Inconsistency in Launder-Sharma k-e model?

 User Name Remember Me Password
 Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 February 10, 2011, 07:13 Inconsistency in Launder-Sharma k-e model? #1 Senior Member   Vesselin Krastev Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome Posts: 364 Rep Power: 11 Hi all, actually I'm not sure if this is a real bug or not, but I have some questions about the Launder-Sharma model implementation in OpenFOAM (1.6). The literature about this model tells me that, in order to avoid a singular behavior of the sink term in the epsilon equation, the epsilon itself could be replaced with a quantity called epsilonTilda, which is equal to: epsilonTilda=epsilon-2*nu*magSqr(grad(sqrt(k)) Well, looking at the source code, it seems like the epsilon equation is solved for epsilonTilda, and after that the "corrected" epsilon (epsilonTilda + 2*nu*...) is used as a sink term for the k-equation. However, in all other formulas or equations where epsilon is needed (in particular the turbulent eddy viscosity formula and the calculation of Ret for the damping functions), epsilonTilda is used instead...Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds not so consistent to me as, in general, epsilon and epsilonTilda are not the same. Can anybody correct me or give some explanation for this? Thank you all V.

 February 11, 2011, 06:48 #2 Senior Member   Vesselin Krastev Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome Posts: 364 Rep Power: 11 So, no one's got an answer?

 February 15, 2011, 05:37 #3 Senior Member   Paulo Vatavuk Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Campinas, Brasil Posts: 138 Rep Power: 9 Hi vkrastev, I haven't studied the OpenFOAM implementation yet, but the original model has in fact this apparent inconsistency that you mentioned. Since the extra term is expected to be zero everywhere, except near the wall, epsilon and epsilonTilda will be almost equal, so there should be no problem in using one instead of the other.

February 15, 2011, 06:42
#4
Senior Member

Vesselin Krastev
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: University of Tor Vergata, Rome
Posts: 364
Rep Power: 11
Quote:
 Originally Posted by vatavuk Hi vkrastev, I haven't studied the OpenFOAM implementation yet, but the original model has in fact this apparent inconsistency that you mentioned. Since the extra term is expected to be zero everywhere, except near the wall, epsilon and epsilonTilda will be almost equal, so there should be no problem in using one instead of the other.
Hi Vatavuk, and thanks for the reply. What you are saying sounds logical: the extra term is multiplied by the kinematic viscosity, which has usually a quite low value, so the term involving the gradient of the root squared turbulent kinetic energy should be very high in value to cause significant discrepancies between epsilon and epsilonTilda. So, probably away from the walls it should be practically equivalent to use one or another (as you say), whether any discrepancies near the walls should be damped out by the viscous damping function. Ok, now I think it's more clear to me, thanks once again!

V.

 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 msrinath80 OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 18 March 3, 2015 06:36 rystokes CFX 3 August 9, 2009 19:13 vertnik Main CFD Forum 1 May 20, 2009 11:40 Margherita Cadorin CFX 0 October 29, 2008 06:24 Richard Carroni Main CFD Forum 1 November 17, 1998 19:59

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:20.

 Contact Us - CFD Online - Top