Problems with implementing sink term in Gamma-Re-Theta turbulence model

sumedhss · August 9, 2022, 14:27

Hello all,
I'm trying to augment the Gamma-Re-Theta model to include crossflow effects as per Langtry (Langtry, Robin. "Extending the gamma-rethetat correlation based transition model for crossflow effects." In 45th AIAA fluid dynamics conference, p. 2474. 2015.) In this approach, an additional sink term $D_{SCF}$ is added to the transport equation for $\tilde{Re_{\theta t}}$ , which is described as-
$D_{SCF} = c_{\theta t}\frac{\rho}{t}min(Re_{SCF}-\tilde{Re_{\theta t}},0)F_{\theta t 2}$

Here, $Re_{SCF}$ is the stationery crossflow Reynolds number, which is computed implicitly using a correlation. Since $Re_{\theta t 0}$ (freestream transition momentum thickness Reynolds number) is also computed implicitly, I defined $Re_{SCF}$ in a similar fashion as
$Re_{\theta t 0}$ and called it in

Code:

correctReThetatGammaInt()

, but I get the following warning while compiling-

Code:

In file included from ../turbulenceModels/lnInclude/kOmegaSSTLMN.H:320,
                 from turbulentTransportModels/myTurbulentTransportModels.C:60:
../turbulenceModels/lnInclude/kOmegaSSTLMN.C: In instantiation of ‘Foam::tmp<Foam::DimensionedField<double, Foam::volMesh> > Foam::RASModels::kOmegaSSTLMN<BasicTurbulenceModel>::ReSCF(const Internal&, const Internal&, const Internal&) const [with BasicTurbulenceModel = Foam::IncompressibleTurbulenceModel<Foam::transportModel>; Foam::GeometricField<double, Foam::fvPatchField, Foam::volMesh>::Internal = Foam::DimensionedField<double, Foam::volMesh>]’:
../turbulenceModels/lnInclude/kOmegaSSTLMN.C:707:21:   required from ‘void Foam::RASModels::kOmegaSSTLMN<BasicTurbulenceModel>::correctReThetatGammaInt() [with BasicTurbulenceModel = Foam::IncompressibleTurbulenceModel<Foam::transportModel>]’
../turbulenceModels/lnInclude/kOmegaSSTLMN.C:785:5:   required from ‘void Foam::RASModels::kOmegaSSTLMN<BasicTurbulenceModel>::correct() [with BasicTurbulenceModel = Foam::IncompressibleTurbulenceModel<Foam::transportModel>]’
../turbulenceModels/lnInclude/kOmegaSSTLMN.C:768:6:   required from here

I tried running simulations with this model, but they would crash instantly with the error log mentioning $Re_{SCF}$ . When I replaced $Re_{SCF}$ with a constant value in

Code:

correctReThetatGammaInt()

, the model compiles without issues and simulations also run without issues. It is clear that the problem is related to the instantiation of the function template, but I am not able to pinpoint the exact reason. I have attached the code and header file along with the post. I'm using OpenFOAM v2012. Any help on this topic would be sincerely appreciated.
Thanks a lot!

dlahaye · August 10, 2022, 06:10

Not sure.

Does its make sense to look into fvOptions to include an additional source term?

sumedhss · August 13, 2022, 03:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlahaye

Not sure.

Does its make sense to look into fvOptions to include an additional source term?

Can fvOptions access protected member functions? All the constants required for the source terms are protected class members in this case.

Tobi · August 31, 2022, 10:24

You can redefine the constants in the coded FO.

August 31, 2022, 10:24		#4
Tobi Super Moderator Tobias Holzmann Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Tussenhausen Posts: 2,708 Blog Entries: 6 Rep Power: 51	You can redefine the constants in the coded FO. __________________ Keep foaming, Tobias Holzmann

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SST k-omega model, definition of gamma or alpha in the production term	blyatman	Main CFD Forum	13	October 25, 2022 20:13
[swak4Foam] swakExpression not writing to log	alexfells	OpenFOAM Community Contributions	3	March 16, 2020 18:19
Gamma Theta Model Error	dl467	CFX	4	November 26, 2015 07:52
K - epsilon VS SST turbulence model	Maicol	Main CFD Forum	0	November 30, 2012 16:25
Discussion: Reason of Turbulence!!	Wen Long	Main CFD Forum	3	May 15, 2009 09:52

August 10, 2022, 06:10		#2
dlahaye Senior Member Domenico Lahaye Join Date: Dec 2013 Posts: 723 Blog Entries: 1 Rep Power: 17	Not sure. Does its make sense to look into fvOptions to include an additional source term?