Hi,
I'm not really sure it i
Hi,
I'm not really sure it is a bug (I'm still working with version 1.3 and so I didn't try it) but it seems to me that the new (1.4.1 release) compressible kOmegaSSTomega has wrong production terms for both omega and k equations (also dimensionally): /* this is the relevant part of the code volScalarField GbyMu = 2*mut_*(tgradU() && dev(symm(tgradU()))); volScalarField G = mut_*GbyMu; tmp<fvscalarmatrix> omegaEqn ( fvm::ddt(rho_, omega_) + fvm::div(phi_, omega_)  fvm::laplacian(DomegaEff(F1), omega_) == rhoGammaF1*GbyMu  fvm::SuSp((2.0/3.0)*rhoGammaF1*divU, omega_)  fvm::Sp(rho_*beta(F1)*omega_, omega_)  fvm::SuSp ( rho_*(F1  scalar(1))*CDkOmega/omega_, omega_ ) tmp<fvscalarmatrix> kEqn ( fvm::ddt(rho_, k_) + fvm::div(phi_, k_)  fvm::laplacian(DkEff(F1), k_) == min(G, c1*betaStar*k_*omega_)  fvm::SuSp(2.0/3.0*rho_*divU, k_)  fvm::Sp(rho_*betaStar*omega_, k_) ); I guess that it should instead be something like: volScalarField G_DividedbyMu = 2*(tgradU() && dev(symm(tgradU()))); volScalarField G = mut_*G_DividedbyMu; tmp<fvscalarmatrix> omegaEqn ( fvm::ddt(rho_, omega_) + fvm::div(phi_, omega_)  fvm::laplacian(DomegaEff(F1), omega_) == rhoGammaF1*G_DividedbyMu  fvm::SuSp((2.0/3.0)*rhoGammaF1*divU, omega_)  fvm::Sp(rho_*beta(F1)*omega_, omega_)  fvm::SuSp ( rho_*(F1  scalar(1))*CDkOmega/omega_, omega_ ) tmp<fvscalarmatrix> kEqn ( fvm::ddt(rho_, k_) + fvm::div(phi_, k_)  fvm::laplacian(DkEff(F1), k_) == min(G, c1*betaStar*k_*omega_)  fvm::SuSp(2.0/3.0*rho_*divU, k_)  fvm::Sp(rho_*betaStar*omega_, k_) ); Can you please tell me if someone agrees with me? Regards Cosimo 
Yes your are correct, I implem
Yes your are correct, I implemented the model just before release and didn't have time to test it. I will check it through again, test it and post a corrected version next week sometime.

Here is a corrected version of
Here is a corrected version of kOmegaSST.C
http://www.cfdonline.com/OpenFOAM_D...hment_icon.gif kOmegaSST.C to replace the file in OpenFOAM1.4.1/src/turbulenceModels/compressible/kOmegaSST I have tested the model runs and give sensible results but I have not performed a rigorous validation. 
Hi Henry,
just another small
Hi Henry,
just another small doubt about the limiter for mut. I could not download the paper you suggest as reference for this model but the reference paper I used for implementing the kOmegaSST (Heat Transfer Predictions using Advanced TwoEquation Turbulence Models; Wolfgang Vieser, Thomas Esch and Florian Menter; CFX Technical Memorandum: CFXVAL10/0602, 2002) have a different limiter for mut: mut = rho* a1*k/max(a1*omega,sqrt(2)*mag(symm(gradU)*F2)); The standard release instead is using: mut = rho* a1*k/max(a1*omega,mag(symm(gradU)*F2)); Is it a bug or it is just a correction to make it suitable for heat transfer applications? Please tell me what is your paper saying about that. Thanks a lot Cosimo 
All the kOmega papers I have
All the kOmega papers I have give this term without the sqrt(2) but then it could easily be contained in a1. What value is proposed for a1 in CFXVAL10/0602 and does it differ from the value proposed in the papers on the model?

