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4
Rep Power: 8
taranov is on a distinguished road
Hallo dear FOAMers!

Quote:
Originally Posted by henry View Post
>
> [QUESTION 2]:

For numerical reasons the ((2/3) k I) is subsumed into the pressure gradient as is common practice also in RANS modelling so again ...
If that is the case, is modified pressure (or pseudo-pressure) written to the data files "p" or is 2/3k removed and actual pressure written to file?

Best regards,
Andrey
taranov is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   October 7, 2010, 03:50
Default
  #15
Member
 
Andrea Petronio
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Trieste, Italy
Posts: 38
Rep Power: 8
andrea is on a distinguished road
Hi,
just to make it clear:
2/3 k I is an isotropic tensor just as p, so it's fine to include it in a modified pressure (Pope pag. 581):

P = p+ 2/3 k I

being k he residual kinetic energy.

I'm still not gettin why in the GenEddyVisc function divDevBeff() is added the term
- fvc::div ( nuEff * dev(div^T(U) )
maybe is it a correction term due to numerical reasons? But if it is so, since is explicitly computed, i.e. computed using the previous field, that U should be properly resolved and divergence free, there are comments on this or reference?
Thanks

Last edited by andrea; October 7, 2010 at 09:47.
andrea 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
Multi-Fluid model formulation CFDtoy Main CFD Forum 2 April 17, 2007 17:21
VOF formulation mvee FLUENT 3 March 12, 2007 07:35
Problem with LaunderSharma compressible turbulence model wrong formulation luca OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 4 July 3, 2006 06:24
Ale formulation Eduardo Guennam Main CFD Forum 1 March 1, 2006 02:32
k-epsilon model, low Reynolds number formulation Märta-Karin CFX 1 September 15, 2003 21:37


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 14:07.