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

Wall modelling and boundary conditions: why specify value for turbuelnce quantities?

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

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   July 28, 2010, 12:10
Default Wall modelling and boundary conditions: why specify value for turbulence quantities?
  #1
Member
 
djbungee's Avatar
 
Ulf Bunge
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Wolfsburg, Germany
Posts: 34
Rep Power: 8
djbungee is on a distinguished road
Dear all,

we had a discussion today in the CFD team in our department and I mentioned that it is usually not necessary to require a user to define boundary conditions for turbulence quantities on or in the vicinity of walls.

Usually, wall velocity and heat flux and/or temperature are sufficient.

Physical considerations or model equations require a certain value or asymptotic behavior of turbulence quantities such as turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent frequency or dissipation at or close to the wall. Therefore, you can either implement a fixed value on the wall (such as turbulent kinetic energy = 0) or set a solution dependent value in the cell center of a wall-bounded cell (which requires that you can identify these cells) and adjust the contributions of these faces or volumes to the matrix coefficients directly.

At least, that is how I remember we did it in our code at university.

In OpenFOAM you can or have to define wall values, and correctly setting k=0 does not even work.

Any comments? I posted this thread there also on http://www.extend-project.de in the 'Special Interest Group on Turbulence Modeling and Simulation Group Forum'.

Best regards, Ulf.

Last edited by djbungee; July 29, 2010 at 04:38. Reason: correction of errors in typing
djbungee is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 29, 2010, 04:07
Default
  #2
New Member
 
Christian Graurock
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berlin, Germany
Posts: 6
Rep Power: 7
chrizzl is on a distinguished road
Dear Ulf,

with a closer look at the code of a lowReynolds-model like the “LienLeschzinerLowRe” it seems to be that there is a special explicit treatment of epsilon for wall adjacent volume-cells. As one can see in the “LienLeschzinerLowReSetWallDissipation.H” it depends (beyond other things) on k_, wall distance y_ and yStar_ (like y+). That is why I think a given patch type of epsilon doesn't seem to have any influence on the volume field for epsilon (in case of LowRe-k-eps-model).

Regard, Christian
chrizzl is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   July 30, 2010, 07:32
Lightbulb Wall modelling and boundary conditions: a choas?
  #3
Member
 
djbungee's Avatar
 
Ulf Bunge
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Wolfsburg, Germany
Posts: 34
Rep Power: 8
djbungee is on a distinguished road
Thus, as we see, it is model dependent whether setting k=0 on the wall works or gives divergence. And the value for epsilon in the LL k-epsilon model is overwritten for this model.

Therefore, it is implemented in an arbitrary way in OpenFOAM. The complete organization of turbulence models and the treatment of turbulence quantities in the code is not very well organized, I think.

Any comments?

Best regards, Ulf.
djbungee 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
mass flow in is not equal to mass flow out saii CFX 2 September 18, 2009 08:07
multiphase modelling, boundary conditions Viper4573 FLUENT 1 June 17, 2009 07:26
k-epsilon wall boundary conditions Iain Barton Main CFD Forum 0 September 18, 2006 12:13
Convective Heat Transfer - Heat Exchanger Mark CFX 6 November 15, 2004 16:55
Please help with flow around car modelling! Tudor Miron CFX 17 March 19, 2004 20:23


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 16:01.