I defintely agree with you.
I defintely agree with you.
My value for a1 is 0.31 so if the two equations are consistent your should be 0.31/sqrt(2) = 0.2192. Thanks for confirming that. Cosimo 
Hi,
I am testing the kOmega
Hi,
I am testing the kOmegaSST model using the above kOmegaSST.C file. I am getting this error messages: > FOAM FATAL ERROR : incompatible dimensions for operation [omega[1 3 2 0 0 0 0] ]  [((rho*((tanh(pow4(min(min(max((((1betaStar)*sqrt( k))(omega*y)),((500*(murho) )(sqr(y)*omega))),(((4*alphaOmega2)*k)(max((((2* alphaOmega2)*(grad(k)&grad(ome ga)))omega),1.0e10)*sqr(y)))),10)))*(gamma1gamma2))+gamma2))*((2*mut)*(grad(U )&&dev(symm(grad(U))))))[2 4 3 0 0 0 0] ]#0 Foam::error::printStack(Foam:http://www.cfdonline.com/OpenFOAM_D...part/proud.gifstream&) in "/home/ci/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/lib/linuxGccDPOpt/libOpenFOAM.so" #1 Foam::error::abort() in "/home/ci/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/lib/linuxGccDPOpt/libOpenFOAM.so" #2 void Foam::checkMethod<double>(Foam::fvMatrix<double> const&, Foam::GeometricField<double,> const&, char const*) in "/home/ci/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/applications/bin/linuxGccDPOpt/rhoSimpleFoam" #3 Foam::tmp<foam::fvmatrix<double> > Foam::operator<double>(Foam::tmp<foam::geometricfield<double,> > const&, Foam::tmp<foam::fvmatrix<double> > const&) in "/home/ci/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/lib/linuxGccDPOpt/libcompressibleTurbulenceMod els.so" #4 Foam::compressible::turbulenceModels::kOmegaSST::c orrect() in "/home/ci/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/lib/linuxGccDPOpt/libcompressibleTurbulenceMod els.so" #5 main in "/home/ci/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/applications/bin/linuxGccDPOpt/rhoSimpleFoam" #6 __libc_start_main in "/lib/libc.so.6" #7 Foam::regIOobject::readIfModified() in "/home/ci/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/applications/bin/linuxGccDPOpt/rhoSimpleFoam" From function checkMethod(const fvMatrix<type>&, const GeometricField<type,>&) in file /home/dm2/henry/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM1.4.1/src/finiteVolume/lnInclude/fvMatrix.C at line 1232. FOAM aborting Is that an error in my setup of the case, or is the error in the kOmegaSST.C file? Thanks, Claus. 
The value of a1 in the papers
The value of a1 in the papers I have is also 0.31. I don't know at what point Menter added the sqrt(2) prefactor I haven't seen it in any of the published papers on the kOmega model I have but I don't have a full set.

Hi Claus!
I would guess tha
Hi Claus!
I would guess that the problem is with the setup. One common problem is that people take a kepscase, rename the epsilonfile to omega but don't change the dimensions (although that would not explain the difference in dimensions in your case). Check the dimensions Bernhard 
Hi Weller,
I also have got a
Hi Weller,
I also have got an article without the sqrt(2): Menter, Two Equation EddyViscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications, AIAA Journal Vol.32 , N 8, 1994. In that case however: mut = rho* a1*k/max(a1*omega,mag(OMEGA)*F2)); with OMEGA = absolute value of vorticity = mag(curl(U)) != strain rate magnitude = 0.5*(grad(U) + grad(U).T). Could this be the mistake? Am I misunderstanding anything? Regards Cosimo 
It is not a mistake, the model
It is not a mistake, the model has evolved over the years particularly in this term. I assure your that what I have implemented is what is in the paper I refer to in the header. I cannot say if the form you are referring to is preferable to the form I have implemented as I do not have all the relevant literature on the subject.

You are right: there are sever
You are right: there are several different versions of such model. I do not have all the papers as well but, as far as I can see, your version is actually the same model implemented in CFX 10.
Thanks for this clarification, Cosimo 
I forgot to wmake... everythin
I forgot to wmake... everything is working nice now.
Sorry for the inconvenience. Claus. 
Could somebody please supply m
Could somebody please supply me with an electronic copy of: Heat Transfer Predictions using Advanced TwoEquation Turbulence Models; Wolfgang Vieser, Thomas Esch and Florian Menter; CFX Technical Memorandum: CFXVAL10/0602, 2002
I understand this explains the automatic wall function treatment for the SST model, I would appreciate any papers which discuss this, not just the above. The only reference I can find is in Menter's Ten years of industrial experiance with the SST model, ref [8], but I can't seem to find the paper anywhere?? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers, Andy 
I have the same problem .I want to know how SSt handels low Re number flows

The komegaSST model I implemented is the highRe form to be used with the standard, continuous/adaptive or rough wallfunctions supplied. However it would be quite easy to implement the lowRe form of the model as this simply requires the application of damping functions on a few terms.
H 
As I understood it, the current implemented SST model is suitable for lowre flows as well. Though one needs different wall treatment (especially for omega). And maybe the use of some damping functions is better. Do you have any experience in it?
Fabian 
The komegaSST model we currently release is based on a blend of the highRe kepsilon and komega models, not the low Re komega model. With an adaptive/continuous wallfunction you can use this model to resolve the nearwall lowRe flow with some degree of accuracy but if you want to resolve these details accurately you will need to include the lowRe dampingfunctions into the komega part of the model and use a mesh with adequate resolution in the nearwall region.
H 
Thanks for the explanation!
Fabian 
Thanks a lot .
But by solving right to the wall will be espensive right that's why we avoid that .Rather than using wall functions will be a cheap alternative. I don't know what CFX using as a standard SST model . 
All times are GMT 4. The time now is 16:23. 